Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Problem With Cops

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 2:20:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Must watch.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 2:40:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
He doesn't hate the cops as much as he "hates the laws". There are some idiotic things that he bases his argument on. He doesn't understand the errors in his argument, and i'm surprised you would be impressed with this. I don't like cops on the whole either, but for different reasons. If the laws in Ohio say that the police are allowed to use their own "rule of thumb", it it the fault of the police who have been granted that power, or the law that grants that power?

If there were no police at all, would there be a greater likelihood of crime impacting his personal life? I would guess YES.

In Mass. we have the per se law. If you refuse a breathalyzer you are presumed guilty. To me that's unconstitutional, but it's the law. Is it the cop's fault?

They are an instrument of the government and it's an error to hate the instrument.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 3:01:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 2:40:23 AM, innomen wrote:
He doesn't hate the cops as much as he "hates the laws".

It's neither. He doesn't hate the cops personally as people, nor does he hate the laws. He hates the job itself. The profession of being a cop. He doesn't like their special privileges, he doesn't like how they are not keepers of justice, but an army for the state/establishment, he doesn't like how they uphold unjust laws merely because the establishment demands it, rather than take the side of justice. He doesn't like the fact that they can get away with anything, they have special status and more trustworthiness than a regular citizen. He doesn't believe they are true protectors because they will probably help him 0 times in his life, but get in the way of his life all the time i.e. with traffic violations, steeling his (hypothetical) weed which then leads to the cops suspending your license without your knowing which then leads to your arrest for something that they did to you.

There are some idiotic things that he bases his argument on. He doesn't understand the errors in his argument,

As I have just demonstrated above, you didn't understand his argument to begin with.

and i'm surprised you would be impressed with this. I don't like cops on the whole either, but for different reasons. If the laws in Ohio say that the police are allowed to use their own "rule of thumb", it it the fault of the police who have been granted that power, or the law that grants that power?

Nobody is watching the cops. They have the opportunity to do the right thing. If they see a person going a reasonable speed, but 1 mile over, they should let them go because they can do the right thing with out the evil authority over their shoulder. Yet they do what the evil authority wants regardless, even though they have the chance to do the right thing without consequences from the evil authority.

If there were no police at all, would there be a greater likelihood of crime impacting his personal life? I would guess YES.

It's possible, but that doesn't negate his argument. Plus, I'm sure he wouldn't mind a police force that was actually based on a good justice system i.e. cops only coming to aid when called upon, not snooping into people's personal lives on their car computer and then convicting them.

In Mass. we have the per se law. If you refuse a breathalyzer you are presumed guilty. To me that's unconstitutional, but it's the law. Is it the cop's fault?

He addressed that already. He said cops aren't neutral, they will always take the side of the establishment, even if the just and right thing to do is to take the citizens' side instead.

They are an instrument of the government and it's an error to hate the instrument.

Why's that? You are correct, that he is absolutely condemning the instrument and clearly demonstrates why it's a negative thing. Tell me, why is it an error to hate the instrument?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 12:13:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"I was just following orders" doesn't justify the Nazis and it doesn't justify the police.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 12:21:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 12:13:25 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
"I was just following orders" doesn't justify the Nazis and it doesn't justify the police.

Surprisingly, I agree with you for once.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 4:04:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 2:20:14 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Must watch.:

I hate TheAmazingAtheist... He's a hack and an attention whore
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 4:05:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 2:40:23 AM, innomen wrote:
He doesn't hate the cops as much as he "hates the laws". There are some idiotic things that he bases his argument on. He doesn't understand the errors in his argument, and i'm surprised you would be impressed with this.:

Doesn't surprise me in the least when it comes to Geo.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 4:08:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hatred of cops is over-rated. Sure, some cops are corrupted and do some bad sh*t, but we need them for law enforcement. Oh wait, I almost forgot that most people here have authority issues.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 4:49:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 12:21:32 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/16/2010 12:13:25 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
"I was just following orders" doesn't justify the Nazis and it doesn't justify the police.

Surprisingly, I agree with you for once.

Comparing the nazis that killed millions to someone who gives you a speeding ticket or gets you arressted for smoking weed is a pretty big distinction.
Also lets not forget milgrams experiment that shows contrary evidence. n
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 4:52:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 4:49:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/16/2010 12:21:32 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/16/2010 12:13:25 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
"I was just following orders" doesn't justify the Nazis and it doesn't justify the police.

Surprisingly, I agree with you for once.

Also lets not forget milgrams experiment that shows contrary evidence. n

No it doesn't. It shows that people do things, not that those things are justified.

Police work can occasionally be justified, though certainly not arresting someone for smoking weed. But it's not because of orders that this is the case.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 4:57:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 3:01:28 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/16/2010 2:40:23 AM, innomen wrote:
He doesn't hate the cops as much as he "hates the laws".

It's neither. He doesn't hate the cops personally as people, nor does he hate the laws. He hates the job itself. The profession of being a cop. He doesn't like their special privileges, he doesn't like how they are not keepers of justice, but an army for the state/establishment, he doesn't like how they uphold unjust laws merely because the establishment demands it, rather than take the side of justice. He doesn't like the fact that they can get away with anything, they have special status and more trustworthiness than a regular citizen. He doesn't believe they are true protectors because they will probably help him 0 times in his life, but get in the way of his life all the time i.e. with traffic violations, steeling his (hypothetical) weed which then leads to the cops suspending your license without your knowing which then leads to your arrest for something that they did to you.

sounds like an issue with their legal status to me... especially the bolded parts. meaning a problem with the laws... you don't even seem to understand your own arguments :P
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 5:03:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 4:57:23 PM, belle wrote:
At 9/16/2010 3:01:28 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/16/2010 2:40:23 AM, innomen wrote:
He doesn't hate the cops as much as he "hates the laws".

It's neither. He doesn't hate the cops personally as people, nor does he hate the laws. He hates the job itself. The profession of being a cop. He doesn't like their special privileges, he doesn't like how they are not keepers of justice, but an army for the state/establishment, he doesn't like how they uphold unjust laws merely because the establishment demands it, rather than take the side of justice. He doesn't like the fact that they can get away with anything, they have special status and more trustworthiness than a regular citizen. He doesn't believe they are true protectors because they will probably help him 0 times in his life, but get in the way of his life all the time i.e. with traffic violations, steeling his (hypothetical) weed which then leads to the cops suspending your license without your knowing which then leads to your arrest for something that they did to you.

sounds like an issue with their legal status to me... especially the bolded parts. meaning a problem with the laws... you don't even seem to understand your own arguments :P

Profession =/= laws. It's not that they uphold unjust laws that's the problem. The problem is that the nature of their job requires that they uphold laws whether just or unjust. I don't care if I personally have a problem with the laws or not, the police should be keepers of justice, not an army for the establishment that convicts and arrests anyone who goes against the establishment. I.e. cops arrest people for picking mushrooms in the forest, arrest people for possessing weed. This is them doing an injustice to the people rather than maintaining justice.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 5:09:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 5:03:17 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/16/2010 4:57:23 PM, belle wrote:
At 9/16/2010 3:01:28 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 9/16/2010 2:40:23 AM, innomen wrote:
He doesn't hate the cops as much as he "hates the laws".

It's neither. He doesn't hate the cops personally as people, nor does he hate the laws. He hates the job itself. The profession of being a cop. He doesn't like their special privileges, he doesn't like how they are not keepers of justice, but an army for the state/establishment, he doesn't like how they uphold unjust laws merely because the establishment demands it, rather than take the side of justice. He doesn't like the fact that they can get away with anything, they have special status and more trustworthiness than a regular citizen. He doesn't believe they are true protectors because they will probably help him 0 times in his life, but get in the way of his life all the time i.e. with traffic violations, steeling his (hypothetical) weed which then leads to the cops suspending your license without your knowing which then leads to your arrest for something that they did to you.

sounds like an issue with their legal status to me... especially the bolded parts. meaning a problem with the laws... you don't even seem to understand your own arguments :P

Profession =/= laws. It's not that they uphold unjust laws that's the problem. The problem is that the nature of their job requires that they uphold laws whether just or unjust. I don't care if I personally have a problem with the laws or not, the police should be keepers of justice, not an army for the establishment that convicts and arrests anyone who goes against the establishment. I.e. cops arrest people for picking mushrooms in the forest, arrest people for possessing weed. This is them doing an injustice to the people rather than maintaining justice.

but if all laws were just then he would have no problem with them correct? and since by changing the laws his problem with the police disappears, that would appear to be the root of the issue
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 5:16:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 4:04:22 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 9/16/2010 2:20:14 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Must watch.:

I hate TheAmazingAtheist... He's a hack and an attention whore

this.
signature
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 5:21:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 3:01:28 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Nobody is watching the cops. They have the opportunity to do the right thing. If they see a person going a reasonable speed, but 1 mile over, they should let them go because they can do the right thing with out the evil authority over their shoulder. Yet they do what the evil authority wants regardless, even though they have the chance to do the right thing without consequences from the evil authority.

I can recall at least 3 times that I passed a cop at around 10 over (of course that's km/h) and didn't get pulled over. The prevalence of a-ssholes in the police force is no greater than in any other profession. His (and your) generalizations are almost completely unfounded. The police enforce the laws because it is their job. Its pretty high and mighty of you to demand that they risk losing their (presumably) only source of income simply because you think certain laws are "unjust".

Plus, I'm sure he wouldn't mind a police force that was actually based on a good justice system i.e. cops only coming to aid when called upon, not snooping into people's personal lives on their car computer and then convicting them.

So then you'd rather the police only do something after your buddy gets run down by a drunk driver as opposed to having the power to potentially prevent that from happening in the first place? Remind me to buy a gun if you ever become president.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 5:32:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 5:21:08 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 9/16/2010 3:01:28 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Nobody is watching the cops. They have the opportunity to do the right thing. If they see a person going a reasonable speed, but 1 mile over, they should let them go because they can do the right thing with out the evil authority over their shoulder. Yet they do what the evil authority wants regardless, even though they have the chance to do the right thing without consequences from the evil authority.

I can recall at least 3 times that I passed a cop at around 10 over (of course that's km/h) and didn't get pulled over.

I used a bad example. Obviously, many cops do let people go about 10 over the limit. But, weed for example. They enforce that law, even though they have the opportunity to let people get away with it.

The prevalence of a-ssholes in the police force is no greater than in any other profession. His (and your) generalizations are almost completely unfounded.

Again, you miss the point. It's not about there being a few bad cops out there that are jerks. AA is referring to ALL cops whether they're nice people or not.

The police enforce the laws because it is their job. Its pretty high and mighty of you to demand that they risk losing their (presumably) only source of income simply because you think certain laws are "unjust".

That's not what I'm really suggesting. I'm criticizing the role of cops.

Plus, I'm sure he wouldn't mind a police force that was actually based on a good justice system i.e. cops only coming to aid when called upon, not snooping into people's personal lives on their car computer and then convicting them.

So then you'd rather the police only do something after your buddy gets run down by a drunk driver as opposed to having the power to potentially prevent that from happening in the first place?

If a cop sees a car swerving, that's not snooping. He has a legitimate reason to pull that person over.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 5:51:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 4:49:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/16/2010 12:21:32 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/16/2010 12:13:25 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
"I was just following orders" doesn't justify the Nazis and it doesn't justify the police.

Surprisingly, I agree with you for once.

Comparing the nazis that killed millions to someone who gives you a speeding ticket or gets you arressted for smoking weed is a pretty big distinction.
Also lets not forget milgrams experiment that shows contrary evidence. n

Milgrams? Not familiar with it, please explain.

Killing millions may be a big distinction with a speeding ticket, but remember that the drug war is not just about inconveniencing pot-smokers - it's about terrible injustice in Mexico where villages are being absolutely terrorized by drug cartels, civil rights/liberties, and a corrupt DEA that sucks $50B of our tax dollars out of us every year. And we're not just talking about police, we're talking about everyone in America that cooperates with this mess; for example, my GIS professor wants to start using air photo analysis to start aiding the authorities in identifying marijuana-growing operations. If I didn't have a deep respect for not disrupting the class, I would have given that MF a full dose yesterday. Lord knows I have enough to say about the subject.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 5:55:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 5:51:57 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
At 9/16/2010 4:49:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/16/2010 12:21:32 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/16/2010 12:13:25 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
"I was just following orders" doesn't justify the Nazis and it doesn't justify the police.

Surprisingly, I agree with you for once.

Comparing the nazis that killed millions to someone who gives you a speeding ticket or gets you arressted for smoking weed is a pretty big distinction.
Also lets not forget milgrams experiment that shows contrary evidence. n

Milgrams? Not familiar with it, please explain.
When ordered to administer what one believes to be increasingly painful electric shocks to a "learner" who is begging you to stop, most people follow orders, even if the device has a warning of danger on it that the order is telling you to ignore.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 5:57:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I can recall at least 3 times that I passed a cop at around 10 over (of course that's km/h) and didn't get pulled over. The prevalence of a-ssholes in the police force is no greater than in any other profession. His (and your) generalizations are almost completely unfounded. The police enforce the laws because it is their job. Its pretty high and mighty of you to demand that they risk losing their (presumably) only source of income simply because you think certain laws are "unjust".

If he didn't pull you over for 10 over, it sounds like he's NOT doing his job. Discretion is given to officers for practical reasoning, but this discretion is philisophically problematic given the nature of their duties.

Plus, I'm sure he wouldn't mind a police force that was actually based on a good justice system i.e. cops only coming to aid when called upon, not snooping into people's personal lives on their car computer and then convicting them.

So then you'd rather the police only do something after your buddy gets run down by a drunk driver as opposed to having the power to potentially prevent that from happening in the first place? Remind me to buy a gun if you ever become president.

Police don't do preventative work, they arrest people who break the law - please break from that "serve and protect" garbage that they write on the sides of their cruisers. If I want to get drunk tonight and drive out and kill someone, the chances of the law getting involved before that happens is not even worth considering. Furthermore, I could announce to everyone in the known world that I intend to kill you (assuming I had the means and intent to do so). How do you plan to use the police to stop me? Your ideas about the police are warped if you think they are going to save you from criminals.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 7:10:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 5:57:41 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Police don't do preventative work, they arrest people who break the law - please break from that "serve and protect" garbage that they write on the sides of their cruisers.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Please break from that "all authority is always bad" garbage that so many anarchists and like-minded individuals constantly spew.

If I want to get drunk tonight and drive out and kill someone, the chances of the law getting involved before that happens is not even worth considering.

The minimal chance that a drunk driver gets pulled over and arrested before he manages to hurt someone is better than no chance.

Furthermore, I could announce to everyone in the known world that I intend to kill you (assuming I had the means and intent to do so). How do you plan to use the police to stop me?

There are laws against such threats as long as the intent can be substantiated. Of course that's not exactly easy to do, so apart from notifying the police I'd likely also buy a gun. Two potential modes of defense is better than one.

Your ideas about the police are warped if you think they are going to save you from criminals.

The mere fact that in the past, hostage-taking criminals have been killed or otherwise subdued by police without collateral damage negates this assertion. Please refrain from making sweeping generalizations if you wish to credibly judge an entire system.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 7:29:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This guy really doesn't make much sense. As someone previously mentioned, he hates the laws. Police are meant to uphold the laws in place, not create them. And who the eff cares if you're upset the cops took your hard-earned weed--you weren't supposed to have it in the first place. This just sounds like the ramblings of a crazy person, to be honest.

Secondly, cops do a lot. Sure, there's a lot they don't do. But they investigate what they can with the resources they have. If that means looking at crime retrospectivey, then whose fault is that? You can't report a murder that hasn't been attempted yet.
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 7:58:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 4:49:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Comparing the nazis that killed millions to someone who gives you a speeding ticket or gets you arressted for smoking weed is a pretty big distinction.
Also lets not forget milgrams experiment that shows contrary evidence. n

Either you believe that "following orders" is a justifiable excuse or you don't. You can't claim that the Nazis who pled that they were following orders were guilty but an officer who claims they are "just doing their job" is not also guilty of an injustice if he commits one. This does not meant that the police are Nazis, or that their injustices are anything remotely close to the Nazis. Unless you can somehow show that when the Nazis committing morally wrong acts under order is somehow logically incomparable to anyone else committing morally wrong acts, you must either agree that both are indefensible or both are defensible.

This is a topic I have dealt with before, and it's not as clear cut as people like to think. No one is saying that the police are not brave, or that their intentions are not overall very good. The question (the way I see it) is whether or not their actions are morally justifiable. Claiming that they might lose their jobs for refusing to enforce laws that are immoral is simply not a valid argument, as soldiers refusing to follow orders suffer from much harsher consequences then that. The fact that most people would "follow orders" as some studies may show does not make something justifiable (unless you are a moral relativist). My personal opinion is that it reflects the horrible extent that authoritarian philosophy has pervaded our culture. Anti authoritarian views and behaviors are seen as the anti social and extreme, despite the fact that appealing to authority for moral guidance leads to an obvious inability to make reasonable moral judgments.

Now, this all assumes that the police are actually committing injustices by properly enforcing laws on the book. Whether or not you believe this depends on what you think the role of government and your personal philosophy is. If you think that laws that are imposed by the majority are perfectly moral regardless of justification, then you don't need to defend police action. You need to defend your core philosophy.

Also, I'm pretty sure it's been shown that most Nazis were not actually following orders, and in most cases committed horrible atrocities beyond what would have been necessary if they had any orders in the first place.
Sam_Lowry
Posts: 367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 8:09:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 7:29:54 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
This guy really doesn't make much sense. As someone previously mentioned, he hates the laws. Police are meant to uphold the laws in place, not create them. And who the eff cares if you're upset the cops took your hard-earned weed--you weren't supposed to have it in the first place. This just sounds like the ramblings of a crazy person, to be honest.

Do you support any law imposed by the majority regardless of how unjust it may be? If a person commits atrocities that are ordered by their government, do they have moral justification for committing them? How can you logically distinguish this from something minor, such as seizing someone's property without justification? Clearly they are not on the same scale, but how can you justify one and not the other?

Secondly, cops do a lot. Sure, there's a lot they don't do. But they investigate what they can with the resources they have. If that means looking at crime retrospectively, then whose fault is that? You can't report a murder that hasn't been attempted yet.

We aren't talking about the intentions of the police.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 8:34:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com...

If anyone on here hasn't seen this documentary, then you are fvcking up. I'm sorry, but it's just true. Police and prisons are utterly useless without the other - they might as well be considered two dimensions of the same entity. If you want to refute this study then that is your prerogative but I really cannot take anyone seriously that wants to talk about prisons/authority/police without actually seeing first-hand what authoritative institutions do to the human mind. There are two 15 minute segments, and I guarantee they will be the most important things you see this week.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 8:44:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 8:34:00 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com...

If anyone on here hasn't seen this documentary, then you are fvcking up. I'm sorry, but it's just true. Police and prisons are utterly useless without the other - they might as well be considered two dimensions of the same entity. If you want to refute this study then that is your prerogative but I really cannot take anyone seriously that wants to talk about prisons/authority/police without actually seeing first-hand what authoritative institutions do to the human mind. There are two 15 minute segments, and I guarantee they will be the most important things you see this week.

to be fair, the experimenter actually took aside the guards that were being "too nice" to the prisoners and told them to be more dehumanizing... so that kind of result is not a completely spontaneous outgrowth of the existence of prisons
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 9:02:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 7:10:28 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 9/16/2010 5:57:41 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
Police don't do preventative work, they arrest people who break the law - please break from that "serve and protect" garbage that they write on the sides of their cruisers.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Please break from that "all authority is always bad" garbage that so many anarchists and like-minded individuals constantly spew.

They most certainly are mutually exclusive. Police have one job, and ONE JOB ONLY - to arrest people who break the law. If your town hires them in a different fashion then that's their choice but don't confuse what an officer of the law is just because the city hires an officer to be a DARE teacher or to direct traffic during an emergency. The point here is that the function of law enforcement is very specific and limited and you must understand the boundaries of this function in order to discuss it.

If I want to get drunk tonight and drive out and kill someone, the chances of the law getting involved before that happens is not even worth considering.

The minimal chance that a drunk driver gets pulled over and arrested before he manages to hurt someone is better than no chance.

Not really... And the only reason they get pulled over is because it is illegal to be drunk in the first place - they have already broken the law, so they can be arrested. The laws can therefore be set up so that they have the effect of protecting (e.g., banning gun ownership so that people are breaking the law by merely owning a gun before they get the chance to shoot someone) but officers still must ONLY arrest someone AFTER they break that law; any "protection" is simply incident of how the laws are set up and not an integral duty of an officer of the law.

Furthermore, I could announce to everyone in the known world that I intend to kill you (assuming I had the means and intent to do so). How do you plan to use the police to stop me?

There are laws against such threats as long as the intent can be substantiated. Of course that's not exactly easy to do, so apart from notifying the police I'd likely also buy a gun. Two potential modes of defense is better than one.

I can make it known that I am going to kill you and perhaps even get a minor sentence for that threat, but that isn't going to keep me in prison indefinitely; absolutely nothing can stop me from carrying out my threat as long as I use a minimal amount of tact. I can walk right up to your house at a random point during the week and carry out the action. By the time I actually break a property law I am only meters away from you and law enforcement cannot hope to act within that timeframe. I can attack anyone I want out on the street, any of my friends or family, or anyone I choose to target; law enforcement only gets involved after I have broken a specific law and even then the sentence isn't going to prevent me from doing it again until I am successful and earn a decent-sized prison-term. Conclusion - police cannot hope to protect.

Your ideas about the police are warped if you think they are going to save you from criminals.

The mere fact that in the past, hostage-taking criminals have been killed or otherwise subdued by police without collateral damage negates this assertion. Please refrain from making sweeping generalizations if you wish to credibly judge an entire system.

But the criminal's intent is not to hurt people! You are getting motives confused here... If the criminals decided "let's go out and cause death," then guess what: expect a lot of death! You are citing an example of a group of robbers, trying to rob a bank or something., who choose to resort to violence when the robbery goes bad. The actions of the bank (i.e., locking the money in a safe, having security cameras and guards) are what really "protected" against the robbery, otherwise the robbers would have been long-gone before the police were even notified. The police merely show up after the crime is committed and arrest the robbers. If anything, it is the police themselves that are putting the hostages art risk, because the robbers weren't even interested in hurting anyone in the first place - they are chasing MONEY because they want to gain purchasing power in the economy. If we didn't have money... Well I think we've had this conversation before, but I am consistently told that money isn't the root of crime so OH WELL.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 9:04:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 7:29:54 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
This guy really doesn't make much sense. As someone previously mentioned, he hates the laws. Police are meant to uphold the laws in place, not create them. And who the eff cares if you're upset the cops took your hard-earned weed--you weren't supposed to have it in the first place. This just sounds like the ramblings of a crazy person, to be honest.

Secondly, cops do a lot.

Yeah - that's the problem.

Sure, there's a lot they don't do. But they investigate what they can with the resources they have. If that means looking at crime retrospectivey, then whose fault is that? You can't report a murder that hasn't been attempted yet.

Try telling that to Mike lovin!
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 9:12:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 8:44:46 PM, belle wrote:
At 9/16/2010 8:34:00 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com...

If anyone on here hasn't seen this documentary, then you are fvcking up. I'm sorry, but it's just true. Police and prisons are utterly useless without the other - they might as well be considered two dimensions of the same entity. If you want to refute this study then that is your prerogative but I really cannot take anyone seriously that wants to talk about prisons/authority/police without actually seeing first-hand what authoritative institutions do to the human mind. There are two 15 minute segments, and I guarantee they will be the most important things you see this week.

to be fair, the experimenter actually took aside the guards that were being "too nice" to the prisoners and told them to be more dehumanizing... so that kind of result is not a completely spontaneous outgrowth of the existence of prisons

That's interesting, where did you hear that? Nothing in the study seems to support that statement, especially considering the guards' own testimony. Considering the results of the experiment, it really wouldn't matter anyway - if I "took you aside" and told you to be more dehumanizing to someone, would that cause you to lock someone in a room? We're talking about some pretty bad stuff here! Even if it isn't "completely spontaneous," then what is it? How much pressure does a prison guard need before he starts committing atrocities? What are the effects of authority and power on the human mind?
Master P is the end result of capitalism.
Rob1Billion
Posts: 1,338
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 9:14:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 5:55:52 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/16/2010 5:51:57 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
At 9/16/2010 4:49:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/16/2010 12:21:32 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/16/2010 12:13:25 PM, Rob1Billion wrote:
"I was just following orders" doesn't justify the Nazis and it doesn't justify the police.

Surprisingly, I agree with you for once.

Comparing the nazis that killed millions to someone who gives you a speeding ticket or gets you arressted for smoking weed is a pretty big distinction.
Also lets not forget milgrams experiment that shows contrary evidence. n

Milgrams? Not familiar with it, please explain.
When ordered to administer what one believes to be increasingly painful electric shocks to a "learner" who is begging you to stop, most people follow orders, even if the device has a warning of danger on it that the order is telling you to ignore.

Ah yes, I am familiar with the study. Pretty complimentary to the Stanford one, of course. Since we have the data to show what happens when we put people in the position of power over another, the fact that we still continue to do it is fascinating.
Master P is the end result of capitalism.