OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jan 1, 2015 9:50:27 GMT -5
Maybe if they had their pay cut by 66%, it might affect their attitude. nypost.com/2014/12/29/arrests-plummet-following-execution-of-two-cops/Here in AZ the Phoenix Police Chief thought he would diss the Phoenix Manager. he held a press conference, they Fired him. Since the citizens of New York City do not seem to be getting what they pay for, Maybe they should start firing the offenders. Turning your back on your superiors should be a fire able offense,
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 1, 2015 11:36:48 GMT -5
Maybe we have too many laws in the first place and instead of constantly calling for more, more, more laws, we should take heed and see what more, more laws results in.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 1, 2015 11:37:45 GMT -5
It doesn't seem like the town is crashing and burning if they aren't out choking people for selling loosies.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 1, 2015 12:09:19 GMT -5
This is great. It's a perfect illustration that "following orders" is an absolutely illegitimate explanation for police action. Now, maybe if the police would stand up for those of us they work for and refuse to be tax collectors and modern day highwaymen; if they'd obey their oath to the Constitution and ignore orders to raid houses for unConstitutional drug laws, if they'd stop setting up roadside check points... I could go on.
The choice quote from the article, though, is this:
Can you tell me why police would EVER make arrests when they DIDN'T have to?
Things that make you say, hmmmmmmmm...
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jan 1, 2015 12:48:32 GMT -5
Good, less revenue generating and less chances taken with their lives. When the citizens complain about not feeling safe, refer them to the mayor.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 1, 2015 13:05:51 GMT -5
Maybe we have too many laws in the first place and instead of constantly calling for more, more, more laws, we should take heed and see what more, more laws results in. nah. i think it is priorities. if the police department prioritized crimes that actually have victims over those that don't, it would sew a world of goodwill.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 1, 2015 13:26:55 GMT -5
Maybe we have too many laws in the first place and instead of constantly calling for more, more, more laws, we should take heed and see what more, more laws results in. nah. i think it is priorities. if the police department prioritized crimes that actually have victims over those that don't, it would sew a world of goodwill. Completely agree on this one. In fact, it's THE way for the police to regain and maintain credibility in the community. Most of us are smart enough to know that the vast majority of the work (and that's using 'work' liberally) the police do has nothing to do with "risking their lives to keep us safe". A lot of it has to do with issuing citations, and enforcing regulations, rules, ordinances, and the like in which the victim is the ephemeral disembodied consciousness identified only as "the public".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:13:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 13:39:49 GMT -5
Maybe we have too many laws in the first place and instead of constantly calling for more, more, more laws, we should take heed and see what more, more laws results in. nah. i think it is priorities. if the police department prioritized crimes that actually have victims over those that don't, it would sew a world of goodwill. What's a victim-less crime?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 1, 2015 13:51:47 GMT -5
nah. i think it is priorities. if the police department prioritized crimes that actually have victims over those that don't, it would sew a world of goodwill. What's a victim-less crime? a crime where the "victim" is the perpetrator OR, at worst, a CONSENTING "other".
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 1, 2015 13:57:00 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:13:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 14:15:56 GMT -5
Even private insurance is a socialized spreading of the cost. In this case the victim would be the person paying for his (smokers) extra health care. I have hope though. Most medical insurance in this area are now charging much higher rates to smokers, and testing for compliance. If this becomes commonplace, the sin tax on cigarettes should be eliminated. I don't expect that to happen though, as once a tax is in place...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 1, 2015 14:21:16 GMT -5
Smoker's healthcare costs are a symptom of a problem, not the problem. The problem is private rights with socialized consequences. The solution isn't cigarette taxes, it is privatizing consequences once more. Instead of promoting the idea that healthcare is a right, we need to return to the idea that healthcare is a personal responsibility.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:13:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 14:22:26 GMT -5
What's a victim-less crime? a crime where the "victim" is the perpetrator OR, at worst, a CONSENTING "other". Not enough context for me to agree or not. A crime is committed when a law is broken. Criminal laws are passed because continued activity along outlawed lines negatively affects somebody.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:13:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 14:24:23 GMT -5
Smoker's healthcare costs are a symptom of a problem, not the problem. The problem is private rights with socialized consequences. The solution isn't cigarette taxes, it is privatizing consequences once more. Instead of promoting the idea that healthcare is a right, we need to return to the idea that healthcare is a personal responsibility. I'm in total agreement with this.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 1, 2015 14:27:43 GMT -5
a crime where the "victim" is the perpetrator OR, at worst, a CONSENTING "other". Not enough context for me to agree or not. A crime is committed when a law is broken. you are trivializing the idea. it is not helping you understand it.Criminal laws are passed because continued activity along outlawed lines negatively affects somebody. immaterial. the standard is not whether it negatively affects someone. this argument is negatively affecting me, but i have no legal authority to deny your speech. i have a responsibility to take care of myself, and any offenses that are taken in the exercise of your freedoms are MY problem. i would strongly suggest that you pick up a copy of "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do- The Absurdity of Consensual Crime in a Free Society". edit: review and overview here: www.amazon.com/Aint-Nobodys-Business-You-Consensual/dp/192976717Xi don't really have the time or the patience to explain it, here, AGAIN. but the basic idea is this: i should be allowed to do whatever i wish with my person or property so long as it is not damaging the person or property of a non-consenting other. the key word is DAMAGING. hurting your feelings doesn't count. offending your sensibilities doesn't either.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 1, 2015 14:29:07 GMT -5
Smoker's healthcare costs are a symptom of a problem, not the problem. The problem is private rights with socialized consequences. The solution isn't cigarette taxes, it is privatizing consequences once more. Instead of promoting the idea that healthcare is a right, we need to return to the idea that healthcare is a personal responsibility. I'm in total agreement with this. what do you do with those who refuse to accept responsibility for their heathcare, thereby endangering the persons or property of non-consenting others?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 1, 2015 15:03:52 GMT -5
Smoker's healthcare costs are a symptom of a problem, not the problem. The problem is private rights with socialized consequences. The solution isn't cigarette taxes, it is privatizing consequences once more. Instead of promoting the idea that healthcare is a right, we need to return to the idea that healthcare is a personal responsibility.So the lung cancer is on the smoker, what do you plan to do with all of other cancers and ills caused by industry? We are going to socialize the shit out of them like we always do aren't we. Corporations are people, haven't you heard- so what about THEIR personal responsibility?
But to the topic- other than the statistics nobody even noticed did they. So there are a few hundred people not wasting taxpayer money sitting in jail cell or being processed through the system because they had some weed- and only got caught because some thug with a badge jacked them up against a wall and dug through their pockets because they looked suspicious.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 1, 2015 15:52:15 GMT -5
Do we really want the Police killing people over tax issues? That's what Garner was about.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:13:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 19:09:06 GMT -5
Maybe we have too many laws in the first place and instead of constantly calling for more, more, more laws, we should take heed and see what more, more laws results in. nah. i think it is priorities. if the police department prioritized crimes that actually have victims over those that don't, it would sew a world of goodwill. Part of the problem is, if there is no (unwilling*) victim, there should be no "crime". *unwilling in this reference means that they didn't choose to be involved. Example: A person that freely chooses to gamble cannot be considered "unwilling" to lose his/her money.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:13:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 19:16:15 GMT -5
"failing to pay cigarette taxes" is not victimless. The victim here is just not a citizen. In this case the "victim" is the city/county/state. Are those taxes illegitimate/unconstitutional/excessive/whatever? That's a different debate... but there's still a "victim" in that one. Victimless crimes are crimes where the supposed "victim" freely chose the activity that did him/her "harm". (like gambling, which I just posted... or drugs... or prostitution)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:13:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 19:19:42 GMT -5
a crime where the "victim" is the perpetrator OR, at worst, a CONSENTING "other". Not enough context for me to agree or not. A crime is committed when a law is broken. Criminal laws are passed because continued activity along outlawed lines negatively affects somebody. Not true in all cases. And in some other cases the "negative effect" is freely chosen. In all cases where it's not true OR it's freely chosen, it's imposed morality based on the morals of the majority... morals which are subjective and personal in nature.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:13:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 19:25:11 GMT -5
Do we really want the Police killing people over tax issues? That's what Garner was about. He wasn't "killed over tax issues". He was killed while resisting. Should he have died? No. Do I deny that he died during a struggle with police? No. But he wasn't "killed over tax issues". If he would have turned around and put his hands behind his back to be cuffed, we never would have even heard of him.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 1, 2015 21:39:03 GMT -5
Resisting? Watch the video. He actually DID have his hands up in the air in front of him. And, yeah, he was arguing a bit. That was no reason to put him in a chokehold. Do we need arrest people for such crap? How about writing him up a ticket and handing it to him instead? Sheesh.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 1, 2015 21:40:33 GMT -5
BTW, what is it you EXPECT someone to do who is being asphyxiated? The body is normally going to "fight" against that. If you are dying, you are instinctually going to struggle. I can't believe you can even defend this.
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Jan 1, 2015 21:49:31 GMT -5
It wasn't "Tax Issues". He was selling illegal untaxed cigarettes.
He shouldn't have resisted in the first place. Once confronted for questioning by police, instead of resisting, he should have allowed them to place him in the cruiser to be taken in for questioning without fighting back.
Instead he put up a struggle. Do you think the police officers should have just stood there and done nothing?
There's only one person to blame for his death. His own actions, and possibly his weight/health contributed when he continued to fight back when they had to finally try to restrain him.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:13:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 21:55:29 GMT -5
Resisting? Watch the video. He actually DID have his hands up in the air in front of him. And, yeah, he was arguing a bit. That was no reason to put him in a chokehold. Do we need arrest people for such crap? How about writing him up a ticket and handing it to him instead? Sheesh. I watched the video. There was no "choke hold" (how many times does that need to be restated?). If the penalty is ONLY a fine... I agree... write him a ticket. Was there a possibility that the penalty could include jail time? If there was, then, in that case, the appropriate thing to do is take the person in. But, again, had he obeyed the lawful order of the cop, he wouldn't have died. Or... better yet... if he hadn't broken the law in the first place, he wouldn't have died. It was 100% escalation. Unnecessary, and tragic, escalation... but it did have several avoidable points before it got to it's final result. MOST of those avoidable points are on the criminal.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jan 1, 2015 22:06:47 GMT -5
Why should whether or not jail time is a possible penalty have anything to do with the decision to arrest someone- because it doesn't. No reason at all to arrest someone over this- it is part of their effed up police strategy and a waste of resources.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 22:13:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2015 22:36:29 GMT -5
Why should whether or not jail time is a possible penalty have anything to do with the decision to arrest someone- because it doesn't. No reason at all to arrest someone over this- it is part of their effed up police strategy and a waste of resources. It matters to the question asked: "why not just give him a ticket?" Tickets are given out when the punishment is a fine. Arrests are made when the punishment could include jail time. That's true of every crime I know.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,483
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 1, 2015 22:39:18 GMT -5
... (how many times does that need to be restated?). ... Please feel free to restate it as many times as you need. Here is some background music for you:
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 1, 2015 22:58:11 GMT -5
a crime where the "victim" is the perpetrator OR, at worst, a CONSENTING "other". Not enough context for me to agree or not. A crime is committed when a law is broken. Criminal laws are passed because continued activity along outlawed lines negatively affects somebody. Vagrancy generally only negatively affects the vagrant. Yet it is a crime.
|
|