cops shouldnt be careful

haha

Quote :

"Do you walk around in a state of fear all the time? How do you get out of bed? "

If I am a cop I do, when im pulling people over

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 1:27 PM. Reason : adsf]

3/30/2007 1:27:02 PM

So you support what the cop did to megaloman, and you think the cop was justified?

Do you also think this unarmed guy deserved to be tasered 3 times and shot dead? The cops were just being careful, right?

3/30/2007 1:29:35 PM

Quote :

"So you support what the cop did to megaloman, and you think the cop was justified?"

yes

Quote :

"Do you also think this unarmed guy deserved to be tasered 3 times and shot dead? The cops were just being careful, right? "

of the bat?...nope....but i dont know the whole story...do you??

3/30/2007 1:31:06 PM

Quote :

"I would be willing to bet that the VAST majority of routine traffic stops results in absolutely nothing bad happening to the cops, making what happened to Megaloman the result of some idiotic power-hungry pig, rather than reasonable caution."

The VAST majority of trips people take in their car results in absolutely nothing bad happening to them but we still wear seatbelts. It only takes one incident for your life to end, be it a car accident or a routine traffic stop. Its the same reason we lock our doors every day that we leave for school or work, odds are pretty low that someone is going to even try to enter your house but you act to prevent.

Hell, my sister was arriving at a townhouse to help with a minor complaint and as they walked up the sidewalk the person in the neighboring townhouse fired a shotgun at them through the screen door (they felt the breeze as the shot passed between her and her partner's head).

I have no problem with the way the cop reacted to Megaloman84.

3/30/2007 1:36:21 PM

There's something darky comical about tasering a man three times, ordering him to do things, and then shooting him because he can't.

It's total bullshit, obviously, as cops shouldn't be allowed to shoot people even when they are actually "resisting arrest."

3/30/2007 1:36:51 PM

^^thank you

cops cant be cautious? you sound like an idiot green party college kid..just shut up

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 1:38 PM. Reason : asdf]

3/30/2007 1:37:50 PM

Cops need better armor and bigger balls.

Then they wouldn't be so scared.

3/30/2007 1:38:51 PM

Quote :

"moron...theres countless stories about cops being killed in routine stops....stop being an idiot"

so? no sympathy for them.

and yes cops do abuse power all the time. they are on the same level as criminals in my books.

Quote :

"Hell, my sister was arriving at a townhouse to help with a minor complaint and as they walked up the sidewalk the person in the neighboring townhouse fired a shotgun at them through the screen door (they felt the breeze as the shot passed between her and her partner's head). "

your sister should have picked a more honorable profession instead of oppressing the free.

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 1:58 PM. Reason : fda]

3/30/2007 1:57:29 PM

Makes me think of the Stanford Prison Experiment (the guy who ran that was on the Daily Show last night, I think).

Basically anyone can turn into a sadist when you put them in a position of authority over others.

3/30/2007 2:00:00 PM

^^your an idiot

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 2:03 PM. Reason : asdf]

3/30/2007 2:00:01 PM

Quote :

"your an idiot"

you got me there

3/30/2007 2:02:03 PM

^^

Quote :

"your an idiot"

you got me there

3/30/2007 2:10:21 PM

your an idiot

3/30/2007 2:19:51 PM

i guess you must be a cop if we have to point out to you that it's 'you're' not 'your'

3/30/2007 2:22:17 PM

your right...cause i didnt get it the first time around...

your an idiot

im going to get back to oppressing the free

oh....and just to drive it into the ground like you............

[Edited on March 30, 2007 at 2:23 PM. Reason : asdf]

3/30/2007 2:23:00 PM

your right...again wrong word.

3/30/2007 2:24:12 PM

i reiterate...your an idiot

3/30/2007 2:24:57 PM

you got me there

3/30/2007 2:26:06 PM

indeed

3/30/2007 2:26:34 PM

is grammar cop gonna have to shoot a bitch?

(after tazing them repeatedly)

3/30/2007 2:27:49 PM

haha

3/30/2007 2:29:22 PM

Quote :

"I can personally attest to 1) and 2). I had a cop flip out, draw his gun on me and start screaming once because my window was stuck and I had to crack my car door to talk to him."

I had the same thing happen. I had a blown fuse so I pulled the power window fuse to temporarily replace it (in other words, my power windows were dead.) I got pulled over and was immediately surrounded by three screaming cops.

Try explaining something when your windows are up and a cop is screaming at you. I thought the asshole was going to bust my window out. Here's the kicker...The reason I was pulled over....You'll never guess........We were all white and we were in a "black" neighborhood.

3/30/2007 2:38:29 PM

back when I had my black expedition with the tinited windows


I was in the neighborhood back between Method and Playmakers


I was minding my own business cruising towards playmakers cutting through the neighborhood...

I noticed two cop cars fall in behind me, I was thinking, "wtf, I haven't done anything wrong"

so I go to a populated brightly lit parking lot (playmakers) before I "pull over" for them

they get out hands on pistols, ask for my DL, as I'm handing him my DL, CCW permit, and registration I was like, "you mind telling me what you're pulling me for"

and no shit the cop told me, "you slowed down in front of the wrong house"

my jaw hit the floor, I shoulda gotten their names and called their capt or major but I didn't

they let me go... which I am glad they did because I was about to raise hell

3/30/2007 3:09:38 PM

Quote :

"of the bat?...nope....but i dont know the whole story...do you??"

If the guy really was unarmed, sitting on some steps, there is absolutely no reason he should have been killed. If he was the devil himself, there's no justification for shooting him.

Quote :

"The VAST majority of trips people take in their car results in absolutely nothing bad happening to them but we still wear seatbelts. It only takes one incident for your life to end, be it a car accident or a routine traffic stop. Its the same reason we lock our doors every day that we leave for school or work, odds are pretty low that someone is going to even try to enter your house but you act to prevent."

That's true (I wear by seat belt also to keep me from sliding around in sharp turns too), but being prepared is not the same thing as pulling a gun on someone. It might be unclasping your gun, but not pulling it... isn't that one of the main rules of gun ownership, don't point your gun at someone unless you intend to shoot them? Cops should have no intention of shooting civilians, especially in a society where we are innocent until proven guilty.

3/30/2007 4:02:59 PM

so this is marks friend angel.. i wa browsing through what he wrote and im sorry for his stupid ass comments. there are plenty of good cops out there and is not right to just say all of them are bad. he can be indeed an idiot.. sometimes... :-p

3/30/2007 4:03:48 PM

do cops not receive proper taser training?

too many times do i read shit about people being tased, getting told to stand up/put their hands up, and get tased again because they didn't comply.

wtf?

3/30/2007 4:27:46 PM

Is this a case of less lethal weapons making cops even more trigger happy?

They do seem to shoot of those tasers rather freely.

3/30/2007 6:38:51 PM

Quote :

"I wouldn't be a cop, and I wouldn't harass random motorists over bullshit infractions because I'm not a sadistic, power-drunk bully. "

Society has cops, for the express purpose of enforcing the law. The cop enforces the law, and you think he's a power drunk bully? WTF?

Quote :

"If you're a cop and you pull someone over for a traffic violation, you're an idiot to assume that they are going to try and hurt you. If you pull them over for a stolen car, that's when you have to worry."

He didn't assume everyone was going to hurt him, he assumed that someone who had had just pulled over who had opened their car door without being asked might have motives other than a broken window. I would bet statisticaly the person opening their door is more likely going to confront the cop than have a broken window.

Lets look at some examples of "routine" traffic stops:

http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=34853

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=4347764&nav=5Uai

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/12/21/news/top_stories/1_01_1111_20_06.txt

http://www.examiner.com/a-622918~Two_officers_shot_after_traffic_stop.html

http://www.kswo.com/Global/story.asp?S=5669644

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-155710764.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Midwest/02/17/officers.shot.ap/

http://kmox.com/pages/92273.php?contentType=4&contentId=212234

http://www.wdsu.com/news/11439347/detail.html?rss=no&psp=news

Quote :

"Are you saying that Megaloman's treatment was justified? "

Absolutely

Quote :

"I would be willing to bet that the VAST majority of routine traffic stops results in absolutely nothing bad happening to the cops, making what happened to Megaloman the result of some idiotic power-hungry pig, rather than reasonable caution. "

It only takes one bullet to end your life. The cop didn't shoot him, didn't taser him and didn't pepper spray him. He drew his gun and I'm sure ordered him to stay put, which is a perfectly reasonable reaction for someone who's getting out of their car, when you pulled them for a traffic violation and you didn't ask them to get out.

Quote :

" Do you walk around in a state of fear all the time? How do you get out of bed? "

I don't have to strap on a bullet proof vest every day to ensure that I make it home alive. I don't where a uniform that makes me a walking target for everyone with a grudge against authority or the government. I don't have a job that requires me to confront people I don't know in what ammounts to a mildly hostile situation.

Quote :

"So you support what the cop did to megaloman, and you think the cop was justified? "

Absolutely, there's nothing megaloman posted that sounded unreasonable to me at all. And the fact that there's nothing more to the story suggests to me that the whole situation defused quickly when megoloman complied with the orders to stay put and let the cop determine what was happening.

Quote :

"Do you also think this unarmed guy deserved to be tasered 3 times and shot dead? The cops were just being careful, right?"

Absolutely not.

Quote :

"so? no sympathy for them. and yes cops do abuse power all the time. they are on the same level as criminals in my books. "

You have an awfuly screwed up view of the world my friend.

Quote :

" It might be unclasping your gun, but not pulling it... isn't that one of the main rules of gun ownership, don't point your gun at someone unless you intend to shoot them? Cops should have no intention of shooting civilians, especially in a society where we are innocent until proven guilty."

In the time it takes the cop to unclasp but not draw, and then determine if the person getting out of the car has a gun on them, he will be shot dead. It's much safer for the cop to draw and order the person to stay still and de-eascalate from there. This cop had no intention of shooting a civilian, he did have an intention of shooting a threat. When megaloman stopped being a threat, the cop didn't shoot. Plain and simple.

3/30/2007 6:41:52 PM

Quote :

" http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=34853 http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=4347764&nav=5Uai http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/12/21/news/top_stories/1_01_1111_20_06.txt http://www.examiner.com/a-622918~Two_officers_shot_after_traffic_stop.html http://www.kswo.com/Global/story.asp?S=5669644 http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-155710764.html http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Midwest/02/17/officers.shot.ap/ http://kmox.com/pages/92273.php?contentType=4&contentId=212234 http://www.wdsu.com/news/11439347/detail.html?rss=no&psp=news"

Wow, you're worse than trikk311, did you even read any of those links?

Only this one of those was a random shooting at a traffic stop: http://www.kswo.com/Global/story.asp?S=5669644

And in this one: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-155710764.html the officer lied, and it turned out he faked being shot: http://www.kbtv4.tv/news/default.asp?mode=shownews&id=13314 .

So in all of the internet, you could only find one story about an officer being shot and a random traffic stop? Does this justify officers pulling guns on innocent people? Absolutely not (unless you're an idiot or a Republican).

3/30/2007 11:10:19 PM

So just what are your criteria here for a random shoot during a routine traffic stop? Does the person in question have to have no record and the cop can only pull him for speeding?

Question: How does the officer know that megaloman is just a random innocent civilian with a broken window? He pulled the car because the car was in violation of the law (by megaloman's own admission) so why would the cop assume that someone getting out of their vehicle without the cop asking them too, who has already broken one law, isn't a threat?

3/31/2007 9:28:28 AM

If a cop runs your tags and sees you have a warrant out, then he/she is justified in being very cautious.

If a cop pulls you for a routine traffic violation (speeding, light out, failure to stop at a stop sign, etc.), since these are things normal people do, a cop pulling their gun is more likely to lead to a problem, than keep anyone safe.

I didn't see where megaloman noted what he was pulled for, but I assumed it wasn't for driving a stolen vehicle or anything like that. And it didn't look like megaloman actually got out of his vehicle just opened his door, and even if he did got out, it probably would have been apparent that he had no gun on him.

In the above articles when the cops got shot it was either after having the suspects out of their car and calling for backup, or after pulling over a vehicle where the owner has a warrant out for their arrest.

I would also think pulling a gun like what happened is a violation of some kind of policy, since there are very few situations where cops are actually allowed to use their guns.

3/31/2007 12:46:26 PM

This whole discussion about routine traffic stops is so off topic that I hesitate to even continue it, but this is the wolf web, so I'm not going to let something like that stop me from posting.

Quote :

"And the fact that there's nothing more to the story suggests to me that the whole situation defused quickly when megoloman complied with the orders to stay put and let the cop determine what was happening."

There was no compliance necessary since I wasn't getting out of the car to begin with. I literally just cracked the door an inch or so. I'm not sure how that poses a more serious threat to the cop than a closed door. Had I been intent on shooting him I could have simply shot him through the door or the window without opening either.

Secondly, I was pulled for an expired license plate in Cary, not a circumstance or a place that would seem to give cops a lot of reason to be jumpy.

Quote :

"Society has cops, for the express purpose of enforcing the law. The cop enforces the law, and you think he's a power drunk bully? WTF?"

1)The law is bullshit. A law can either demand justice, in which case it is superfluous and redundant, because it can add nothing to any man's existing obligation to do justice, or it can demand injustice, in which case it is criminal, foolish and void, for justice always overrides mere statute.

2)The cops, by their own avowed willingness to enforce the law, no matter how ill-conceived, unjust or criminal it may be, pose a greater risk to society than the "criminals" they supposedly protect us from.

Compounding this even further is the fact that cops can get away with essentially anything in the course of performing their duties. If a cop shoots an innocent man because he can't distinguish a can of Dr. Pepper from a firearm, then he'll get a slap on the wrist and get assigned to a desk.

Lets contrast this to private law enforcement. If a security guard, bounty hunter or repo man pulled the same shit, I guarantee he would be serving hard time for manslaughter.

3)Cops don't protect us from shit. They are not even a necessary evil. They are simply evil.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that the police have no obligation whatsoever to protect anybody or their property. If you want protection, you contract with a private firm. That's why private security outnumber pigs by two or three to one.

Most of the crime that you and I need protection from is the result of generations of bad government policy. Government systematically punishes, through progressive taxation, those people who engage in honest, productive enterprise. Meanwhile, broken families, laziness, short-sightedness, irresponsibility, indulgence and a sense of entitlement are all subsidized by a vast system of government handouts. It is the permanent, dependent underclass thus created, that threatens the safety and property of productive citizens, not other productive citizens.

Government has, over the years, also attempted to progressively disarm peaceful, productive citizens making it harder for them to access the tools to defend themselves from private criminals and making the cost of crime lower for those engaged in it.

The criminal justice system makes things even worse. Sending criminals to prison, to associate with other criminals, and then releasing them with a much reduced chance of ever earning an honest living can only encourage more crime.

4)Professional police are a relatively recent phenomenon, becoming widespread only in the second half of the 19th century even in major cities. If we made do without cops before, I don't see why they're necessary now.

Voluntary contract, private property and self-defense make a much firmer foundation for a civilization than the arbitrary whim of some group of legislators, enforced by thuggish, sadistic cops unaccountable to the law they supposedly enforce.


[Edited on March 31, 2007 at 3:22 PM. Reason : ']

3/31/2007 3:16:23 PM

I was in a similar situation as Megaloman. I was riding in a car w/ a friend who had a broken window and got pulled over. my friend opened his door and the cop reacted in basically the same manner. I can only assume that cops are trained to react when someone opens their car door in a traffic stop. I see nothing wrong w/ what happened in either case.

3/31/2007 9:45:15 PM

Quote :

"And it didn't look like megaloman actually got out of his vehicle just opened his door, and even if he did got out, it probably would have been apparent that he had no gun on him."

The problem is, by the time the cop waits to see if he's really getting out or just opening the door, and if he has a gun on him while he's getting out of the car, the cop is already dead. The best way to stay out of danger and ahead of any threats to your life is to stay a step ahead of those threats. That means that the cop reacts as soon as a threat begins, not after it's been completed. Since the opening of the car door is the begining of a potential threat, the cop acted accordingly. I would put money on a bet that at traffic stops, someone opening their door without the cop asking them to, is more likely to be getting into a confrontation with the cop rather than have a busted window.

Quote :

"There was no compliance necessary since I wasn't getting out of the car to begin with. I literally just cracked the door an inch or so. I'm not sure how that poses a more serious threat to the cop than a closed door. Had I been intent on shooting him I could have simply shot him through the door or the window without opening either."

Right, but for that to happen, the cop had to be near the door, rather than just approaching the car. That's also the reason why they tell you to keep your hand on the wheel until the cop gets there.

Quote :

"Secondly, I was pulled for an expired license plate in Cary, not a circumstance or a place that would seem to give cops a lot of reason to be jumpy. "

Traffic stops are neccesarily jumpy situations because the cop has no clue who you are or how you'll react or what you have in the car or on you.

Quote :

"The law is bullshit. A law can either demand justice, in which case it is superfluous and redundant, because it can add nothing to any man's existing obligation to do justice, or it can demand injustice, in which case it is criminal, foolish and void, for justice always overrides mere statute."

Then change the law or eliminate it, but in the meantime, it's still law, as enacted by the people or their elected representatives.

Quote :

"The cops, by their own avowed willingness to enforce the law, no matter how ill-conceived, unjust or criminal it may be, pose a greater risk to society than the "criminals" they supposedly protect us from. "

Again, then change the law or eliminate it, but like the law, the cops are charged with their job to enforce the law by the people or their elected representatives.

Quote :

"Compounding this even further is the fact that cops can get away with essentially anything in the course of performing their duties. If a cop shoots an innocent man because he can't distinguish a can of Dr. Pepper from a firearm, then he'll get a slap on the wrist and get assigned to a desk. Lets contrast this to private law enforcement. If a security guard, bounty hunter or repo man pulled the same shit, I guarantee he would be serving hard time for manslaughter. "

Again, then change the law. More specifically, change the laws regarding punishment of crimes comitted by cops. Or, if you would prefer, change the laws regarding punishment of private security.

Quote :

"Cops don't protect us from shit. They are not even a necessary evil. They are simply evil. "

Again, sounds like a problem with the law.

Quote :

"Courts have repeatedly ruled that the police have no obligation whatsoever to protect anybody or their property. If you want protection, you contract with a private firm. That's why private security outnumber pigs by two or three to one. "

Problem is, while you're ranting against cops, other people are changing the laws to make it impossible for a private person to defend themselves legally.

Quote :

"Most of the crime that you and I need protection from is the result of generations of bad government policy. Government systematically punishes, through progressive taxation, those people who engage in honest, productive enterprise. Meanwhile, broken families, laziness, short-sightedness, irresponsibility, indulgence and a sense of entitlement are all subsidized by a vast system of government handouts. It is the permanent, dependent underclass thus created, that threatens the safety and property of productive citizens, not other productive citizens. Government has, over the years, also attempted to progressively disarm peaceful, productive citizens making it harder for them to access the tools to defend themselves from private criminals and making the cost of crime lower for those engaged in it. "

See now you're preaching to the choir.

Quote :

"Professional police are a relatively recent phenomenon, becoming widespread only in the second half of the 19th century even in major cities. If we made do without cops before, I don't see why they're necessary now. "

Because society has voluntarily given up their right to self defence.

4/1/2007 9:36:29 AM

Quote :

"Then change the law or eliminate it"

Quote :

"Again, then change the law or eliminate it"

Quote :

"Again, then change the law."

Quote :

"Again, sounds like a problem with the law."

When uttered by a cop, this argument takes the form "I don't make the law, I just enforce it" This is nothing more than the Nuremburg defense writ small. My point is that everyone is ultimately responsible for their own actions. If the law is guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish, then so are the cops, for enforcing it.

Furthermore, it ignores my main point, which is that all statutory law is bullshit, always; even when it's right.

If the law demands justice and reason, then it is utterly superfluous, for reason and justice demand themselves. A just law would be as useful as a law requiring the sun to rise and set.

No good end can be achieved through legislation, a process founded on the principle that one group of people may vote away the rights of another, that any injustice is just so long as its perpetrators outnumber its victims, and that people may delegate to some "representative", powers which they themselves never had.

[Edited on April 1, 2007 at 10:20 AM. Reason : ']

4/1/2007 9:54:41 AM

Quote :

"When uttered by a cop, this argument takes the form "I don't make the law, I just enforce it" This is nothing more than the Nuremburg defense writ small. My point is that everyone is ultimately responsible for their own actions. If the law is guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish, then so are the cops, for enforcing it."

The difference is, everyone has the ability to change that law. And if the law is such as mandated by the people, and the cops are charged with the duty of enforcing that law, also as mandated by the people, then the cops would be remiss in their duties if they did not follow the law. These cops are charged by the public to enforce the rules by which the public has defined it's society shall operate. Ultimately, the responsibility for the freedoms of the people falls squarely on the freedom of the people to create and abolish laws. By shifting the blame or responsibility to the cops, you are shifting your responsibility to society to protect and enforce your rights. If the laws are unjust, and the cops are charged with enforcing unjust laws, it is because you and yours continue to allow it to be so. Dissent is not met with death here as it was in Nazi Germany, you are responsible for the laws, and you are responsible for the police. If there is a failing in either, it is your responsibility to solve that problem.

Quote :

"Furthermore, it ignores my main point, which is that all statutory law is bullshit, always; even when it's right. If the law demands justice and reason, then it is utterly superfluous, for reason and justice demand themselves. A just law would be as useful as a law requiring the sun to rise and set. "

What is justice and reason if not the rules and laws by which a person and society operate. That they are written in paper or agreed by the common good they still exist. If justice and reason demands that a murder be punished, then you have a law, regardless of whether you write it down.

4/1/2007 10:25:15 AM

Quote :

"The difference is, everyone has the ability to change that law."

Everyone has a statistically insignificant chance of determining the outcome of an election, the winner of which will do whatever they damn well please, no matter what they said while campaigning.

Quote :

"What is justice and reason if not the rules and laws by which a person and society operate."

That you intitially concurred with me about the law being "bad" indicates that you agree there must exist some contradictory principle against which to contrast it. Two of those principles are justice and reason, and they establish the basic minimum standards which govern, or ought to govern, human interaction.

Where justice alone is not sufficient, where there is some procedural matter and the important thing is only that there be some convention and not that the convention be anything in particular, voluntary contract can fill in the gaps. There is no need for an unjust, criminal and destructive apparatus of coercive legislation.

4/1/2007 10:49:36 AM

Quote :

"reason and justice demand themselves."

Perhaps, but they do not enforce themselves.

4/1/2007 2:01:14 PM

anyone see the Penn and Teller Bullshit where they showed security camera footage of a high school drug bust in NC

the kids were on their knees in the hallways, hands behind their heads, while some fuckface officer had his gun drawn and was repeatedly pointing at the back of these kids head


that disgusts me


btw, they didn't find a single thing (weapons, drugs, etc) in that school

4/1/2007 3:08:33 PM

Quote :

"Everyone has a statistically insignificant chance of determining the outcome of an election, the winner of which will do whatever they damn well please, no matter what they said while campaigning. "

Then the people have failed at their responsibility to protect their freedoms, or more accurately the people have elected to have their freedoms taken from them.

Quote :

"That you intitially concurred with me about the law being "bad" indicates that you agree there must exist some contradictory principle against which to contrast it. Two of those principles are justice and reason, and they establish the basic minimum standards which govern, or ought to govern, human interaction."

Those contradictory principles are that which each individual holds to be right and wrong. For example, a communist sees nothing wrong with no one being able to "own" property, and thus any law which prohibits the ownership of property or reduces one's ability to own property is not bad, that is it is just and reasonable. By contrast, a capitalist believes the opposite. Who's "justice and reason" is correct?

Quote :

"Where justice alone is not sufficient, where there is some procedural matter and the important thing is only that there be some convention and not that the convention be anything in particular, voluntary contract can fill in the gaps. There is no need for an unjust, criminal and destructive apparatus of coercive legislation."

But you said justice and reason demand themselves, therefore there is no need for procedural matters as those would by their nature not be justice and reason but law or rule.

[Edited on April 1, 2007 at 5:23 PM. Reason : asdf]

4/1/2007 5:22:34 PM

Quote :

"The problem is, by the time the cop waits to see if he's really getting out or just opening the door, and if he has a gun on him while he's getting out of the car, the cop is already dead."

No way. Dude's got a vest, and people commonly survive bullet injuries.

Quote :

"Since the opening of the car door is the begining of a potential threat, the cop acted accordingly."

What would happen to a civilian with a CC permit who reacted in a similar fashion? Just about everything is a "potential threat." Anytime you turn your back to someone or stand within reach, you could be killed or seriously injured by surprise knife attack. Anytime you walk out in the open there could be a sniper tracking you. Such things cannot legitimately be considered threatening.

If you take away the badge, the cop threatened Megaloman84, not the other way around. If they were both civilians, he would have been justified in shooting the cop for brandishing a weapon, an unambiguous threat.

Cops don't deserve such special privileges.

4/1/2007 6:58:57 PM

Quote :

"Then the people have failed at their responsibility to protect their freedoms"

Let me get this straight. We have a legislature, whose job it is to pass bad laws, whereupon it becomes our responsibility to fix them? Why not just save ourselves a bunch of fucking trouble and not have a legislature to begin with?

I resent the assertion that it is my fucking responsibility to police the government and keep them in line over every little fucking thing.

If I were righteously indignant about some law or another, and I could get together a few thousand other equally indignant compatriots, we could, by expending a great deal of time, effort and money, successfully lobby to have the law changed. This I admit.

However, multiply this by the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of bad laws on the books, and this soon doesn't seem like such a viable option.

Furthermore, the problem with bad laws is that they tend to benefit a very few people a lot, and harm many people only a little. Take the example of the US sugar import quotas. These quotas exist to drive up the domestic price of sugar and protect a few thousand American sugar farmers, who would not otherwise be able to compete with imported sugar. Does it make sense for Americans to pay four times the world price of sugar, a total of several billion dollars per year, simply to preserve 3-5 thousand jobs? No, obviously this sugar racket, by gyping consumer to the tune of almost $1 million for each job protected, destroys more jobs than it protects. However, this is a politically profitable proposition because the people who benefit, benefit a lot, they get a job that they're willing to fight tooth and nail to defend, while the people who are hurt, the consumers, are simply paying $2.49 for a bag of sugar instead of $.69, not a hardship worth expending any serious effort to rectify.

It is quite inconceivable, under such a system as ours, that any sort of law but bad law could prevail.

There is no solution but to scrap the whole system and refuse to acknowledge the right of any institution to engage in the plunder of one group for the benefit of another simply because it calls itself "government."

Quote :

"But you said justice and reason demand themselves"

They do, but on some mundane matters justice is mute. It is rational that we should all drive on the same side of the road. However, neither justice nor reason has any preference for which side of the road we drive on. This would be an example where private property rights and voluntary contract could be used to establish a convention where it is important to have one, but not necessarily important what it is.

4/1/2007 7:51:52 PM

If reason and justice demand themselves, then how is it possible that we exist under this evil, evil system (as you see it). Wouldn't the best possible outcome, which I take from your standpoint to be complete anarchy, be inevitable?

4/1/2007 8:06:23 PM

^ Quoth GrumpyGOP ^^^^^ "they do not enforce themselves."

4/1/2007 8:14:31 PM

So who should enforce them? Private citizens?

4/1/2007 8:16:23 PM

If you aggress against me, damn straight, I'm gonna enforce some justice on your ass, to the maximum extent that I can manage without incurring the censure of my peers.

And I hope anybody would do the same to me.

[Edited on April 1, 2007 at 8:36 PM. Reason : ']

4/1/2007 8:25:58 PM

So what would stop groups of people working together to defend their own interests?

4/1/2007 8:27:52 PM

To the extend that private citizens are unable or unwilling to protect themselves individually, they have the right to form associations for mutual protection, or to contract with private firms for any protective services they may deem necessary. They may even call these associations or contractual relationships "government" if the term suits them.

What they do not have the right to do is plunder others to buy themselves protection, force others to pay for unwanted protection, prohibit others from making their own arrangements for protection, plunder others for some selfish purpose and attempt to justify it by calling it "protection" or engage in any of the other shenanigans associated with the institution we presently call "government."

[Edited on April 1, 2007 at 8:39 PM. Reason : ']

4/1/2007 8:36:10 PM

If they grow and consolidate power for a long enough time, as they would almost certainly be sure to do, who would stop them from doing these things?

4/1/2007 8:39:42 PM

Even now the most oppressive governments around are constrained by the limits of their subject populations' tolerance for their own enslavement.

Ultimately, no government can oppress it's people except to the extent that it can convince the vast majority of them that oppression is legitimate.

If we ever get to the point where we abolish coercive government and begin to interact with one another on a mostly voluntary basis, it will be because the vast majority of people have rejected the premise that they must tolerate injustice and oppression.

In such an environment, any would-be petty tyrant or usurper would find life very uncomfortable. Witness the present situation in Iraq for a graphic demonstration of how even overwhelming military might can't effectively impose control without a sense of legitimacy.

4/1/2007 8:49:30 PM