Quote :

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

A vest only protects your chest, and while people commonly survive bullet injuries, would you want to be in a gun fight with "commonly survive" and a vest as your only defenses?

Quote :

"What would happen to a civilian with a CC permit who reacted in a similar fashion? "

Presumeably a civillian with a CC permit would not be pulling motorists over to enforce traffic law, therefore the question is irellevant. However, presumeably what you are asking is "What would happen if a civillian with a CC permit pulled their gun in response to what they percieved to be a potential threat on their life." To which the answer would range anywhere from nothing to a trial depending on whether a) a complaint was raised and b) the officer or attorney taking the complaint felt there is reason to believe that the CCP holder could not reasonably believe he was being threatened.

Now, had the CC holder fired, then it's a whole different story, but so then would Megaloman's tale be a different story. Presumeably since Megaloman did not file a complaint (or has not said as much) and has not issued any lawsuits (civil or otherwise) he must on some level agree that the cop was justifiable in his actions and did not infringe or oppress his freedoms, even if he does not agree with how the cop handled the situation.

Quote :

"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. "

Are the number of times a person is ambushed, mugged or shot by a sniper going about day to day activities as statisticaly likely (or significant) as the number of times that a cop is attacked during a traffic stop? You are reframing the senario to fit your argument. We are not talking about joe public walking out his front door, we are talking about a cop stopping an unknown motorist with an expired license plate.

Quote :

"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."

Again, you are taking the senario completely out of the context which gives reason to the cops actions. There are no circumstances by which someone who is not a cop would be pulling someone over for an expired tag, and therefore we can not just "take away the badge" as the senario would not happen without the badge.

Quote :

"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?"

The legislature's job is not to pass "bad" laws. If that is the legislature's job, then the people have failed at their responsibility to protect their freedoms, and the legislature is the symptom not the problem.

Quote :

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

Which is prehaps why the government no longer represents you, because you have given them the power to legislate your life, and then refused to maintain your oversight of their legislation. Again, the problem is not the legislature.

Quote :

"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. "

Perhaps one should not have allowed the law to pass in the first place. And in the instance the law passed regarless of your efforts, you should have removed those that passed the law from their positions of power and then repealed the law weather via the legislative process or the court system (of course the court system requires the force of legislation to work, but that is besides the point.)

Quote :

"not a hardship worth expending any serious effort to rectify. "

If it isn't worth expending effort over, then clearly you do not care for that freedom. Again, it is the responsibility of the people to defend and protect their freedoms. That a freedom may seem small and unimportant is hardly a reason to surrender that freedom. The problem with your position is that you would have a system by which people must defend their freedoms individualy or not at all, and then you refuse to defend you freedom.

Quote :

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

Why? And what is a "bad" law, and can a "good" law exist?

Quote :

"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." "

Which works great until once group of private people gain the power to forcably eneact their will and thus engage in the plunder of one group for the benefit of another. Currently we call such private groups mobs or gangs and the only reason we find them illegal is due to the laws of the government. It's worth noting that those plundered by the mob or gangs often do not acknowledge the right of the mob to plunder them, but often have no choice as the alternative is usualy a further violation of their rights (notably the right to life).

Quote :

"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. "

Wouldn't the censure of your peers be a law? Elsewise why did you not enforce some justice on the cop which aggressed against you? Clearly you feel that the laws which society have enacted are bad laws, and that for one to follow the law simply because it is law is evil, so why did you not enforce justice? Why did you follow the bad law?

Quote :

"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." "

As I said before, we also call such intitutions mobs and gangs.

Quote :

"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 the people find the oppression legitimate, who are you to say that it is not just or reasonable? After all, you've clearly stated that some freedoms just aren't worth extending effort to protect, so clearly it's not oppression if you are unwilling to defend it in the first place.

Quote :

"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."

I don't know about you, but I would much prefer to live in the US than Iraq currently, even with our freedom opressing police force.

Lastly, it's worth noting that for all of your talk about the opression of the US, the US is a voluntary association of people. People are free to enter the association and people are free to leave the association.

[Edited on April 1, 2007 at 9:38 PM. Reason : asdfakjsdh]

4/1/2007 9:35:00 PM

Quote :

"A vest only protects your chest, and while people commonly survive bullet injuries, would you want to be in a gun fight with "commonly survive" and a vest as your only defenses?"

Having gun in hand isn't sure defense either. If the cop actually felt threatened and only cared about saving his ass, retreating behind cover would probably have been a better option. Though perhaps pointing the pistol and shouting has more pyschological impact.

Quote :

"To which the answer would range anywhere from nothing to a trial depending on whether a) a complaint was raised and b) the officer or attorney taking the complaint felt there is reason to believe that the CCP holder could not reasonably believe he was being threatened."

If a CC guy pulled his pistol because someone cracked open his or her car door, you can be sure he'd lose the permit at the least (assuming it got reported, of course).

Quote :

"Are the number of times a person is ambushed, mugged or shot by a sniper going about day to day activities as statisticaly likely (or significant) as the number of times that a cop is attacked during a traffic stop?"

What level of risk is required to justify such behavior? A civilian might well face similar threats on a day-to-day basis. Taxi drivers, for example, are considerably more likely to be murdered on the job than police are (http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2000/Apr/wk1/art03.htm). Does this mean they should brandish a handgun whenever anyone opens a door nearby?

Quote :

"You are reframing the senario to fit your argument. We are not talking about joe public walking out his front door, we are talking about a cop stopping an unknown motorist with an expired license plate."

So what? That doesn't make opening a door a threatening action. (Brandishing a weapon, on the other hand, is an extremely threatening action.)

Quote :

"Again, you are taking the senario completely out of the context which gives reason to the cops actions. There are no circumstances by which someone who is not a cop would be pulling someone over for an expired tag, and therefore we can not just "take away the badge" as the senario would not happen without the badge."

Yes, you believe cops should be held to different standard than civilians. You've made that quite clear. But paranoia isn't a good enough justification in my book. As I said before, cops need better armor and/or bigger balls.

4/1/2007 10:24:17 PM

Too many people like to talk shit about cops and hate on them, until they fucking need them.

thats for my friend, who was shot last week on duty in fayetteville after pulling over a car with 2 suspects. luckily he was wearing his vest.

4/2/2007 12:09:43 AM

The dude was probably a cyborg and they needed to shut down his defenses before they could take him out.

4/2/2007 1:46:04 AM

Quote :

"If it isn't worth expending effort over, then clearly you do not care for that freedom."

I'm saying it bloody hell pisses me off that I have to pay $2.49 for a goddamn bag of sugar.

However it is naive to think that this injustice is enough to organize an effective political opposition to the sugar lobby, which while much smaller than the entirety of the consumer population, has - individual for individual - much more at stake.

Narrow, concentrated interests will always have the a political advantage over the diffuse interests they prey upon.

Quote :

"Why?[does bad law inevitably prevail]"

If you'll read the post, I explained why and gave an example.

Bad laws from which a few derive great benefit at the expense of many are almost impossible for the victims to effectively oppose.

The deck is stacked in favor of plunder.

Quote :

"Wouldn't the censure of your peers be a law?"

If that's what you want to call it, then feel free. However, it does not involve the initiation of force to compell my complience, which to me is an important distinction.

Quote :

"Elsewise why did you not enforce some justice on the cop which aggressed against you?"

Would it have done me any good? Rhetorical question, the fact that I wouldn't now be alive to pose it implies the answer.

Quote :

"If the people find the oppression legitimate, who are you to say that it is not just or reasonable?"

If the distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies that the government uses to rationalize its policies convince the majority of people to remain loyal to the government - even to their own ruin - then that is their right. However, that does not give the government the right to use force against me or others like me who do not consent to be plundered or enslaved.

Quote :

"the US is a voluntary association of people. People are free to enter the association and people are free to leave the association."

I seem to remember a little incident that went down about 146 years ago where it didn't exactly work out that way.

[Edited on April 2, 2007 at 3:21 AM. Reason : .]

4/2/2007 3:07:40 AM

Quote :

"thats for my friend, who was shot last week on duty in fayetteville after pulling over a car with 2 suspects. luckily he was wearing his vest."

Yes, armor is t3h winz.

4/2/2007 10:00:15 AM

Quote :

"Having gun in hand isn't sure defense either. If the cop actually felt threatened and only cared about saving his ass, retreating behind cover would probably have been a better option. Though perhaps pointing the pistol and shouting has more pyschological impact. "

Pulling the gun and ordering in this case would be prelude to seaking cover, the idea being to hopefuly break the mindset of the attacker before retreating, giving you a better chance to retreat unharmed and hopefully defusing the situation before you are backed into a corner or a worse situation. There isn't much area to retreat too on the side of the road, and the car door provides minimal cover at best.

Quote :

"If a CC guy pulled his pistol because someone cracked open his or her car door, you can be sure he'd lose the permit at the least (assuming it got reported, of course). "

Again it depends on the senario, which is why the laws are written to ask would a reasonable person in the same situation believe as the CCP holder did? For example, if CCP holder was walking down the street and someone was getting out of their car, no you would not find that reasonable to initiate deadly force or threaten deadly force (though depending on the neighborhood and time of day and other factors, one might find the CCP holder more than reasonable for hightening their sense of alertness and even taking actions to move them out of the general vacinity of the stranger).

But say for example, the CCP holder was driving down a one lane highway and someone behind them was riding their ass the entire way, regardless of how fast he goes and refuses to pass and is otherwise being a jackass motorist. If said CCP holder pulls off the road in an attempt to stop and let the asshole pass and get far enough ahead, and the asshole instead pulls off the road as well and starts getting out of his car, surely one could reasonably see where the CCP holder might have reason to fear for his safety or life.

Quote :

"What level of risk is required to justify such behavior? A civilian might well face similar threats on a day-to-day basis. Taxi drivers, for example, are considerably more likely to be murdered on the job than police are (http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2000/Apr/wk1/art03.htm). Does this mean they should brandish a handgun whenever anyone opens a door nearby? "

One would have to know what they are doing when they get murdered to say when the response of drawing a gun would be waranted. Certainly though, it does seem that perhaps cab drivers may want to pull their gun (assuming the have one) more often in dangerous situations if the murder rate is that high. Also, while that is an interesting statistic, it doesn't specify what that rate is compared to confrontations. For example, if we looked at that we might find for example that the reason the murder rate of cops is lower per hours worked compared to cab drivers is preciesely because they take precautionary meassures like responding quickly and efficiently to potential threats as compared to a cab driver's response.

Quote :

"So what? That doesn't make opening a door a threatening action. (Brandishing a weapon, on the other hand, is an extremely threatening action.) "

When a cop has you detained or pulled over, making actions which he has not asked you to make, which put you in a position closer to him, better able to attack him or better able to reach a weapon can all reasonably be considered threats. If you've been stopped by a cop on the street, and suddenly you start digging in your pocket, he's going to reasonably assume you're threatening him trying to get at a weapon rather than assume you're about to offer him a piece of gum.

Quote :

"Yes, you believe cops should be held to different standard than civilians. You've made that quite clear. But paranoia isn't a good enough justification in my book. As I said before, cops need better armor and/or bigger balls."

No, I believe that every person should be allowed to defend themselves if they reasonably believe they are in danger or that someone is threatening their safety by their actions. The fact that you feel they need better armor indicates you see that in the situations they are in, there is a greater chance of injury or death. I would rather the cop (and anyone) be able to avoid injury in the first place rather than trust armor to do the job.

Quote :

"I'm saying it bloody hell pisses me off that I have to pay $2.49 for a goddamn bag of sugar. However it is naive to think that this injustice is enough to organize an effective political opposition to the sugar lobby, which while much smaller than the entirety of the consumer population, has - individual for individual - much more at stake. "

Perhaps this is because you've allowed such minor injustices to go unchecked, that larger injustices are now common place. For example, the federal laws restricting ownership of fully automatic weapons is done via requirement that one buy a tax stamp from the government, which at the time the law was enacted was much more expensive than most could reasonably afford. This was done because the law makers at the time didn't think they could legaly get away with outright banning ownership of a type of firearm. Compare to today where lawmakers have little fear of challenge to a law outright banning a particular type of firearm. No more hiding behind taxes, they just do it, and they do it because we let them get away with the tax stamp way back when.

Perhaps it is time to start fighting for the little freedoms and the little injustices so that those who whish to usurp the larger freedoms don't have enough time.

Quote :

"Bad laws from which a few derive great benefit at the expense of many are almost impossible for the victims to effectively oppose. The deck is stacked in favor of plunder. "

Only because the victims don't value their little freedoms more than the usurpers value their plunder.

Quote :

"If that's what you want to call it, then feel free. However, it does not involve the initiation of force to compell my complience, which to me is an important distinction. "

How then would the censure of your peers cause you to stop enacting your "justice" until you are satiated?

Quote :

"Would it have done me any good? Rhetorical question, the fact that I wouldn't now be alive to pose it implies the answer. "

Hardly. If justice demands itself you could have enacted it after the fact. You could have initiated lawsuits, complaints, protests. Instead you let it go. Justice did not demand itself or the cop's actions were just.

Quote :

"If the distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies that the government uses to rationalize its policies convince the majority of people to remain loyal to the government - even to their own ruin - then that is their right. However, that does not give the government the right to use force against me or others like me who do not consent to be plundered or enslaved. "

Then you should leave the jurisdiction given to the government.

Quote :

"I seem to remember a little incident that went down about 146 years ago where it didn't exactly work out that way. "

Problem is, when people left, they tried to take teritory and propery which was the jurisdiction of the federal government, which is the downside to forming such alliances. When you give up some of your freedoms to join a larger body for protection, you do not get to take those freedoms back when you leave. You can only take yourself, because those freedoms you gave up now belong to the collective, and for you to take them would be you plundering the collective.

We can see a smaller example of this in what we call HOAs today. One joins an HOA and gives up their rights on their property for protection against others within the jurisdiction of the HOA. However, one does not get to leave the HOA and take their house and property with them, because that house and property is the jusidiction of the HOA and to take it with you would be to take from the HOA.

In otherwords, you are free to leave the association called the United States of America, but you can not take any property or valubles of the United States of America with you.

Quote :

"Yes, armor is t3h winz."

Although, perhaps if he had acted differently, maybe reacted to something that could have been threatening more forcefully, he wouldn't have had to have been shot in the first place. I don't know, you don't know, and the officer who pulled megaloman didn't know. The only person who knows what the intentions of the person a cop pulled over are is the person pulled over. Everyone else is guessing.

4/2/2007 12:01:39 PM

Quote :

"Problem is, when people left, they tried to take teritory and propery which was the jurisdiction of the federal government"

So the people of the various seceeding states voted democratically and overwhelmingly to separate from the Union, but they should have simply packed up and gone to Mexico, leaving their lands empty, because northerners, hundreds of miles away, have a stronger claim to it than the people who have lived on it for generations? What sense does that make.

4/2/2007 12:32:53 PM

this is fucked up

4/2/2007 12:43:14 PM

Not half an hour ago I just finished dealing with another example of police douchbaggary, and this time I didn't even have to leave my apartment, except to take out the garbage.

I'm taking the garbage out to the dumpster and this cop pulls up "You live in apartment X?"

I'm thinking, "oh shit, they've been reading the soap box."

But no, he's looking for my roomate.

He heads toward my apartment while I continue my journy toward the dumpster. I meet him on the way back and he is obviousely irritated, he gets in my face, starts grilling me, accuses me of calling my roomate and tipping him off, and even threatens to take me downtown.

I've never done anything notably illegal in my life and yet I don't even have to leave home to get harrassed by cops.

4/2/2007 1:15:28 PM

Is your roommate John Connor?

4/2/2007 1:21:15 PM

Quote :

"If said CCP holder pulls off the road in an attempt to stop and let the asshole pass and get far enough ahead, and the asshole instead pulls off the road as well and starts getting out of his car, surely one could reasonably see where the CCP holder might have reason to fear for his safety or life."

You seriously think that situation would be enough cause to pull and point a gun? Look at it from the asshole driver's point of view and assume he also has a CC permit. He moves to open his door and the other guy is branishing a handgun. Wouldn't he then be justified if he then drew and shot the guy?

Also, note that while tailgating is hardly grounds for lethal force, it's a hell of a lot more threatening than driving around with an expired tag.

Quote :

"When a cop has you detained or pulled over, making actions which he has not asked you to make, which put you in a position closer to him, better able to attack him or better able to reach a weapon can all reasonably be considered threats. If you've been stopped by a cop on the street, and suddenly you start digging in your pocket, he's going to reasonably assume you're threatening him trying to get at a weapon rather than assume you're about to offer him a piece of gum."

And I'm saying all of that is basically bullshit. None of it is reason for pointing a gun. Drawing, maybe, but certainly not pointing. I guess a lot of my view on this comes from Richard J. Maybury. It's an odd source for me, as he's a devout capitalist. But I read one of his books when I was younger, and it affected me. As he writes, pointing a gun at someone is unacceptable level of risk. Just holding a gun, on the other hand, is not. Cracking open a car door certainly is not.

I think cops are held to a different standard. They get to point their guns and shout whenever they want to. We civilians just have to trust them. I would consider it an unacceptable risk for a cop to point his gun at me, but he could, regardless of whether I'd actually threatened him. I couldn't legally respond as I would to another civilian threatening me with a firearm.

Quote :

"The fact that you feel they need better armor indicates you see that in the situations they are in, there is a greater chance of injury or death. I would rather the cop (and anyone) be able to avoid injury in the first place rather than trust armor to do the job."

That's all fine, if they can do it without presenting unacceptable risk to civilians in the process. The nice thing about armor is that is protects life without threatening or causing harm.

4/2/2007 8:01:42 PM

"para-military"

haha...idiot

4/2/2007 8:09:33 PM

Was the killer a SWAT guy? SWAT units are often considered to be paramilitary.

4/2/2007 8:14:37 PM

By all rights, in any interaction between a cop and a non-criminal, the private citizen should have more to fear than the pig. After all, the cop is obviously armed and armored, and can call on hundreds more armed and armored pigs to back him up at any time.

Yet, according to the law, if the private citizen produces a weapon of any sort, the cop is immediately justified in cutting him down. Conversely, if the cop draws and points his gun at the private citizen, he's just being cautious.

Some may argue that the cop, in fact, is the one that has the most to fear, and for all I know, they could be right.

However, If it is indeed true that cops are so reviled that they have to fear for their lives every time they interact with the public, maybe they're doing something wrong.

4/2/2007 9:39:35 PM

Quote :

"So the people of the various seceeding states voted democratically and overwhelmingly to separate from the Union, but they should have simply packed up and gone to Mexico, leaving their lands empty, because northerners, hundreds of miles away, have a stronger claim to it than the people who have lived on it for generations? What sense does that make."

They surrendered that land to the United States of America when they joined the union. Such is the danger and inevitable outcome of joining any group for protection or gain. The end result of a separation from that group is that you must either abandon your claim on any joint owned rights and property, negotiate a share of the joint property for yourself, or take what property you think you own and then stand willing to defend your claim to it. The southern states chose the latter of the options, and failed in the defense of their claim.

Quote :

"I've never done anything notably illegal in my life and yet I don't even have to leave home to get harrassed by cops."

Do you purposefuly attempt to annoy cops or otherwise get into confrontations with them? I have had many interactions with cops in my life and never once had any of the problems you seem to have on a regular basis.

Quote :

"You seriously think that situation would be enough cause to pull and point a gun?"

Are you telling me if you pulled off the road to allow an agressive driver to pass and they followed you and started getting out of their car, you would not fear for your safety?

Quote :

" Look at it from the asshole driver's point of view and assume he also has a CC permit. He moves to open his door and the other guy is branishing a handgun. Wouldn't he then be justified if he then drew and shot the guy?"

Nope, the asshole initiated the confrontation when he pulled over and started getting out, the law does not allow you to claim self defense when you initiate the confrontation.

Quote :

"Also, note that while tailgating is hardly grounds for lethal force, it's a hell of a lot more threatening than driving around with an expired tag. "

The tailgating wasn't the threat. The driver had no right to draw while he was being tailgated. It was the fact that the tailgater pulled over with him and got out of his car that was the threat to the driver's safety.

Quote :

"And I'm saying all of that is basically bullshit. None of it is reason for pointing a gun. Drawing, maybe, but certainly not pointing."

If you draw the gun, you are already threatening deadly force, the difference between drawing the gun and pointing it is negligeable at this stage except in that it would shorten your reaction time to point now as opposed to later.

Quote :

"As he writes, pointing a gun at someone is unacceptable level of risk. Just holding a gun, on the other hand, is not. "

Thankfuly the law (and reasonable people) are much more nauced than this. For example, I doubt you would feel any less threatend by a person standing with a gun in their hand (but not pointed at you ) saying "I'm gonna blow your fucking brains out" as opposed to the same person pointing the gun at you while saying that. The level of a threat that someone poses to you is the sum of all their actions and circumstances, not just one particular action.

Quote :

"I think cops are held to a different standard. "

Only while they are on duty, and only for certain standards and situations. However, cops are charged by the people to do things with no other person has the responsibility to do. Until such a day that we charge all people with the responsibility of maintaining law and order as a cop does, we will have special cases for things a cop may do that person normally may not. It's not a different standard so much as a different senario, a subtle but important difference.

Quote :

"By all rights, in any interaction between a cop and a non-criminal, the private citizen should have more to fear than the pig. After all, the cop is obviously armed and armored, and can call on hundreds more armed and armored pigs to back him up at any time."

In theory, an interaction between a cop and a non-criminal should involve no fear as neither has cause to threaten or harm the other, and the cop is charged as the defender and protector of the non criminal. That is why we issue cops uniforms and badges, so that non-criminals can identify the good guys from the bad guys.

It's also worth noting that your situation does not fall into this senario. With the expired license plates, you violated the law, which would make you a criminal. A minor one to be sure, but a criminal none the less.

Quote :

"Yet, according to the law, if the private citizen produces a weapon of any sort, the cop is immediately justified in cutting him down. Conversely, if the cop draws and points his gun at the private citizen, he's just being cautious."

Not at all. You have also now changed from non-criminal to private citizen, a superset which would include criminals. Furthermore, like most laws regarding deadly force, the senario at hand must be taken into account, but you are being intelectually dishonest here by pretending context does not matter.

Quote :

"Some may argue that the cop, in fact, is the one that has the most to fear, and for all I know, they could be right. However, If it is indeed true that cops are so reviled that they have to fear for their lives every time they interact with the public, maybe they're doing something wrong."

It is the inherrent nature of being charged with being the protector and keeper of the laws, and then being branded as such.

Consider, would you voluntarily walk into a neo-nazi convention with a label which identifies you as a black, homosexual jew? Would you fear for your safety if you did so?

Why then do we find it unreasonable that a cop should have fear for their safety when we put a shiny badge on them and have them walk through the streets of downtown LA or the back alleys of NYC?

Again, context matters, but you must remember that the context of a cop alway involved being identified as an agent of the state and all the good and bad associations that go with it. For example you clearly fear cops and react negatively to them, regardless of the situation at hand. You do that for no other citizen of the state.

[Edited on April 2, 2007 at 9:55 PM. Reason : edit]

4/2/2007 9:40:46 PM

Quote :

"They surrendered that land to the United States of America when they joined the union. Such is the danger and inevitable outcome of joining any group for protection or gain."

No, such is the danger only when joining a predatory, monopolistic state.

And with the example of the United States, the union was formed initially by a tiny, land owning elite. How does a group of people numbering perhaps 5-10% of the population acquire the authority to arbitrarily bind the remainder to their will? The formation of the US government is as naked a case of usurpation as history can provide.

4/2/2007 9:49:03 PM

^ Any collective organization will by it's nature be monopolistic as the purpose of any organization is to demand something from all of its members.

4/2/2007 9:56:44 PM

Quote :

"Are you telling me if you pulled off the road to allow an agressive driver to pass and they followed you and started getting out of their car, you would not fear for your safety?"

Not enough to point at gun, no.

Quote :

"Nope, the asshole initiated the confrontation when he pulled over and started getting out, the law does not allow you to claim self defense when you initiate the confrontation."

I call bullshit on that. You'll have to show me some cases. Tailgating and then pulling over isn't violent action or always a threat. Maybe the guy getting out of the car just wanted to curse at the other dude. A rude thing to do, but not an actual threat. Are you trying to tell me that if I get in an argument with someone, and he pulls a gun on me, I'm not justified in defending myself?

Quote :

"The tailgating wasn't the threat. The driver had no right to draw while he was being tailgated. It was the fact that the tailgater pulled over with him and got out of his car that was the threat to the driver's safety."

That's not good enough. If he advances with a weapon in hand or some such, then draw and point. Just getting out of the car doesn't cut it. Just cursing doesn't cut it.

Quote :

"If you draw the gun, you are already threatening deadly force, the difference between drawing the gun and pointing it is negligeable at this stage except in that it would shorten your reaction time to point now as opposed to later."

I don't agree. Having a gun at your side is not the same as pointing it at someone. Have you ever been out shooting with friends? Do you feel threatened by the fact that they're holding firearms? No, you don't. On the other hand, if somebody points a gun at you during target practice, that's serious shit. That's a threat. That's unacceptable risk.

Quote :

"Thankfuly the law (and reasonable people) are much more nauced than this."

No, that's the view reasonable people hold.

Quote :

"For example, I doubt you would feel any less threatend by a person standing with a gun in their hand (but not pointed at you ) saying "I'm gonna blow your fucking brains out" as opposed to the same person pointing the gun at you while saying that."

Actually, I would feel less threatened if the gun stayed at his side. On the hand, I agree that holding the gun and speaking the threat probably rises to an unacceptable level of risk. That doesn't mean holding the gun alone justifies a violent response.

Quote :

"The level of a threat that someone poses to you is the sum of all their actions and circumstances, not just one particular action."

I agree, but that can be taken way too far. This thread's case is a good example. For cops, the subjective perception of a threat is only thing that matters. That's bullshit. Just because multiple factors are involved doesn't mean anything goes.

Quote :

"It's also worth noting that your situation does not fall into this senario. With the expired license plates, you violated the law, which would make you a criminal. A minor one to be sure, but a criminal none the less."

Because of the all the trivial laws in this country, everyone's a fucking criminal. I can assure the cop who pulled our libertarian friend over was a criminal too. The cop still should have treated him civilly. Assuming everyone wants to kill you and reacting to everything with extreme paranoia doesn't win cops many allies.

Quote :

"Furthermore, like most laws regarding deadly force, the senario at hand must be taken into account, but you are being intelectually dishonest here by pretending context does not matter."

Basically, cops want to be the ones with a monopoly on violent power. They want to be able to pull a gun on you for any reason, and shoot you if did the same to them.

But you, of course, believe "context" explains all of this. We're all equal, but some are more equal than others.

4/2/2007 10:24:06 PM

Quote :

"Not enough to point at gun, no. "

Which is of course your discretion. What matters to the law though, is whether the person drawing feared for their life and wheather the jury feels that a reasonable person would fear for their life.

Quote :

"I call bullshit on that. You'll have to show me some cases."

On what? That you can't claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation or on following someone off the road and getting out of your car being a threat? If the first, you need look no further than section 14 (i believe) of the NC General Statutes. If the latter, maybe if I have time later I can find it, but I'm sure any reasonable person would consider that a threat on their person.

Quote :

"Are you trying to tell me that if I get in an argument with someone, and he pulls a gun on me, I'm not justified in defending myself? "

Depends on the context as always. In the case of the two motorists, pulling off the road could legally be considered as the first driver attempting to retreat and disengage from the "argument". Akin to you walking away from the argument. The second motorist pulling off the road would then be persuing the first, escalating the conflict. If you tried to leave a bar room argument and the other person continued to follow you out into the parking lot and chased after you, you could concieveably claim self defence. By contrast the person following you could not claim self defense as they did not allow you to leave the confrontation and thus continued to escalate the fight.

Quote :

"That's not good enough. If he advances with a weapon in hand or some such, then draw and point. Just getting out of the car doesn't cut it. Just cursing doesn't cut it. "

Again, context and what a reasonable person would percieve is what matters in law. Also note that before using deadly force, in law, a private citizen has a duty to retreat if possible. It would be easily argued that by pulling off the road to allow the agressive driver to pass, the first driver fufiled his duty to retreat.

Quote :

"I don't agree. Having a gun at your side is not the same as pointing it at someone. Have you ever been out shooting with friends? Do you feel threatened by the fact that they're holding firearms? No, you don't. On the other hand, if somebody points a gun at you during target practice, that's serious shit. That's a threat. That's unacceptable risk. "

Again, context matters. Out shooting with my friends, no. But just a few paragraphs above, you mentioned being legaly clear in terms of self defense if someone drew a gun during an argument. What happened to just holding it not being a threat?

Legally in a confrontation, drawing a weapon is threatening deadly force, regardless of where it is pointed.

Quote :

"Actually, I would feel less threatened if the gun stayed at his side. On the hand, I agree that holding the gun and speaking the threat probably rises to an unacceptable level of risk. That doesn't mean holding the gun alone justifies a violent response. "

As I said context is key.

Quote :

"I agree, but that can be taken way too far. This thread's case is a good example. For cops, the subjective perception of a threat is only thing that matters. That's bullshit. Just because multiple factors are involved doesn't mean anything goes. "

No it doesn't. And if megaloman truely felt the cops actions were unwaranted and unjust, he had a responsibility to file suit or at the very least issue a complaint. The only way to regulate the government and it's agents is to exercise your rights to control them.

Quote :

"Because of the all the trivial laws in this country, everyone's a fucking criminal. I can assure the cop who pulled our libertarian friend over was a criminal too. The cop still should have treated him civilly. "

Nothing posted suggested that after the situation deescalated that he wasn't treated with a measure of civility.

Quote :

"Basically, cops want to be the ones with a monopoly on violent power. They want to be able to pull a gun on you for any reason, and shoot you if did the same to them. "

And the people seem more than willing to legislate that right to them. Every law which limits the ability of a legal citizen to own and carry a weapon publicly is a law that further enforces that anyone with a weapon is a threat and criminal.

Quote :

"But you, of course, believe "context" explains all of this. We're all equal, but some are more equal than others."

We are all equal. And if you for whatever reason were charged with pulling someone over and issuing citations or possibly arresting them, I would extend the same leniency on your level of paranoia as I do to a cop. I don't understand what is so difficult to comprehend about this concept.

4/2/2007 11:53:11 PM

Quote :

"What matters to the law though, is whether the person drawing feared for their life and wheather the jury feels that a reasonable person would fear for their life."

It's often called an immediate threat of injury or death. Obviously, your reasonable and my reasonable are two very different things.

Quote :

"That you can't claim self defense if you initiate the confrontation or on following someone off the road and getting out of your car being a threat?"

Getting out of your car isn't a threat, even after tailgating.

Quote :

"If the first, you need look no further than section 14 (i believe) of the NC General Statutes."

I know you supposedly aren't allowed to defend yourself if you provoke a violent encounter. If most people use that section of the law as you do, I might just disagree with it. Unless you start the violence, you should be allowed to defend yourself.

Quote :

"If the latter, maybe if I have time later I can find it, but I'm sure any reasonable person would consider that a threat on their person."

I know all about you and your reasonable people. You better pray I'm never put on a jury.

Quote :

"If you tried to leave a bar room argument and the other person continued to follow you out into the parking lot and chased after you, you could concieveably claim self defence. By contrast the person following you could not claim self defense as they did not allow you to leave the confrontation and thus continued to escalate the fight."

Yeah, I think I disagree with this, then. I knew you could convince me. A confrontation does not necessarily lead to violence. Following someone to continue an argument is not a violent action.

Quote :

"Also note that before using deadly force, in law, a private citizen has a duty to retreat if possible."

Indeed.

Quote :

"It would be easily argued that by pulling off the road to allow the agressive driver to pass, the first driver fufiled his duty to retreat."

Except that tailgating isn't a violent action.

Quote :

"Nothing posted suggested that after the situation deescalated that he wasn't treated with a measure of civility."

Yeah, after the cop, at least by your "reasonable person" standard, threatened to kill him.

Quote :

"And the people seem more than willing to legislate that right to them."

True enough. As you know, that doesn't make it right.

Quote :

"Every law which limits the ability of a legal citizen to own and carry a weapon publicly is a law that further enforces that anyone with a weapon is a threat and criminal."

That's a good point.

Quote :

"And if you for whatever reason were charged with pulling someone over and issuing citations or possibly arresting them, I would extend the same leniency on your level of paranoia as I do to a cop. I don't understand what is so difficult to comprehend about this concept."

By any reasonable standard for self-defense, Megalo would have been justified in shooting the cop who pointed a gun at him. He did not initiate any sort of confrontation. He simply cracked his door open, and the cop responsed with an immediate threat of severe injury or death. The only thing protects the cop is his badge. Whatever you think about the tailgating case, I don't see how you can possibly argue that Megalo shouldn't have been allowed to defend himself, other than by invoking superior rights for police.

Does this seem like a problem to you?

4/3/2007 10:20:55 AM

Quote :

"It's often called an immediate threat of injury or death. Obviously, your reasonable and my reasonable are two very different things. "

Which is why we have jury trials so that all perceptions of reasonable may be weighed against the action.

Quote :

"Getting out of your car isn't a threat, even after tailgating. "

So you are telling me, that if you were being followed by an agressive driver, and you pulled off the road to allow him to pass, if he followed you off the road and then got out of his car you wouldn't fear for your safety? Legally a threat is determined by how the victim perceives the actions, not the intent of the agressor.

Quote :

"I know you supposedly aren't allowed to defend yourself if you provoke a violent encounter. If most people use that section of the law as you do, I might just disagree with it. Unless you start the violence, you should be allowed to defend yourself. "

The law is written in such a way to prevent someone from being able to start a confrontation, escalate it and claim self defense if the other person is seriously injured. It's also written that way to prevent you from being able to kill a retreating attacker. That is, if someone threatens you and you pull your gun, if they back down you can't shoot them. Basically if you voluntarily continue, escalate or provoke a confrontation, you can not claim self defense.

Quote :

"Yeah, I think I disagree with this, then. I knew you could convince me. A confrontation does not necessarily lead to violence. Following someone to continue an argument is not a violent action. "

Legally it is. You have attempted to extract yourself from the confrontation and you are now being followed, that is a threat. Of course, not all threats mean you can use deadly force, but legally you are still entitled to defend yourself as you are attempting to retreat.

Quote :

"Except that tailgating isn't a violent action."

Any action taken by another which voluntarily and knowingly puts you at greater risk to your safety (without your consent) is a violent action.

Quote :

"Yeah, after the cop, at least by your "reasonable person" standard, threatened to kill him."

He threatened to kill him if he continued in his course of action which was to the cop's eyes, a threat against his safety.

Quote :

"By any reasonable standard for self-defense, Megalo would have been justified in shooting the cop who pointed a gun at him. He did not initiate any sort of confrontation. He simply cracked his door open, and the cop responsed with an immediate threat of severe injury or death. The only thing protects the cop is his badge. Whatever you think about the tailgating case, I don't see how you can possibly argue that Megalo shouldn't have been allowed to defend himself, other than by invoking superior rights for police. "

He probably would have been justified and probably would have been cleared. The particular senario is one of those cases where it sucks to be on either end, and it's why the cop didn't just open fire right off the bat. Both the officer and megaloman could legally have been in the clear for shooting the other. That's the funny thing about these sort of senarios. Someone doesn't have to be wrong.

4/3/2007 12:04:01 PM

Quote :

"So you are telling me, that if you were being followed by an agressive driver, and you pulled off the road to allow him to pass, if he followed you off the road and then got out of his car you wouldn't fear for your safety?"

I would, yes, but I wouldn't consider it an immediate threat of serious injury or harm. As you know, you can't legally or morally respond to any sort of vague threat by draw and pointing a pistol. Hell, here in NC, at least, you can't use to lethal force to prevent simple assault. Unarmed attacks aren't normally considered deadly, so you can't shoot someone just to stop him or her from punching you. With that in mind, it seems dubious that you could shoot the guy for getting out of his car. And my understanding is that you're not supposed to display the weapon unless the situation calls for deadly force.

Quote :

"The law is written in such a way to prevent someone from being able to start a confrontation, escalate it and claim self defense if the other person is seriously injured."

Yeah, I understand the reasoning and it makes some sense. If "escalate" means violence or verbal threats of violence, than I agree with such rules. If it means a heated argument gives the other guy the right to pull a gun on me, I don't like it.

Quote :

"It's also written that way to prevent you from being able to kill a retreating attacker. That is, if someone threatens you and you pull your gun, if they back down you can't shoot them."

Yes, and I agree with that completely.

Quote :

"Any action taken by another which voluntarily and knowingly puts you at greater risk to your safety (without your consent) is a violent action."

That's far too vague and you know it. Speeding? Secondhand smoke? Etc.

Quote :

"He probably would have been justified and probably would have been cleared. The particular senario is one of those cases where it sucks to be on either end, and it's why the cop didn't just open fire right off the bat. Both the officer and megaloman could legally have been in the clear for shooting the other. That's the funny thing about these sort of senarios. Someone doesn't have to be wrong."

In my view, as you know, the cop was wrong. I agree it's something of a tough situation, but stricter standards for when brandishing a weapon is called for would have prevented it. Waiting until you see a weapon or hear a threat is more risky, but I think cops (and the rest of us) should have to take that risk. Pointing a gun a civilian may not cause any physical damage, but it creates considerable hostility toward the cop involved, as this thread demonstrates.

I also think cops may be too simplistic in their reaction to threats. Going for the pistol isn't always the correct move. I don't know if you've seen it, but there was a study that tested cops against a knife-wielding attacker. The cops almost always went for their guns, even though they didn't have a prayer of drawing and shooting fast enough to stop the attacker. Almost all of them ended up getting stabbed.

[Edited on April 3, 2007 at 4:36 PM. Reason : d]

4/3/2007 4:34:48 PM

I remember when I used to make long SB posts that were filled with quote boxes. Argument would rage for pages and pages and would run on tangents in all directions.

Then I realized that its much more efficient to call someone a stupid cunt and then move on with your day.

4/3/2007 4:40:10 PM

Yeah, before this, I hadn't had a good quote-bomb argument in some time.

4/3/2007 4:46:14 PM

Quote :

"I would, yes, but I wouldn't consider it an immediate threat of serious injury or harm. As you know, you can't legally or morally respond to any sort of vague threat by draw and pointing a pistol. Hell, here in NC, at least, you can't use to lethal force to prevent simple assault. Unarmed attacks aren't normally considered deadly, so you can't shoot someone just to stop him or her from punching you. With that in mind, it seems dubious that you could shoot the guy for getting out of his car. And my understanding is that you're not supposed to display the weapon unless the situation calls for deadly force. "

As always, the context of everything in the whole will determine the legality of the threat or use of deadly force. Certainly you could say that as a general rule such actions would not justify you in using deadly force, but certainly there are conceivable situations where it would. Out of curiosity, would you consider saying "Don't come any closer or I'll shoot" as deadly force on the same level of drawing the gun?

Quote :

"Yeah, I understand the reasoning and it makes some sense. If "escalate" means violence or verbal threats of violence, than I agree with such rules. If it means a heated argument gives the other guy the right to pull a gun on me, I don't like it. "

It doesn't give him the right to pull a gun, but it may seriously weaken any self defense claims.

Quote :

"That's far too vague and you know it. Speeding? Secondhand smoke? Etc. "

I figured you might do that. So fine, change it to any targeted action.

Quote :

"I agree it's something of a tough situation, but stricter standards for when brandishing a weapon is called for would have prevented it. Waiting until you see a weapon or hear a threat is more risky, but I think cops (and the rest of us) should have to take that risk. "

Perhaps, but at the same time you run the risk of unnessesarily increasing injuries or deaths as cops hesitate to act because they are unsure if they are justified. I think a better solution is to give cops a larger range of tools and skills to use and allow them a wide discretion in determining which tools to use when, and then severely correcting and punishing instances where that discretion was used incorrectly. Note that I am for harsher punishments for cops than for civilians in exchange for this wider discretion for use of force.

Quote :

"I also think cops may be too simplistic in their reaction to threats. Going for the pistol isn't always the correct move. I don't know if you've seen it, but there was a study that tested cops against a knife-wielding attacker. The cops almost always went for their guns, even though they didn't have a prayer of drawing and shooting fast enough to stop the attacker. Almost all of them ended up getting stabbed."

I haven't seen it, but certainly it's obvious that the gun isn't always the best move. Still I would be interested to see the study and what alternative courses of action they would have suggested. Of course, if the cop had drawn his gun before the knife wielding attacker got out of the car....

Quote :

"I remember when I used to make long SB posts that were filled with quote boxes. Argument would rage for pages and pages and would run on tangents in all directions. Then I realized that its much more efficient to call someone a stupid cunt and then move on with your day."

Perhaps, but you then deny yourself the bennefit of testing and stretching your views and opinions and defending them. If you can't defend your positions enough to satisfy yourself and at least reach a level of reasonable discourse with your opponent, then perhaps you need to rethink your positions.

4/3/2007 5:02:45 PM

Quote :

"Out of curiosity, would you consider saying "Don't come any closer or I'll shoot" as deadly force on the same level of drawing the gun?"

I'm not completely sure. It sounds fairly similar to drawing but not pointing the gun. I'm not certain I agree with it, but, as I understand CC laws, you can't draw or threaten to use your weapon unless the situation calls for the use of deadly force. It doesn't mean you have to shoot, of course, but you're not allowed to show the pistol and say, "Hey, I'm packing, so don't start anything, okay?"

Quote :

"Note that I am for harsher punishments for cops than for civilians in exchange for this wider discretion for use of force."

Well, some punishment of cops would certainly help. These days, it seems as if cops can shoot whomever they want and then claim, "Well, I was scared." This case is probably the worst example I've ever seen, but I still doubt the cop who fired will even lose his job.

Quote :

"Still I would be interested to see the study and what alternative courses of action they would have suggested."

Darren Laur, who conducted the test, suggests the active defense of trying to control the arm holding the knife. He also believes you're bound to get cut and should focus on limiting the damage. I don't completely agree with that because of my Western Martial Arts studies, but his advice seems basically sound. It is extremely hard to defend yourself perfectly against a surprise knife attack. Simply running away would have worked better than what most of the cops did. Taking a single step back while drawing the pistol failed completely.

Quote :

"Of course, if the cop had drawn his gun before the knife wielding attacker got out of the car...."

Well, there was no car in the cases I saw, but having the gun out indeed would have helped. But you can't count on bullets stopping an attacker who is charging at you from twenty or fewer feet away.

4/3/2007 5:38:30 PM

good job cops, how sporting of you to gank that lone marine

4/3/2007 6:27:17 PM

Quote :

"Well, some punishment of cops would certainly help. These days, it seems as if cops can shoot whomever they want and then claim, "Well, I was scared." This case is probably the worst example I've ever seen, but I still doubt the cop who fired will even lose his job. "

I should certainly hope these cops lose their jobs. And if the ongoing trial in NYC over that other shooting is any indication, they very well could. The situation in NYC was another one of those shitty situations where some of the cops actions were justified and some of the civilian's actions were justified, but had things happened differently people wouldn't be dead. Still 3 of the 5 involved officers are indicted, and I would assume a very similar outcome here if not more so, as I really don't see any justification here.

Quote :

"Well, there was no car in the cases I saw, but having the gun out indeed would have helped. But you can't count on bullets stopping an attacker who is charging at you from twenty or fewer feet away."

True. I suppose then what we need is as I said, more and better tools and training for the cops to respond to as many possible and changing situations as they can without overburdening them with strict guidlines as to what tools can only be used when.

4/3/2007 8:20:17 PM

Quote :

"Still 3 of the 5 involved officers are indicted, and I would assume a very similar outcome here if not more so, as I really don't see any justification here."

We'll have to wait and see what happens. The Sean Bell case is a least a bit gray. I can understand why they shot. On the other hand, even if someone in the car had been armed, blowing everything away as they did seems a dumb move. I'm not sure groups of cops should ever be allowed to open fire. Those guys can't hit shit. Bullets fly everywhere. Most of the shots missed the car. They nearly hit some folks in a train station half a block away. Broken glass injured two Port Authority patrolmen there.

This thread's case showed you what a cop needs to be accurate: three tasers sticking in the victim.

4/3/2007 10:32:07 PM

ya'll have made my head hurt

4/4/2007 8:13:59 AM

i guess thats what happens when cops try to read

4/4/2007 9:38:49 AM