@AC Sorry but that's rediculous. Why would sentencing people to life in prison for an crime that doesn't justify it be good? Especially when you don't even thing a murderer deserves the death penalty? Wow, here's a thought how about putting people in prison for life for farting.
Saving the empovershed by empoverishing their counterparts will empoverish the whole.
Ugh, for the love of fuck, don't stereotype people. I'm the guy who thinks murderers and serial rapists both deserve to be fried.Especially when you don't even thing a murderer deserves the death penalty?
A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."
-- Stephen Crane
I agree. The 2nd Amendment was designed to curb abuses of government. It made no mention of citizen-on-citizen crime. However....Quote by: barts
If citizens can "stand their ground" and shoot other citizens, perceived threats from cops should get the bullet treatment as well. We need consistency in our armed nation.
“I’m not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said whatever it was.”
Mitt Romney
Bad solutions to real problems don't fix the real problem. This law is stupid, not because citizens don't deserve protection from bad police procedures, but because it doesn't solve the problem of bad police procedures and instead, opens the door to unnecessary violence against honest cops.
All I see when I look down, something jumpin' on the ground, Scratchin' dirt, cluckin' in the barnyard -
Tell me, could that be you?
John Kay
Unfortunately, the citizens don't have much power to implement or control adherence to police procedures. They can, however, pass laws. It may not be the best solution to the problem, but it may be the only practical one available. Would you rather nothing be done?
I upped my income, up yours.
No, doing nothing is not a solution either. What I would rather happen is that law makers would not craft poorly conceived law in order to appear to be taking some action. To begin with, the case that freaked everyone out so much was not wrongly decided. The reason we have habeus corpus protections is so that a court can release the wrongly held/ arrested. In the real world, the vast majority of people arrested claim a "mistake" is being made and they are not guilty of anything. And many, many guilty individuals resist being taken into custody. In order to do their jobs at all, the police have to have the right to detain suspects, even when they are loudly protesting their innocence. And the average citizen has to have faith that the courts will do their job and accept that resisting arrest is not a viable option.
All I see when I look down, something jumpin' on the ground, Scratchin' dirt, cluckin' in the barnyard -
Tell me, could that be you?
John Kay
Link?
I upped my income, up yours.
I am distinctly okay with this.
If police enter my home in an obviously illegal (so illegal it can be proven in a court of law) manner, I should have the right to shoot the everloving fuck out of them.
Having seen what it's like in New Orleans and Miami, this is not an unnecessary right at least in some places. If the state of Indiana wants to make me absurdly happy I would also like the right to videotape police in public settings, the better to ensure they're even more afraid to do some of the things they frequently do to people. It's time to put the fear of God back into our civil servants.
Last edited by Thanatos; 16th June 2012 at 04:57 AM.
The more you complain, the less I care about your problems.
I honestly agree. Legislation that would hold police far more accountable, with a greater degree of punitive measures for abuse of authority, would go much farther for the citizen in respect toward protection from abuse.
Dear Optimist, Pessimist and Realist, while you guys were arguing about the glass of water, I drank it! ~ Sincerely, the Opportunist.
From my understanding, as of September 1st, 2011, a federal appeals court ruled it is a 1st amendment right for Americans to videotape police while they are working.
Dear Optimist, Pessimist and Realist, while you guys were arguing about the glass of water, I drank it! ~ Sincerely, the Opportunist.
It would be better if weapons of all kind were absent and then we would have nothing to fear beside insults.
However we live in a society where violence is seen as a legitimate way to interact with other people. The police ratify this by their approach to maintaining law and order. Apparently it is so because the question of killing someone comes up in this context.
I have never had to decide to kill someone or not to kill them.
I'd like to see them pass this law in NYC as black people in that town could use the protection of the law in this area of public service. It seems to me from reading the news that blacks and minorities are singled out by the police in NYC for the purpose of abuse and sometimes just for the sake of killing them. A law like this in NYC would help the oppressed classes. I imagine the police would be opposed to the law. It would be reasonable to think they would be opposed. But then when you think of it, there seems to have been a revolt of the public servants in this nation. They no longer want to obey or respect their master.
Does this include knifes, sticks, clubs, rocks, whips, bombs, black powder etc?
I think one look at human ingenuity would prove without fail that there is no conceivable way whatsoever to abolish all weapons. Or are you one of those people that thinks if we destroyed all guns in the world that people would no longer harm each other?
Just black people or are you one those people that thinks police only abuse black people?I'd like to see them pass this law in NYC as black people in that town could use the protection of the law in this area of public service.
Dear Optimist, Pessimist and Realist, while you guys were arguing about the glass of water, I drank it! ~ Sincerely, the Opportunist.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks