TexasTitan
Well-known member
Smart or dumb, Im still right. I forgot what a brilliant mind you are as well. "All police are powerhungry corrupt facists!" :trout:
Sheriff Joe
- Thread starter Fastone
- Start date
Smart or dumb, Im still right. I forgot what a brilliant mind you are as well. "All police are powerhungry corrupt facists!" :trout:
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Sorry, it was the part where you self-righteously called anyone who consumes over 3 beers, or enjoys an occasional intoxication, immature.
Has nothing to do with anything else, nor did I ever say that, did I?
But keep getting down with your bad self.
TexasTitan
Well-known member
That has nothing to do with anything else, nor did I ever say that, did I? Learn reading comprehension. I said I personally do not. I didnt condemn it, I just said I grew out of it in response to the whiny bitch mocking my mostly sober lifestyle. Would you not agree he has some growing up to do? Get over yourself. You did say the majority of police were courrupt thugs. Facist was implied, especially in light of your comments regarding sheriff Joe enforcing laws with zeal.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Impying that those that have MORE than 3 beers have not grown up.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Quote me where I said that, please.
And my comments were about him BREAKING THE LAW and VIOLATING THE CONSTITION, there Einstein.
Perhaps your reading comprehension comment should have been restrained?
TexasTitan
Well-known member
Thats in your opinion and subjective. Einstein. Regardless, fascism this aint.
Far Greater = Majority
Thugs = Thugs.
Majority of police are thugs.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Did you miss the important part of the sentence where I put "are my experience" and "that I've met", meaning a comparison based on...you guessed it, my experience?
And really...an armed force that can break the law of the land with no penalty is NOT fascism?
Hmm..boots must be tasty.
TexasTitan
Well-known member
I said, I grew up and out of that partying lifestyle. Nothing about anything else.
They arent breaking the law. You think they are, you have no definitive proof. Innocent until proven guilty no? Oh wait, that only applies to the criminals who are all victims. The justice dept. wont ever get involved with this. I think youre just honed in on the man rape.
I forgot that "in your expierience" will nullify anything said before it. Thats like saying, all black people are stupid in my expierience, but then trying to play it off like "well thats not everybody so I didnt mean it." Yeah, that would fly. The statement would still stand, you said the majority of police are thugs.
Seriously, are you off your soapbox yet?
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Seriously, I stand by my first statement. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
You are apparently unfamiliar with the deputy that stole the defense lawyers papers, and was PLACED IN JAIL by the judge, you know because he commited a ****ing crime, while Sheriff Joe wanted to go head to head with her, defending his actions. I'll clue you in here...he lost because he was wrong.
He is being investigated for 4th amendment violations as well, if memory serves correctly.
And obviously you are ignorant about what goes on in jail, your 15 year old homosexual accusations notwithstanding. Grew up, indeed.
TexasTitan
Well-known member
And you learned all of this from a TV show no? You know, the unbiased non spun TV shows that always show both sides? A deputy is one person, Sherrif Joe is another. He was placed in jail? No doubt he deserves the man rape before hes tried but the criminals dont.
He was investigated for profiling hispanic people when looking for illegal immigrants, and nothing came of it. That was march, last year.
You really need to get your head out of your lap, you're not exactly a scholarly mind. Its getting really old to hear your rattle on about dumb Im purported to be while you must be the chairman of MENSA.
EasyEJL
Never enough
see thats where him as border patrol would be perfect, as the people illegally crossing the border aren't citizens and don't have the same constitutional rights
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
I did my time serving the country, and I swore to protect the constitution...not douchbags with badges who's "protectin the good old merkin" by wiping his ass with the Constitution, no matter what intent.
The cops I know and like agree whole heartedly. The rest can die in a fire, because they are no better than criminals. The ones that refuse to speak out against it are just as bad.
As for your likes, your opinion means less than zero to me, so keep hurling your insults if you wish.
TexasTitan
Well-known member
You must be under the impression that I hold your opinion near and dear.
By the by, you hate Sherrif Joe's facist "regime" no? Then how can you say thing that are just so facist.
"The cops I know and like agree whole heartedly. The rest can die in a fire,"
-dsade
"I like the people that think like me, if they dont, they can go to hell."
-translation
That. Is. Facism. Aint that a bitch. You are such a hypocrite. You are perfectly comfortable with fascism as long as you agree with it. What a joke you are. Im done with this. Continue into the romantic sunset when you fight against the evil oppressors. Dont worry, California is so broke, you wont have a police force much longer anyways.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Invalid Link Removed
really...this is all.
Feds Look into Sheriff Joe Arpaio Abuse of Power Allegations
By Kamika Dunlap on January 15, 2010 12:15 PM | No TrackBacks
The Department of Justice has impaneled a federal grand jury to investigate allegations of abuse of power by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.
According to the Associated Press, Sheriff Joe Arpaio initially said he was unaware of the federal grand jury probe despite subpoenas sent to at least two county officials.
Federal officials have been investigating whether Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his office are using their power to retaliate against critics.
America's self-proclaimed "toughest sheriff" now faces intense scrutiny from the federal government.
But this isn't the first time the feds have come down on Arpaio for using county's resources to go after illegal immigrants under federal immigration laws.
As previously discussed Arpaio was deposed in a civil suit over his immigration raids (where he said he has not in fact read all of his own co-authored book, and is not too fresh on the 4th amendment).
The conflicts appeared to have escalated recently since Sheriff Joe Arpaio stepped up his investigations of county officials amid heated political feuds over budget cuts and other issues.
As previously discussed, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has long clashed with county authorities over his harsh anti-immigration tactics.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio is widely known for tough jail policies, making inmates wear pink underwear, serving them green bologna sandwiches and making inmates listen to his holiday hits playlist, as previously discussed.
Typically, a federal grand jury is impaneled at the end of an investigation to determine if a crime has been committed. If it believes there is sufficient evidence that the crime was committed, it will hand up an indictment.
Proceedings, which can last for months, will remain secret until the grand jury decides whether to issue an indictment.
The secrecy of the proceedings is intended to encourage witnesses to speak freely without fear of retaliation, such as threats from someone who does not like their testimony.
really...this is all.
Feds Look into Sheriff Joe Arpaio Abuse of Power Allegations
By Kamika Dunlap on January 15, 2010 12:15 PM | No TrackBacks
The Department of Justice has impaneled a federal grand jury to investigate allegations of abuse of power by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.
According to the Associated Press, Sheriff Joe Arpaio initially said he was unaware of the federal grand jury probe despite subpoenas sent to at least two county officials.
Federal officials have been investigating whether Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his office are using their power to retaliate against critics.
America's self-proclaimed "toughest sheriff" now faces intense scrutiny from the federal government.
But this isn't the first time the feds have come down on Arpaio for using county's resources to go after illegal immigrants under federal immigration laws.
As previously discussed Arpaio was deposed in a civil suit over his immigration raids (where he said he has not in fact read all of his own co-authored book, and is not too fresh on the 4th amendment).
The conflicts appeared to have escalated recently since Sheriff Joe Arpaio stepped up his investigations of county officials amid heated political feuds over budget cuts and other issues.
As previously discussed, Sheriff Joe Arpaio has long clashed with county authorities over his harsh anti-immigration tactics.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio is widely known for tough jail policies, making inmates wear pink underwear, serving them green bologna sandwiches and making inmates listen to his holiday hits playlist, as previously discussed.
Typically, a federal grand jury is impaneled at the end of an investigation to determine if a crime has been committed. If it believes there is sufficient evidence that the crime was committed, it will hand up an indictment.
Proceedings, which can last for months, will remain secret until the grand jury decides whether to issue an indictment.
The secrecy of the proceedings is intended to encourage witnesses to speak freely without fear of retaliation, such as threats from someone who does not like their testimony.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Christ you are dumb.
Actually, the cops the UPHOLD RULE OF LAW, EVEN IN THEIR OWN BEHAVIOR AND AGREE THAT COPS DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO OTHERWISE. Versus cops that think their gun and job give them carte blanche to do as they please, including constitutional violations, as well as the cops that SEE this all happening, yet are too cowardly to stand up against it.
Yep...exactly as you translated, you schmuck.
TexasTitan
Well-known member
Oh a blog on the internet. Thats solid.
TexasTitan
Well-known member
Justification does not change that statement from being facist. You just said, people who agree with you are good, people who dont can go to hell. There is no changing that. Christ, you are dumb. "Keep hurling insults"
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Because a 4-second google search to confirm is hard, I know.
It's ok, champ..take a break.
I have better things to do.
TexasTitan
Well-known member
No way, internet blogs are the most reputable, factual, non biased sources on the internet.
nparisi
Active member
LOL I'm not saying people need to go out and get f'n crazy but when you cross the realm into lecturing and preaching to complete strangers, it's a bit much. You don't know me at all. I don't know you so maybe you're not boring but I do know I've wasted too much time on this circular arguing. I'm not in a hurry to "grow up", I'm doing just fine and still having a good time. I was done whining in my initial post I just wanted to get my grievances out but you've been harassing me.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Keep making yourself look good..please do.
By the way, it was on CNN as well, when the douche admitted "he wasn't real familiar with the 4th amendment."
Must ba all fantasy...keep the earplugs in screaming LALALALALALA.
timmmah
Active member
Exactly
timmmah
Active member
Just because Joe said that he wasn't familiar with the fourth amendment doesn't mean he not doing the job our forefathers intended to be done.
Do you really know all the ratifications to the fourth amendment?
Under Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrant less search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads that officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot"
Pretty big Grey area installed to catch drug traffickers, if you ask me.
P.S. And it works.
Do you really know all the ratifications to the fourth amendment?
Under Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrant less search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads that officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot"
Pretty big Grey area installed to catch drug traffickers, if you ask me.
P.S. And it works.
kingjameskjf
Well-known member
see thats where him as border patrol would be perfect, as the people illegally crossing the border aren't citizens and don't have the same constitutional rights
good point
So your saying that if you don't agree with a cop's opinion that differs from yours, that they must therefor be criminals and have no value or merit in their opinions? I'm not trying to provoke an arguement but isn't that a little narrow minded?
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
If you had read the further explananation you would not be asking this.
Despising and calling criminals those that disagree with your assertion that children should not be molested makes you narrow minded (you know, narrow minded against those that do molest children)?
Violating the rights of others MAKES one a criminal by definition and federal statute, and should in NO way be tasked with enforcing the laws on other people. They should be held to a higher standard of behaviour at most, but at the very least should not be allowed to get away with doing things that would land others in prison.
kingjameskjf
Well-known member
sorry, there so much pointless bickering I didn't feel the need to read it all! BTW, agreed with this asertion.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
My belated resolution is to be more patient.
Chops89
Member
While Terry v. Ohio only requires a "reasonable suspicion", it also only allows for an EXTREMELY limited search (i.e. no further than frisking the outer clothing to check for weapons) meant only to protect the safety of the officer rather than gathering evidence for a conviction. This is where the "stop and frisk" comes from.
Zero V
Well-known member
You mean like our presidency, senate, house of rep, all of the federal, state, and local branches of government do????
*Shock and awe!!!* How could sheriff joe do that...
Our constitutional rights were raped and plundered long ago. You want to defend the constitution, why dont you take it back from a traitorous government that has turned on its own people in favor of money...
Because today, its just a piece of paper that is used by anyone for their own personal desires.
Not every one deserves the same level of rights you know. A rapist, is in no way on par with an honest man. And should be put into a sub standard level of rights and freedoms. Defending criminals from hardship is one of the reasons why America has fallen into such a disorganized screwed up spitball of chaos and filth.
That is simple truth. A man who makes a mistake *may* deserve a second chance depending on ALOT that cannot be addressed by a piece of paper. But more on a personal judgement from the honest. The death penalty is used too little in my opinion as well.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Back to being that ideal christian again, i see.
Zero V
Well-known member
Not at all. I mentioned nothing about faith. I would appreciate if you quite trying your circle jerk psychology, it is below a man of your stature.
This is on a man-man level. How can you expect a man to have the desire to uphold the law if the very fabric of it is twisted? Would you wear a coat that gives you a rash?
I would likely think not, but then again you never know.
Point being is the law used to hold men accountable to the wicked they had done, today this is not so.
For raping an 18 year old girl, and ruining her life, her self respect, her relationships, doing far more psychological damage than can be repaired....can be worse than murder.
And a man who does that, will get free medical care, 3 meals a day, free college education....
Explain to me, what is just my friend. If you think that is justice, you are honestly one of Americas problems...And I mean that with all due respect. I am just very tired of idiots and the wicked further trampling our once amazing nation into the dung-heap of the world.
This is on a man-man level. How can you expect a man to have the desire to uphold the law if the very fabric of it is twisted? Would you wear a coat that gives you a rash?
I would likely think not, but then again you never know.
Point being is the law used to hold men accountable to the wicked they had done, today this is not so.
For raping an 18 year old girl, and ruining her life, her self respect, her relationships, doing far more psychological damage than can be repaired....can be worse than murder.
And a man who does that, will get free medical care, 3 meals a day, free college education....
Explain to me, what is just my friend. If you think that is justice, you are honestly one of Americas problems...And I mean that with all due respect. I am just very tired of idiots and the wicked further trampling our once amazing nation into the dung-heap of the world.
dpfisher
Guest
But uh, that's not what we are talking about at all?
Zero V
Well-known member
which part, I was talking about Sheriff Joe doing things different which is a bonus in at least some way do to traditional methods having failed us and that those who disagree with his methods and use a piece of paper to do so, one thats power was revoked long ago are in the black when it comes to seeing things clearly.
I didnt read all the posts though so I assume you could be addressing something else father back?
dpfisher
Guest
So you belong in his tent city? Why not? Don't cite "laws" or "rights", that's just some pieces of paper that have failed us.
Zero V
Well-known member
Either your grammar is really bad, or you don't speak proper English. I cant really make out the way you are trying to saw what you are trying to get across.
If you are talking about the laws that put the men in that position to be subjected to Sheriff Joe's idea of justice(which would save the nation almost enough to send real men and women to college at affordable rates if done in ever jail) then it doesn't have to be paper.
There are unwritten laws of man, rules that are expected to be followed without any physical documentation. Its just that the masses, and people who love to abuse such laws or try and avoid them, are so incompetent and stupid that it has to be written, revised,re-written, re-revised,amended,etc,etc,etc.
Simple laws that man follows by nature is not to murder, not to steal, not to harm others. Essentially every breakable law is based off of these things. And those are nature, not paper.
How can someone be upset when a criminal is actually paying for their crimes and serving the community in the process? Those animals are being taken care of, the community has a lessened burden, and financially he is probably the smartest man to run a jail(in America) this century.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
and some of us really will not put up with having our cars stopped and ransacked with no evidence just "because" some cop felt like it. It's called the 4th amendment. Look it up.
You now have more admitted knowledge about this fundamental constitutional right than Sheriff Joe.
See the problem yet? No? Well, the man DOESN'T CARE what your fundamental rights are...maybe he doesn't like you, so he'll do whatever he damn well feels like.
Zero V
Well-known member
I did not say he was the best thing since sliced bread. But our current court system has failed without a doubt. At least he is accomplish something in a field where most others fail.
The point you make with the car is a good one yes. At the same time, if someone pretty much looks like he is smuggling some coke, and you know he is, but because of paperwork you cant do a damn thing...I hate that more than an innocent being inconvenienced for 6-10 minutes. Other than impatience, nothing was really lost. Dont look like a criminal and you really wouldnt have to deal with it lol(sarcasm there).
Officers should be held to a high moral standard, above normal citizens. Sadly they are not(even though we pretend they are). They used to be, but not with the declining standards of morality in the United States.
If they were held to that level though, if a cop felt the need to search someone it should not require a judges authorization for a warrant that during the meantime the guy can get rid of evidence.
Search and seizure is something that is touch and go. I understand, I dont want some stiff coming up in my house rambling through my things and leaving not finding anything. But I would not say No, because I have nothing to hide.
People use "vague" arguments stating no one wants a cop doing that to them. But most people find nothing wrong with it because they have nothing to hide, its mostly the ones who are worried they could get in trouble some day.
My theory? Initiate a apologetics fee that the state would pay to each individual found to be wrongfully searched(produced nothing). Seriously, you stop and waste 5 minutes of a guy's time, find nothing, he gets a $20 stub from the state. That would force cops to be more sure, and hell I would give up 5 minutes for a 20. At the same time they would get a slip that by law excuses them from being docked at work or anywhere else they had to be.
Of course medical personal would be issued cards that if they were on call, or to work they could not be bothered without an actual warrant.
I do realize there are problems with this idea as well. Every method will have problems, the thing is, which method will produce results for the betterment of our country and people?
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Depends on your definition. There are impediments to poli ce actions because, like any other individual, police can be corrupted by that kind of power. Look at a cop funny? Stop and search. Doesn't like your rice burner? Stop and search.
By what right?
Betterment of country to me is this ass gets prosecuted for rights violations, and cops found abusing authority punished severely. Build a special "cops only" prison, if necessary, but have it on THEIR records so they then can be harrassed for life.
Zero V
Well-known member
Actually I agree for alot of this.
My theory is give cops more power and freedom to do whats "needed". Yet hold them to a strict high code of morality. And violation of this code will be treated as TREASON. Because you did not fail yourself, you failed and betrayed the nation that entrusted its protection and justice to you.
You know what the penalty for treason is...its the last law we have that if broken has only 1 penalty and is judged not by the courts, but by a special tribunal.
That is what we need. A system by which our officers are judged in a tribunal manner and held to standards higher than your average joe, with harsh penalties for such things as racism, sexism, and corruption.
And in return, we give them the power they really need to get things actually done for once. We are not winning the drug or gang wars, our police and court systems are red taped.
Actually as stupid and cliche as this sounds, think back to judge dredd LOL.
Guilty of obvious murder(seen it firsthand)? On the spot execution. Simple, saves a crap ton of money and time.
Crime pays anymore, why not do it? A thief used to lose their hands, a rapist lost their wang, a murderer lost their life. Today they get things that normal people cant(like health care).
You know how many people I have found out commit petty crimes to go to college in jail or get health care for a serious issue at the peoples cost???
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
We are not winning the drug war because it is unwinnable, not because cops need even MORE power. The more they push, the more lucrative it becomes, and more the one who succeed are the ones willing to be more brutal than their competitors.
All so someone can get high in their home?
Zero V
Well-known member
I dont believe in getting high. I see nothing wrong with some one smoking weed, if it is done responsibly(same with drinking you know). Other drugs which only serve destructive(physically and mentally) purposes have no place though, even in their home. Again, morality issues. A person can drink a little or get high a little and do no real damage.
The problem again is each individual is different. While some(a very small %) will do it with intelligence and self respect, most given that freedom(look at clubbing and party goers) will abuse it.
Honestly in my house, not gona happen. But in someone else's, well that is 'mostly' their business. Crack heads have no place in a society though.
We are losing the drug war not because of that, but because we are not strict.
Simply put I think our Jails should be 1/4th as full as they are nationwide. Drugs dealing is something I think should fall into the same spectrum as murder with as bad as it has become.(not say low level crap, but crackheads and meth-heads have their lives ruined thanks to a supplier). So the supplies should be held accountable for the kind of damage they do to society. As in destroy them equally...Hence the freedom for them to be "executed". They are technically responsible for the ruined lives, the dead children, the parentless children, the deformed children...
Not saying this is a full proof awesome plan. But a change is needed, because what we are doing has failed.
CDB
Registered User
The problem with this view though is that is pressumes cops, and the government in general, don't want the power, but when they do need it, do want to be held to a high standard. Simply put, this is against human nature. People want the greatest return for the least effort; hence they will take 'return' in the form of increased power as much as possible but will systemically resist restrictions in the form of high standards. What you're saying is you truly think there's a practical possibility of getting the fox to pay for the chickens he kills after trusting him to guard the coup.
We are not winning the war on drugs because it is unwinnable. Every 'success' in the drug war merely restricts supply and adds further profit incentive for existing and new dealers to bring more supply to the market. Every racheting up of penalties drives the manufacture and distribution of drugs into the hands of progressively less scrupulous and more violent people, drives addicts to progessively greater acts of depravity and crime to support their habits, and puts more and more casual users at risk of punishment far out of proportion for the supposed 'crime' they committed of using an unapproved of intoxicant. And the red tape is not a failure, it's the point. It's where the money is and why the wars keep going despite near total and consistent failure to produce demonstrable 'victory'.
Your analysis of the supposed difference between weed and alcohol and other drugs is unsupported, sophmoric, incorrect, and ridiculously naive. Taking drugs, any drugs, does not per se involve any inherrent harm or risk to any other person or their property. As such a law against it is improper and not consistent with a free society. If you don't want to live in a free society, fine. Outlaw whatever you want. It's a reprehensible frame of mind, but be my guest, and don't bitch and complain when something you like to do that isn't per se harmful to others ends up on the prohibitted list and lands your ass in the slammer. And if you think that's unlikely to happen, just remember last century more people were killed for arbitrary reasons by their own governments than by any other known cause on the planet. Over 170 million last century alone, and you can bet the people doing the killing weren't concerned about the moral bounds of their power and being held to high standards should they exceed those bounds.
And when what wasn't so obvious becomes obvious and an innocent person has been killed...
Or, more to the point, if the potential death of innocents doesn't disuade your overall goal of timely and harsh punishment, that's your right. Just make sure you personally offer up your mother, father, sons or daughters, or wife or husband, or who ever you love the most in this world as the first innocent sacrifice for the greater good. Because if you're not willing to sacrifice your own, you've got brass balls in the worst sense expecting others to do so.
Crime pays because of the apparatus that's currently in place that specifically asserts the kind of authority you want. What you don't realize is the government nor the government run cops don't give a ****. They, like everyone else, follow incentives. And when you substitute the state as the victim of any crime - which our legal system does, ie. 'crimes agains the ______ of...' or the supposed "'people' of..." this or that county or state - then having someone sit in jail getting health care and education, room and board, etc., on the tax payer's dime and thus partially paid for by the actual victim of the crime itself, makes perfect sense. It gives the greatest return to the state apparatus. Repeat offenders are not a problem the state wants solved, they're a continuing source of revenue and work. What incentive is their to remove them from society in any way shape or form when they guarantee jobs and income to so many cops, judges, lawyers, social workers, prison guards, government construction contracts for prisons and welfare centers, mandatory psychological exams and detainment, etc., etc., etc.?
Indeed. I know a guy, dead now, who use to shoplift something fierce every September to get thrown in jail where he'd get shelter for the winter and his AIDS meds. Peaches was his name, that was his game. Where you're missing the mark is in thinking that anyone currently or potentially has any incentive to stop that kind of game. The people who benefit from it in terms of ever increasing legal authority and power, and monetary income far out weight those who would get moral satisfaction from seeing it resolved some other way.
'Sherif Joe' is a perfect example of a mindless police state drone who deserves every punishment he has visited on others visited back on him 100 fold. It's the only potential way an idiot like him might learn a thing or two about morality and ethics, and treating other people as free human beings as opposed to lap dogs of the state who are only supposed to do what they're told by their betters, a group which I'm sure 'Sherif Joe' sees himself as belonging to despite his simple minded and disgusting views and behavior toward his fellow humanity.
kingjameskjf
Well-known member
Stereotyping or just too many movies? Cops are held accountable and there is a process for that. There's the general interdepartmental discipline and then there's internal affairs. If it's something on a large enough scale and rampant then there's the Department of Justice. Does that mean that some won't slip through the cracks? Of course not but there is a system of checks and balances in place.
Further, if you/whoever has such a problem with the war on drugs and want to dope it up, then that's their choice. The laws are put in place through legislation by people that WE appoint to speak for us! So, who's fault is it if we don't agree with the law? Ours. Does that mean I agree or like with all the laws out there? Absolutely not, but I understand the system and adhere to it.
dsade
NutraPlanet Fanatic
Apparently you didn't read the post I was responding to, from the one who recommended pretty much unfettered power to police.
Because, you know, they are unimpeachable saints above any kind of petty personal feelings and institionalized corruption. Movies? How about history books and current accusations/investigations.
CDB
Registered User
Very, very naive and uninformed view of how our government actually works. First off, the people in office are more selected than elected, and they gerrymander their districts and use other tricks to make re election much more likely despite popular will. Two, many people in the government are simply appointed, not elected. Three, legislation at all levels is more the result of special interest compromise than anything 'we' or 'the people' actually want. Most of 'we' or 'the people' are rationally ignorant of the machinations of government because by and large it is irrelevant to their lives. Four, regulations are often put in place via legal procedure and other means which have the force of law and which are barely if at all subject to approval by 'we' or 'the people'. And finally Five, the whole purpose of a democratic republic with a written constitution, which is what 'we' are supposed to have, is that to a certain extent it doesn't matter one hill of **** what 'we' or 'the people' want from those we supposedly appoint to speak for us, because the government is supposed to be limited in scope and function and budget with individual people left alone by and large to run their own lives and solve their own problems.
Half right. You may adhere to it, you seem to have little understanding of it.
dpfisher
Guest
You are as much as criminal, if not more, than many people in the tent city. Know why? Because I said so. They are accused of being criminals. You are too now, just my accusation doesn't carry the weight of law. That's the only evidence against many of them and MOST of them haven't broken and aren't even accused of breaking the "simple laws of man" or any "law based off these things" you mention.
Zero V
Well-known member
CDB said:
It may be because of the slight detachment from humans that I could probably sacrifice more than the normal person if it could accomplish a greater future for billions. Then again it comes from my hatred of wickedness in peoples bones that no one can seem to stop.
Potential death of innocents? You call another naive when you dream that we are in the right get up at the moment...Innocents face far more casualties this way, than the other way around.
Besides, after the initial "purge"(for lack of a better word) that would likely happen due to a real and functional law system, things would drop way down. If drug dealers were not protected by laws, then sweep teams would have full abilities to reduced the drug trade all the way down to probably 5-10% of what it is today. That is a very rough gestimation, but lets apply the psychology to it. Alot of the drug ring is cowards and idiots led by those who are good at manipulation of the human mind(through reverse psychology, monetary incentive, brutality, it matters not). When the guaranteed price of being involved becomes eventual death, as an inescapable punishment...most will jump ship. The rest will die. And of course a few would live and find ways to keep it going, but eventually perishing as well as others step up. Though the drug trade would be severely reduced and not as wide spread.
Americans lack discipline.
And its not a big issue. You think crime is bad now? We are reaching worldwide overpopulation. By 2050 scientists are stating our population will be 10-11 Billion...And the report is also that even with genetically enhanced agriculture, we will not be able to feed and maintain that amount of people. So what are the deaths of a millions of criminals, and a couple thousand innocents?
The current trends people like you seem to fancy will bring mankind to its end.
When there is nothing but darkness and war, and "capitalist" organizations are in control, and criminal bands labeling themselves "mercenaries" or God knows what are all that exist...look in the mirror and blame yourself.
It sounds like a fancy movie or something far-fetched. But every truth throughout history is bashed before its time of coming, and the speakers of those things heralded as fools or traitors. The mathematicians, the men who discovered how the solar system really was(earth not being center), those who studied human biology(when it was considered wrong to do so), philosophers and theorists. A great many have been proven right. And ironically, many ancient warnings point to mans eventual end by their own doing.
If you would sink a nation for a few innocents, then you condemn a nation out of the foolishness of a blind heart.
Humanity is coming up on its greatest trial yet, and its coming fast. War is not what it used to be, and the wars of tomorrow will kill far more innocents than any true war against crime could today.
If a man be falsely accused, and he dies because of that, what has he lost? Nothing. Life is forfeit when the wicked run things. While some just want to exist, and dont care as long as that wicked doesnt affect them, some have an irreversible burning desire to see the world cleaner. Reality is, for someone in my shoes I dont do captivity, Liberty or death only. Another reality is, I dont expect to live into my thirties.
Embrace death young, and you can bring change that those who still cling to life cannot. There is power in the lack of a fear of death. Death is a lover we will all lay with someday, why fear "when", its a promise that she will come so embrace it from the beginning.
And a lack of fear of death equates to a lack of fear of men. And when you do not fear men, quite often men develop a fear of you.
Keep in mind, these are all theories, ideologies. I am but another man akin to yourselves. With different views, yes. But I have found I am not alone with my views, and in fact my kind are a growing kind. It is a bit comforting to see. Sure nothing will be happening in the next 5 years most likely, but one day changes will come. Every empire falls, it is the law of man. America is no exception. Once a society is established it lasts until it is "too corrupt" then shatters in an display of blood, pain, and sorrow.
The only question is who will make the first move?
Again, all theory. I am a writer as well, so some of my presentation may be "over-dramatic" compared to a normal persons post.
CDB
Registered User
Maybe you shouldn't concern yourself with other people's 'wickedness' unless it materially impacts your life.
I do not think we are in the right get up at the moment, you do. You just fail to realize that as you rachet up your beloved police state the results you desire will become even less attainable and the behaviors you despise will become even more prevalent.
Based on... what? Their stellar success so far? And which dealers are protected by laws? The last drug bust I saw had a bunch of Rambo wanna be jack booted thugs tearing ass through someone's door on a no-knock warrant with automatic weapons and flash genades. If that's not enough, then what do you propose? "Sweep teams"? Are you ****ing kidding me? Why don't you go to Iran, or run the clock back to fascist Italy or Nazi Germany, spend some time living in a society where the police had all the power and lattitude you want them to have here, get a feel for it.
The failure in the drug war is terminal, no amount of power given to the cops will stop it because their every 'success' is a discrete and finite incident that simply shifts the short and long term incentives up for more people to get involved in a perpetual system. Perhaps a high school economics level class is in order for you to understand the basic contradiction in trying to make something less prevalent by making it more profitable to do it.
Ridiculously wrong. And thankfully very few people in this country are as far from the left of the bell curve as you.
How kind of you to provide it for them against their will.
Your complete lack of intellectual capability is demonstrated by your uncritical acceptance of the above 'report'. Such reports have been issued in one form or another since the second century BC, and have always and invariably been wrong. The most recent one was Paul Ehrlich's Population Bomb, which said that for the very same reasons you state that we'd all have been either starving or on rations... 20 years ago. Funny, wonder why it never happened. Oh yeah, he was wrong, just as you are wrong.
No, look in the mirror and blame yourself for: one, not understanding what capitalist means, since there is, like ya know, a dictionary definition which is quite a few leagues off from what you're presuming; two, not understanding the inherent contradictions in your own view that will, by ridiculous and idiotic pursuit of some utopian police state, bring about the very hell hole world you wish to avoid. You're the type who thinks the government can magically solve the world's problems if only The Right People are in charge. You want the government to have all the power you don't want it to abuse, and then use its own failures to justify more of the same bull****. And what you fail to realize is there is no such thing as The Right People. And even if there were a magic group of The Right People, they'd eventually die and leave all the power they used benevolently in the hands of lesser men like you who would then proceed to **** the world up beyond belief.
I for one would rather die a free and principled death with those innocents than live in the pseudo Nazi, Turner Diaried **** hole country you seem to want.
kingjameskjf
Well-known member
I can agree with you that police shouldn't have unfettered power.
hahaha! WE elect those in authority and then they appoint their staff. Point being, we still elect those we put in control! Better luck with you next argument!
kbtoy31
Member
The thing is if this was an average person just being accused would have him locked up in his lovely jail. I believe in paying for your crimes. However if any of you think any prison is a vacation, you're dead wrong. Try being locked up from your family, girlfriend, and friends for a year or more regardless of having weights or being able to watch cable TV. **** cable TV I wanted to touch my girlfriend. Sh*t happens, it could happen to any of you. If a police officer doesn't like you, he could plant drugs on you or even just say you hit him and it's their word against yours. The judicial system in the US isn't just. And Sheriff Joe arpaio isn't helping, just b/c he keeps your taxes down. When he's taking your rights away you'll wish you hadn't voted for him.