|
Taeke posted:Fair enough, thanks. quote:So, let me ask again, because you're not actually engaging my argument here, do you agree that this, combined with existing procedure and law, leads to a situation where a cop can create a situation in which they break either law or procedure, resulting in the death of an innocent, and not just get away with it but get away with it without ever being charged or the shooting being investigated at all?
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 19:21
|
|
I actually expected as much but you can understand how, by only pointing out flaws in people's arguments without contributing alternatives or expressing your own position you can come across as condoning the very things people in this thread have a problem with, right? Even if you don't actually condone those things and have ideas of your own that could address these issues.
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
My apologies, I guess I'm not not as clear as I should be. Full disclosure, I'm not American (so I don't even quite understand the near deification of the Constution) and as far as US politics are concerned, I'm about as far left as imaginable (although the rise of Sanders did put me at some point of that spectrum, I guess.) Hell, I consider the democrats to be center right at best, and would never call them left outside of US-political context. That said, while I'm definitely and obviously on one side (poo poo is hosed up yo) I hope it's clear I'm trying to keep an open mind and try to understand both sides. I think I've been pretty fair in that regard. I'm sorry it wasn't entirely clear there's basically two parts to my posts, which were directed at Jarmak specifically: twodot posted:I don't understand this. If we're acknowledging the things being pointed out are flaws, anyone who is sincerely interested in constructed good and sound arguments should consider pointing out these flaws to be a valuable service. Arguments with flaws are bad, and correcting them is good. If you're ever in a situation where you think "This person is pointing out flaws, they must be wrong about something" you need to rethink your position. quote:This is obviously true, but it's true for all people so I don't see your point. It's structurally not possible to eliminate the concept of a perfect crime for any class of person. I could see an argument that it's too easy for police and you want to do <a thing> to make it harder, but if you're not presenting the thing I don't see anyone can engage with your argument. I'm not proposing <a thing> at all, because I'm not knowledgeable enough to do so. I'm merely lamenting Jarmak's lack of propositions concerning <a thing> and asking what their thoughts are, hopefully moving the conversation away from specific circumstances and addressing a wider issue. I do think that you're wrong in asserting that it's true for all people, at least to the same degree, because it seems to me there's laws and procedures in place that allow a police officer, specifically, to create a 'perfect crime.' Given the many shootings involving police that went uninvestigated, that doesn't seem that much of a stretch. That's not to say non-police can use laws and procedures to get away with the same (Zimmerman, for example) but it's fairly obvious that the police do have numerous advantages. So while a non-police officer could, plausibly, create the circumstances to commit the perfect murder, it would be so much more easy for a police officer to do so. Is that not a problem?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Taeke posted:Fair enough, thanks. Taeke posted:My apologies, I guess I'm not not as clear as I should be. I'm kind of confused as to what your actual argument is, you quoted a discussion that was specifically about the 5th Amendment but based on your reaction of saying I'm avoiding your argument for minutia I'm guessing you're getting at something different. Do you mean the entire system in general when you're talking about the laws allowing cops to get away with crimes? I don't think more then rights make it easier for anyone to get away with crimes. I think more the problem is the lack of accountability that allows cops to lie and/or sidestep being subject to the system that is the biggest factor that allows cops to get away with poo poo, which is why I said I'm a big proponent of cameras.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Taeke posted:I didn't mean to argue that pointing out flaws is bad thing. Not at all. All I meant was to point out that it's understandable that given that that's pretty much all Jarmak has been doing their posts could be interpreted as being solidly on one side of the issue. Given their lack of proposed alternatives it's not all that surprising that Jarmak's been charecterized as 'cheerleading the police' even though there's some valuable input (perhaps not posted out of fear of being dogpiled on or it being outside their area of expertise.) quote:I'm not proposing <a thing> at all, because I'm not knowledgeable enough to do so. I'm merely lamenting Jarmak's lack of propositions concerning <a thing> and asking what their thoughts are, hopefully moving the conversation away from specific circumstances and addressing a wider issue. quote:I do think that you're wrong in asserting that it's true for all people, at least to the same degree, because it seems to me there's laws and procedures in place that allow a police officer, specifically, to create a 'perfect crime.' Given the many shootings involving police that went uninvestigated, that doesn't seem that much of a stretch. That's not to say non-police can use laws and procedures to get away with the same (Zimmerman, for example) but it's fairly obvious that the police do have numerous advantages.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm not surprised by that behavior, but it's not understandable. Given their lack of proposed alternatives, you shouldn't assume anything about their beliefs, beyond what's posted. Well in this case, when someone is ignoring what people are actually saying about the issue, and trawling back for month-old posts by someone else to prove that liberals hate the fifth amendment, it kind of does look like he's more interested in shutting down discussion of the current topic than in providing constructive criticism to arguments people are actually making right now, but whatever 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well in this case, when someone is ignoring what people are actually saying about the issue, and trawling back for month-old posts by someone else to prove that liberals hate the fifth amendment, it kind of does look like he's more interested in shutting down discussion of the current topic than in providing constructive criticism to arguments people are actually making right now, but whatever Someone asked me to provide a quote that anyone had ever said that, the easiest one to find was by searching my own post history for the last time I responded to someone saying that, it was earlier this month. You know what's bad faith shutting down of conversation? "Stop shutting down discussion, no one has ever said anything like that, prove it with a quote!" <provides quote> "Stop shutting down discussion by posting quotes that aren't from the current conversation!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Someone asked me to provide a quote that anyone had ever said that, the easiest one to find was by searching my own post history for the last time I responded to someone saying that, it was earlier this month. The quote was irrelevant and didn't say anything close to what you claimed was said in multiple posts. And it was your example of some kind of prevailing narrative, in which case you should probably be able to find more examples. And real ones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:The quote was irrelevant and didn't say anything close to what you claimed was said in multiple posts. And it was your example of some kind of prevailing narrative, in which case you should probably be able to find more examples. And real ones. It was almost word for word exactly what I had claimed people were saying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Someone asked me to provide a quote that anyone had ever said that, the easiest one to find was by searching my own post history for the last time I responded to someone saying that, it was earlier this month. No, you said Jarmak posted:It might be because any time one of them is accused a bunch of people start bitching about the fact they have civil rights? One dude one time is not a bunch of people anytime a cop is accused champ. Why don't you engage with what people are saying about this situation and if someone says something anti-fifth-amendment you can address that right now rather than pre-accusing everyone of hating the constitution so you don't have to read what they're saying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Well we have footage of an actual indefensible murder by a police officer and we've been talking about everything but that so I guess mission accomplished. Or can we agree that feeling cops being able to not file a report without facing the same repercussions as a non-government employee for not informing your employer about the job activities performed while on the clock when asked is not the same as wanting to strip cops of their 5th amendment rights. If we said cops should automatically be convicted or held in contempt for not filing a report you would have a better argument. But since no one said that it looks like a distraction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No, you said That seems aggressively pedantic. Why don't you engage with what he's saying instead of accusing him of debating in bad faith just because you disagree with him?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:That seems aggressively pedantic. Why don't you engage with what he's saying instead of accusing him of debating in bad faith just because you disagree with him? Maybe because the poster he's responding to has a history of arguing in bad faith? Just a thought. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:That seems aggressively pedantic. Why don't you engage with what he's saying instead of accusing him of debating in bad faith just because you disagree with him? Here's irony getting pulled over by the cops. Here's irony getting shot 18 time by the cops because he reached for his wallet too fast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Speaking of getting shot for reaching for the wallet too fast, does anyone know what eventually happened with the people from the video where the dude hops out of his car to go into a gas station or store as a cop rolls up and turns on the lights and gets shot when he leans back into the car to grab his wallet from the center console? Anyone remember what video I'm thinking of? e: Oh, turns out it was easier to find than I thought. http://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article33417255.html Turns out the cop was fired at least, though he hasn't even had a court date set yet. Thankfully the victim survived, albeit with problems from being shot in the hip necessitating a walking cane. bango skank fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
bango skank posted:Speaking of getting shot for reaching for the wallet too fast, does anyone know what eventually happened with the people from the video where the dude hops out of his car to go into a gas station or store as a cop rolls up and turns on the lights and gets shot when he leans back into the car to grab his wallet from the center console? Anyone remember what video I'm thinking of? Yea I know the video. And I'm honestly surprised the cop was fired.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
SC does better than most states. Partly due to fairly vigorous work by SLED.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Maybe because the poster he's responding to has a history of arguing in bad faith? Just a thought. Raerlynn posted:I'm not saying that is my goal, just observing that the people who do their damnedest to ensure that the officer gets his fair ashamed don't seem to note the irony that several of the deaths we've seen this year, literately seen, have been from when an officer exceeded his authority and violated the rights of the citizen. But they make drat sure to make every excuse in the book to excuse the officer stepping all over the civil rights of the citizen. Raerlynn posted:The real irony here is the argument that in many of the cases in this thread, had the officer respected the victim's rights, the shooting that took place would never have occurred. Your only contribution to this thread is to take little content free snipes at people you don't agree with and accuse people of arguing in bad faith whenever you disagree with their position. If someone claims that something is violating the rights of person X, responding with moral outrage that they don't care enough about the rights of person Y is not a good faith engagement with the debate, its a way of dodging having to address the actual issue while getting in some sick burns on the moral inferiority of the other side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Your only contribution to this thread is to take little content free snipes at people you don't agree with and accuse people of arguing in bad faith whenever you disagree with their position. Actually I made several attempts to discuss how police should be held more accountable, and how there should be some form of mechanism on how to deal with the problem where an officer fired for misconduct but not charged gets a police job elsewhere in the country and continues to perpetuate those behaviors. But hey, why actually discuss that when you can be a snide fucker who's only contribution is to rebut every argument with "eh it's legal so it's okay" and won't even answer the direct question about whether or not police have for too much unchecked power. In summary, gently caress you you loving shitlord.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Your only contribution to this thread is to take little content free snipes at people you don't agree with and accuse people of arguing in bad faith whenever you disagree with their position. bango skank posted:Turns out the cop was fired at least, though he hasn't even had a court date set yet. Thankfully the victim survived, albeit with problems from being shot in the hip necessitating a walking cane. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
tezcat posted:They paid out a quarter of a million dollars for the guy he shot to make this go away. Ill bet while he is fired , he is probably re-hire able and will be re hired later down the line. The shooter is currently employed as a truck driver while he awaits trial, so he might not return to law enforcement if we're lucky.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
I feel a big issue that causes friction is that people misunderstand why people are mad at cops not being charged. It's not a pure legal issue that exists in a vacuum; it's a moral sort of anger. Take the McDonald cops for instance. Legally, they may be untouchable. And legally, it's "wrong" to claim they ought to have the book thrown at them, for a variety of correct-and-pedantic issues. But you loving know they erased the footage and you're a complete fool if you're going to assume "not guilty" means "innocent", and an rear end in a top hat to boot if you talk down to people angry over this. De jure is not synonymous with de facto, especially in regards to advantages people have in the legal system. The police have a variety of powers and privileges that, when abused, grant them a great amount of leeway in eluding justice. No other group of conspirators could be able to get in and delete the footage; if an employee had resisted them in fears of the footage being mishandled, the legal fiction so strongly assumes that police are always good, that there's no way that such a view from the employee could be regarded as "reasonable". And the anger at police also comes out due to how much effort is spent ensuring their "fair" treatment, that others (including targets of law enforcement) have no chance of getting. To complain about cop rights being violated in the clamour to punish these badged criminals comes of as crocodile tears in the greater context of a legal reality that holds within it vastly different treatment of offenders depending on class, status, and power. In my mind, police ought to be held under extreme scrutiny; as the legal system depends on their correct conduct and ability to uphold trust with their communities, they will always have the ability to abuse their powers, and it undermines the entire legal system when they do so. The Chicago police department needs a good once over for this, and subcultures like the "thin blue line" needs to die.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Your only contribution to this thread is to take little content free snipes at people you don't agree with (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Actually I made several attempts to discuss how police should be held more accountable, and how there should be some form of mechanism on how to deal with the problem where an officer fired for misconduct but not charged gets a police job elsewhere in the country and continues to perpetuate those behaviors. But hey, why actually discuss that when you can be a snide fucker who's only contribution is to rebut every argument with "eh it's legal so it's okay" and won't even answer the direct question about whether or not police have for too much unchecked power. Except they have answered that, and given their opinion multiple times on it. Heres just one from a brief scan of their post history. Jarmak posted:I'm kind of confused as to what your actual argument is, you quoted a discussion that was specifically about the 5th Amendment but based on your reaction of saying I'm avoiding your argument for minutia I'm guessing you're getting at something different. Do you mean the entire system in general when you're talking about the laws allowing cops to get away with crimes? I don't think more then rights make it easier for anyone to get away with crimes. I think more the problem is the lack of accountability that allows cops to lie and/or sidestep being subject to the system that is the biggest factor that allows cops to get away with poo poo, which is why I said I'm a big proponent of cameras. So they have in fact answered your question, you just seem to have missed it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Your only contribution to this thread is to take little content free snipes at people you don't agree with and accuse people of arguing in bad faith whenever you disagree with their position. Maybe he usually only bothers to pipe up if he disagrees with something someone is saying or if he feels like he has relevant information to contribute that isn't being factored into the discussion because he doesn't really feel the need to put points up on the scoreboard by posting how much he disagrees with how hosed up X incident is every time something comes up. tezcat posted:They paid out a quarter of a million dollars for the guy he shot to make this go away. Ill bet while he is fired , he is probably re-hire able and will be re hired later down the line. When googling the incident I found an article about the cop being arrested for shoplifting at a Walmart recently, so while other police agencies might be more lenient about him shooting a black guy I really doubt they'd look favorably on that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 11:12
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Except they have answered that, and given their opinion multiple times on it. Heres just one from a brief scan of their post history. Lol, a one line barely answering the question, which is directly contradicted by his hundreds of posts in this and other threads being an unabashed apologist for every cop that murdered someone. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 12:10
|
|
|
bango skank posted:he doesn't really feel the need to put points up on the scoreboard by posting how much he disagrees with how hosed up X incident is every time something comes up. This is a thing that happens in this thread. Lots of people here have the idea that anyone who doesn't agree with them 100%, disagrees with them 100%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 13:10
|
|
|
In 2014, for the first time ever, law enforcement officers took more property from American citizens than burglars did. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/ 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:In 2014, for the first time ever, law enforcement officers took more property from American citizens than burglars did. This isn't true in the slightest and that article and the one it's based off of is extremely misleading. The real issues with civil asset forfeiture are local LEO abusing it to prey and seize assets of people who are at best committing minor crimes. The statistics in that article are based off of money fined and seized by the USDOJ, and while technically LEOs in a sense, it really isn't representative of the issue in the slightest. Two thirds of the money comes from the federal government receiving money from some dude named Bernie Madoff to pay off his fraud victims and from fining Toyota for defrauding the public. OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:This isn't true in the slightest and that article and the one it's based off of is extremely misleading. The stats for how much was burgled also don't include numbers for theft or larceny, only burglary. Which are each roughly the same amount as burglary so the real total is 3x as high.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Two thirds of the money comes from the federal government receiving money from some dude named Bernie Madoff to pay off his fraud victims and from fining Toyota for defrauding the public. Where you seeing 2/3rds? The story says the net assets after paying off fraud victims are $4.5 billion, still higher than burglaries. And the Toyota fine was $1.2B. Kalman posted:The stats for how much was burgled also don't include numbers for theft or larceny, only burglary. Which are each roughly the same amount as burglary so the real total is 3x as high. So if you add things that aren't burglary to the burglary total, it's like 3 times more burglary. Makes sense I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:
Or straight up robbing people. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Except they have answered that, and given their opinion multiple times on it. Heres just one from a brief scan of their post history. I didn't miss it. I consider it sidestepping when Jarmak et al. refuse to countenance the notion that police officers have massive advantages in the justice system over every day citizens, both in the pursuit of their cases and also as defendants. I've tried engaging the supposed legal experts a couple of times only to be told not to question their integrity for daring to point out how their conduct only continues the appearance of impropriety, and how that appearance damages their credibility. So far there's been no discussion whatsoever from that camp about what to do to address these claims wherein an officer does or appears to do something that the layman sees is hosed up, the only thing Jarmak and DR and the rest have offered is "Welp legal /shrug". Maybe consider the full scope of their history in this thread before trying to lecture me; wherein they've defended officers who stood by and let a civilian bleed out, murdered multiple unarmed people on the pretense of being scared for their lives, and concealed evidence of the aforementioned murders. My irritation stems from this literally being a year long affair with this particular group of jackasses. I've yet to see Jarmak or Dead Reckoning or any other defender of the numerous police abuses in this thread come up with any kind of suggestion when unarmed men and women died. They're fine with the system as it is. gently caress that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:I feel a big issue that causes friction is that people misunderstand why people are mad at cops not being charged. It's not a pure legal issue that exists in a vacuum; it's a moral sort of anger. The only thing I argued in the Chicago case was that the random other cops at the scene of the shooting shouldn't be charged with "accessory to murder" like one poster suggested (and then recanted), I even made sure to expressly state I wasn't talking about the cops who deleted the BK tape because they're arguably guilty of accessory after the fact if that's true. Everything about that shooting loving stinks. as for the rest, first let me quote myself: Jarmak posted:I usually only bother to pipe up if I disagree with something someone is saying or if I feel like I have relevant information to contribute that isn't being factored into the discussion because I don't really feel the need to put points up on the scoreboard by posting how much I agree with how hosed up X incident is every time something comes up. The entire system, like most societal systems, is entirely hosed up, especially when viewed at the macro level. The problem is that when you start digging into the specifics of a problem that spans thousands of different departments separated by thousands of miles, different regional cultures/problems and different governments for a solution it gets very murky and often times there is no clear solution that doesn't present an even bigger problem. Which is you often see me posting to say, basically "no you can't just apply that bandaid to fix this one specific incident because x law", because x law is actually really important. I'll add because other people have said this, but its not directed at you specifically: if my position on something is"this is legal, here's why, and there's no way to change it without causing worse second order effects" It doesn't make any sense to respond with "you're not posting in good faith because you didn't offer a way to fix the problem". If I think the law is bad, or I have an idea for making it better, I post that. If I'm not sure if the law is important enough but I don't have an opinion either way, I post that. Either way it always seem to follow the same pattern with certain people: "Y action is legal because of X Law, you can't just get rid of X Law" "X Law is dumb, we should change it so Y isn't legal" "How do you suggest we do that?" "I don't know enough about X Law to ever come up with a solution, why don't you stop posting in bad faith and tell us your way of fixing X Law" Its completely circular, the only way to prove my argument is correct under that logic is to prove my argument is wrong. This argument just presupposes I'm posting in bad faith and there's absolutely no way for me to ever be correct within that framework. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
pacmania90 posted:That seems aggressively pedantic. Why don't you engage with what he's saying instead of accusing him of debating in bad faith just because you disagree with him? And maybe the ones claiming to be cops or lawyers could contribute something more than ridiculing every idea into "Bunch of cop haters don't want cops to have rights". You have a bunch of people who are not well versed in law or police procedures. Every time some heinous poo poo goes down like McDonakd those posters start talking about how this kind of poo poo needs to stop and come up with ideas but have no legal background so the ideas may not work at all or could work if only someone with legal knowledge could point out ok you can't do that because of X however you could do Y. Instead we have one lawyer who does so, a DA who was incapable of being not being an rear end in a top hat so got probated 17 times and vanished and cops/lawyers who only bitch about drat liberals who relish the thought of cop death and point out why you dumbass non cop/lawyers don't understand how your stupid ideas don't work. It's fairly obvious there a few who will defend loving anything rather than admit maybe something is wrong and should be looked at and make these idiot "All these posters who don't think cops should have rights" yet can't seem to find anything more than a month old posts that supports the claim if you read it in a certain way. Meanwhile there are probably a hundred posts of people saying they don't want cops to not have the same rights as everyone else, it's that they want cops to be held to the same legal standards of everyone else which almost always is ignored.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
The Code of Silence must be maintained at all costs. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/two-brave-cops-under-attack-exposing-militarization-and-corruption-their-department quote:Two Brave Cops Under Attack for Exposing Militarization and Corruption in their Department Its long, but has the usual US cop snippets: quote:David Weaver, the plaintiff in a third suit, was beaten after having his hands cuffed behind his back. He suffered kidney damage as a result of Krav Maga-style “knee strikes.” Another SSPD officer beat Nick Holdridge with a flashlight while the victim’s hands were cuffed behind his back. quote:The obvious intent behind the specious charge isn’t to deal with an actual offense, but to put a whistleblower through the expense and anguish of an entirely unwarranted trial – thereby deterring other officers from developing a conscience.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'll add because other people have said this, but its not directed at you specifically: if my position on something is"this is legal, here's why, and there's no way to change it without causing worse second order effects" The problem is that the takeaway when you make these sorts of arguments is "everything is bad and can never improve" which is obviously wrong and stupid. And then just devolves into discussing the minutiae of various hypothetical proposals with you just taking more dumps about why we can't stop cops from murdering black people without violating the cops due process rights or whatever the daily deal is. Not every wrong statement is calling out for you to correct it. We aren't crafting real legislation here, you aren't preventing constitutional violations by interjecting with "Actually..." If you absolutely need to make it clear that you disagree, you can keep it short and then leave it alone, and not keep dragging the argument back to you every time. Thread regulars understand your point of view, we just disagree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Devor posted:The problem is that the takeaway when you make these sorts of arguments is "everything is bad and can never improve" which is obviously wrong and stupid. And then just devolves into discussing the minutiae of various hypothetical proposals with you just taking more dumps about why we can't stop cops from murdering black people without violating the cops due process rights or whatever the daily deal is. No the takeaway from that argument is "Bad poo poo is still going to happen even under the best system", which is pretty important to understand if you want to have a discussion on how to reform the system. For example our system is built of the premise(ideally at least) that we'd rather have that bad poo poo take the form of guilty people going free then innocent people go to jail. Despite what many people in this thread think cops are governed by the same laws and rights as anyone else, so when people advocate for things that curtail civil rights or violate due process its not just about "cop's rights", its about everyone's rights, or its about the effect changing a law in question will have on everyone. The rest of your post I just don't understand, you don't want me to point out when people are saying wrong, or suggesting harmful things, and if I disagree with the regulars I'm supposed to make sure to lodge a very succinct nominal note of my disagreement to make sure its easy to ignore it and get back to everyone agreeing with each other. Whats the point of this thread then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
Shhhhhhhh....... New thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3753690
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 20:51
|
|