|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tumahub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
1655
   |
Posted - 2013.06.26 18:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
I wish our cops were that tame.  |
Tumahub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
1688
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote:Had that been the US the girl would've been tazed or maced and the guy would be in a body bag.
Sadly, most of the barbarian sheeple who live here think that's a good thing. |
Tumahub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
1699
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 20:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
Most people, smartly, do not antagonize the uniformed thug who can quite literally get away with murder. |
Tumahub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
1707
|
Posted - 2013.06.26 21:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote:I like to think of it as population control Darwin style.
Well it is an environmental stress that causes adaptive behavior and natural selection.
Unfortunately it selects for the most ruthlessly violent (who can compete with the uniformed mafia) and the most gutless (who will do whatever authority says) which doesn't really bode well for the future of the species. |
Tumahub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
1712
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 00:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote:The future of the species stopped boding well a long time ago when Darwinism was replaced with lawsuits, Medicaid, watch groups, and warning labels. You really think the couple with a combined weight of 950 lbs sporting his and hers freedom-on-wheels buying a carton of camels at wal-mart is survival of the fittest? That's our future right there.
Well certainly socialism is anathema to personal responsibility, but I don't think I called that into question.
My only point was to suggest that a police force with little or no accountability, as we have, is just as much a retardant to encouraging individual responsibility as all the other things you mentioned.
I supposes you could occupy the nihilistic position that it's all fubar and why sweat any of it, but that sort of nullifies any point of mentioning said issue in the first place. So the mere fact you brought it up suggest you do find the observation prescient. |
Tumahub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
1724
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 02:55:00 -
[6] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote:I have a lot of respect for our police force, and usually not much for those who don't.
That doesn't really have any bearing on the argument except to explain your bias, which is entirely fair. Most people do readily associate a badge with respectability and I am sure there are some uniformed men and women who don't act like thugs, despite the system giving them the leeway and incentive to do so.
Micheal Dietrich wrote:
They do the work that no one wants to see and they put their lives at risk so yours can be safe. I can understand their use of force when force when necessary, given the danger we put ourselves in by allowing certain liberties.
I don't find a lot of merit in this argument. The job that "nobody wants," is vacant, because nobody takes the job. If one is economically desperate then they take whatever comes their way, sure, but to imply that getting into a reasonably well-paying government job with a whole lot of benefits is an act of desperation I think stretched reality.
I certainly wouldn't suggest the job isn't dangerous, but if you consider the on-the-job fatality/injury rate for police is lower than that of fishermen, farmers, loggers, power linemen, and a host of other physically dangerous professions, you begin to understand that the axiomatic assumption that it should pay more because -danger- doesn't really fly. I don't suggest anyone is over payed because the market makes that decision, but since a state employee is not subject to the market there is no way to tell.
In terms of keeping people safe, the track-record is pretty grim. Check out the track record of the private security companies who have set up shop in the now-defunct and un-policed districts of Detroit. Their streets are far safer and the number of times they discharge their weapons is much much lower. Since they are subject to the demands of their customers, they are able to respond to that by providing the best protection, rather than whatever fits into the current state budget. They've done well enough that they even patrol the poor neighborhoods for free. By the numbers they appear to be doing the job better by any metric and they have no extrajudicial power to abuse. If they shoot someone down in the street, they'll be on the hook for murder, not some misdemeanor conduct charge.
Micheal Dietrich wrote:
That's not to imply that there aren't bad apples in the bunch; we have plenty of evidence to support that, but they are not above the law as many like you claim and they are routinely shaken off their horse like anyone else.
I assume it's as much a regional problem as anything else, but it is well established that the criminal justice system does not regularly prosecute officers who violate the law, in letter or spirit, on the job. Whether it is excused by fiat or because of some extraordinary circumstance doesn't really matter. Just last week a case closed where a 9 year old girl was killed when a SWAT team broke into her home to apprehend one of her parents. The team corroborated the fact that there was no struggle and the shooter had simply popped the kid. He got off without a day in the pen. Fast forward a few days when another child accidentally kills his younger neighbor wile wrestling and he goes right away, charged as an adult.
I think we have a serious problem with young children are being punished more harshly than fully grown and trained adults.
Micheal Dietrich wrote:
Tell me, who do you refer to when your car gets broken into? It certainly wouldn't be the thugs now would it? Or do they suddenly become the good guys when you need them? What is your solution to our broken system?
I've never had that problem, personally, and if something was stolen from me I would contact my insurance agent. My understanding of reporting something missing is that it won't be found and if it is found, you will not likely find it in one piece. Not to mention any cash or material of significant value will probably be claimed as a lawful seizure.
The solution, as I indicated earlier, is private security and self-defense. The firms in Detroit are just confirming what our long American history or armed private citizens has taught us. Criminals think twice when they know that the proprietor of the establishment they marked is going to do something other than "call the cops," which is exactly what they want.
Having a class of uniforms that operates above the law in order to safe-guard that law, doesn't seem to be working. That's more or less how I view the situation anyway. Hope that clears things up and kudos to your police friends if they are some of the few that do good from within a bad system. |
Tumahub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
1780
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 17:12:00 -
[7] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote:
Capitalize security leaving the rich secure and the poor to fend for themselves, allowing for individual rule sets to be created and companies like Blackwater to uphold them while completely ignoring to look into the issues that lead to crime such as low social or economic standing and poor education. Sounds great, where do I sign up.
Except that isn't what happened in Detroit at all. The poor are covered pro bono because it's good for business. Companies like blackwater are nothing like the domestic security firms that I mentioned. Blackwater is a mercenary corporation created to support the state military. That is the diametric opposite of a local security firm who has no special privileged and works in the interest of customers and their community.
I think you should avail yourself of a little more information. |
Tumahub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
1783
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 18:21:00 -
[8] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote:
Blackwater is a training facility as well as a security provider for state law enforcement, military, and private domestic firms. They also provide R&D technologies and intelligence/counterintelligence. They had 200 people contracted for security during Katrina. They work with the DEA and the DOD, and provided similar training to Afghans police and military forces.
Right, they're a state mercenary corporation that provides for the state. They are to private security what the Federal Reserve Bank is to private finance, that is, not actually private and completely reliant on state money and authority.
Micheal Dietrich wrote:
And that quip about working in the special interest of customers and community is silly. What company wouldn't have their customers in their best interest? Blackwater didn't become global just because, it because global because of its service to its customers.
A company doesn't make money if the customers don't like their service. Unlike the state, which taxes and provides whatever service it wants, they have to work in the best interest of their customers or the customers will go elsewhere. Blackwater didn't become "global," because of it's service for precisely because it serves the state and not individual customers.
You seem to be conflating the relationship between the guy who sells you a hot-dog and the guy who robs you at gun-point and might give you a hot-dog later, if you're nice and he likes you. Private voluntary interaction is always a better solution because it provides a service that people want and not the service that the state monopolist feels like providing. |
Tumahub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
1784
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 18:47:00 -
[9] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote:Tumahub wrote:
Right, they're a state mercenary corporation that provides for the state. They are to private security what the Federal Reserve Bank is to private finance, that is, not actually private and completely reliant on state money and authority.
Wrong.
That's not an argument. I have to conclude that you cede the point. |
Tumahub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
1791
|
Posted - 2013.06.27 20:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
Well at least there was some reasoned debate before the inevitable deluge of ad hominem.
Sorry if pointing out the obvious flaws in the status quo makes you feel bad, but don't shoot the messenger. |
|
|
Tumahub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
1869
|
Posted - 2013.06.28 19:05:00 -
[11] - Quote
Brujo Loco wrote:
In some countries police react brutally, in others people react brutally to cops.
There is no middle ground. This is the reality we live in.
Partially true, but I beg to differ on the point that I don't see this as a trade-off. Police brutality and organized crime go hand in hand. During the height of prohibition in the US, when federal agents were given leeway to do just about anything in the name of shutting down bootleggers, there was a massive boom in organized criminality and the national murder rate doubled. During that era families with strong ties to organized crime gained a substantial amount of money from the then-illegal trade and turned those fortunes into political dynasties (ie. Kennedy Sr.).
Same story plays out in reverse elsewhere. During the mafioso wars in southern Italy/Sicily the state seemed completely powerless to do anything about it. Fast forward to around the second world war, where the state had plenty of fire-power and martial control to tamp down on any unrest, and you find that the mafia was going strong. In fact it's been well documented that the mafia worked with both allied and axis leadership to kill their enemies and terrorize enemy civilian populations.
So while I do agree that socialist law enforcement is fairly universal in the world today and that you have brutal people on both sides of the blue line, I don't think there's any reasonable case to be made that we need ultra-judicial-power in the hands of a few in order to prevent the criminally insane from running amok. Just eliminate the prohibition on drugs and you relieve most criminal syndicates of their income (which is exactly what happened when alcohol prohibition ended) and free up the police from a lot of work. 92% of criminals in US prisons are in for non-violent crime. |
Tumahub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
2037
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 21:52:00 -
[12] - Quote
Ten Ton Testes wrote:Tumahub wrote:Most people, smartly, do not antagonize the uniformed thug who can quite literally get away with murder. How incredibly ignorant. You assume that all police are thugs?
That wasn't implied in the statement you quoted. What was implied is the fact that a uniform generally means getting off with a reduced sentence instead of the full penalty of the law, which is applied to civilians.
Ignorance would be to ignore the fact that huge amounts of extrajudicial power in the hands of these uniformed men and women isn't corrupting them. |
Tumahub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
2110
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 22:36:00 -
[13] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote:Slade Trillgon wrote:Although Blackwater has private contracts with private firms, it was started by ex US Military and Intelligence officers for the sole purpose of gaining lucrative military security contracts that could have been done in house. All other 'domestic' contracts were icing on the cake. Also, the fact that they do 'it' more efficiently then the US Military, speaks volumes about the state of the US military and its leadership imho  At least you understand that they do have contracts with private firms.
And that in no way conflicts with anything I posted earlier.
Without public contracts through DoD, blackwater would not exist as in its current form. So to use it as a cudgel against any kind of private security is a strawman argument. |
Tumahub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
2323
|
Posted - 2013.07.05 18:22:00 -
[14] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Tumahub wrote:Most people, smartly, do not antagonize the uniformed thug who can quite literally get away with murder. For us Europeans knowing or being interested on US people uses laws rights etc, it's a very strange world full of antagonisms at all levels, interesting but yeah very intriguing.
Just imagine a world in which common law is sneered at and the rights of individuals are always second to the "safety of the officer/official," and you should be able to predict the outcomes of most cases between individual and state 99% of the time. |
|
|
| |
|