• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

9 cops detain 1 US teen for refusing to use sidewalk (VIDEO)

poncho

Well-Known Member
This silliness again?

There is no such thing as "attacking from the safety of the ignore list". Sheesh. Grow up.



OH NO IT ISN'T!!

:laugh::laugh:

Yeah you said that the whole time you were making personal attacks on me after you put me on your ignore list. Funny thing about cowards, they never do own up to their cowardly acts.

And I meant cowardly in a kind loving way "brother". :thumbs:

BTW I like the new you much better. :smilewinkgrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

poncho

Well-Known Member
Apparently I am the other person on his ignore list. A few days ago, I was his "brother ". :laugh:

Frankly, I think it is a bit childish to tell people who are on your ignore list that they are there.

I guess it gives them a sense of power.

The strange part is after they put us on their ignore list they still think we should have to hear what they have to say in the threads we start.

If you want to ignore me fine. No problem. But be consistent about it. Ignore the threads I start to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rolfe

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yeah you said that the whole time you were making personal attacks on me after you put me on your ignore list. Funny thing about cowards, they never do own up to their cowardly acts.

And I meant cowardly in a kind loving way "brother". :thumbs:

BTW I like the new you much better. :smilewinkgrin:

I read ITL's comment as a type of satire, not serious criticism.
 

poncho

Well-Known Member
I read ITL's comment as a type of satire, not serious criticism.

I read it as an admission of guilt.

Deep down he knows what he did was wrong. :smilewinkgrin:

I am serious about liking the new ITL better than the old one. He's mellowed out alot and I respect him for his fair and balanced way of looking at all sides of an issue these days. He seems more interested in the evidence than the propaganda now.

Now if only I could convince him that the bible is right about the borrower being servant the lender . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
That's right. And after all those things go away and the town collects a little bit more revenue to move out of bankruptcy, perhaps they'll look into hiring people who can field a police force that acts like it has a bit of sense.

Maybe if we teach our kids a little respect for their elders and authority we would not have to worry about police involvement so much.

So where exactly is this revenue going to come from?

I'll tell you...from criminals who would prosper greatly without the fear of Law Enforcement.

Your plan is simply not rational. If you think the Police are bad, try having the mafia or drug cartels in charge.


As I said before, if it takes bankrupting some of these places in order to make police forces recognize that they can't just do whatever they want without consequence, then so be it.

How about if someone doesn't like how you act, and feels you should be bankrupted?

The sad thing about the Police Force is it has humans in it. As long as there are humans, at least, more than one, involved in anything...there is going to be corruption.

but the simple math would see that as a whole we are better off with having a police force we can count on to handle Law and Justice. Just because there are a few bad apples in the bunch doesn't mean we throw them all out, we just grind the bad ones up and make applesauce out of them.

Right?

And I'll throw this in for free: personally I see it as a good thing for corrupt police officers to be found out. Anyone that abuses power should be punished, and while you might debate as to whether the punishment is severe or not (I might too in certain cases), it makes little difference what kind of criminal ends up in jail, just as long as they end up there.


God bless.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zaac

Well-Known Member
Maybe if we teach our kids a little respect for their elders and authority we would not have to worry about police involvement so much.

Or maybe we should remind the police that they work for the people and carrying a badge isn't license to talk to folks any kind of way and mistreat them?

So where exactly is this revenue going to come from?

Got me. It's fine with me if when they bankrupt some of these municipalities, that they just don't come back. Some of them need to be gone.

I'll tell you...from criminals who would prosper greatly without the fear of Law Enforcement.

Criminals are gonna act like criminals law enforcement or not.

Your plan is simply not rational. If you think the Police are bad, try having the mafia or drug cartels in charge.

I'm not worried about the mafia and drug cartels. I'm talking about the police.




How about if someone doesn't like how you act, and feels you should be bankrupted?

If I violate their civil rights, then they can feel free to sue me. People do civil suits against others all the time. Some go somewhere, some don't.

The sad thing about the Police Force is it has humans in it. As long as there are humans, at least, more than one, involved in anything...there is going to be corruption.

I know. But there is something severely wrong with the system when again and again this stuff keeps happening. Somebodies somewhere have trained them to act like this.

but the simple math would see that as a whole we are better off with having a police force we can count on to handle Law and Justice. Just because there are a few bad apples in the bunch doesn't mean we throw them all out, we just grind the bad ones up and make applesauce out of them.

Right?

Sure it does if the good apples keep sitting back and letting the bad apples do whatever they want.

if the good cops are gonna keep letting the bad cops break the law, then get rid of all of them and find some folks who will actually enforce the laws even against folks in uniform.

And I'll throw this in for free: personally I see it as a good thing for corrupt police officers to be found out. Anyone that abuses power should be punished, and while you might debate as to whether the punishment is severe or not (I might too in certain cases), it makes little difference what kind of criminal ends up in jail, just as long as they end up there.

I agree.. i just don't think we're seeing it enough. If the good cops start taking action against these bad cops, I guarantee that the stuff that we're seeing will get fixed because departments would either do a complete overhaul or have an internal war on their hands.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
A US teenager has been detained with the use of force and hit several times for what witnesses described as jaywalking in Stockton, California. The 16-year-old boy was charged with trespassing and resisting arrest.

Early Tuesday morning, the teen was walking near the city’s bus depot, when a Stockton Police officer saw him. The video of the interaction begins with the cop restraining the young man and then starting to beat him with the baton.

http://www.rt.com/usa/315683-police-teenager-detain-violence/

respect_my_authoritah_by_19sasha-d3913fv.gif


A Texas sheriff recently lashed out at critics, saying that citizens have a moral obligation to “obey the police” because their “authority comes from God.”

Randy Meeks is the Hunt County sheriff, and he believes Cops

Meeks recently published a guest editorial in the local Herald-Banner. In it, he cited Bible verses that he claims argue that any one the government puts in charge of you must be obeyed.

The article was run in print only, but photographed by our friend Brett Sanders. Check out those images below…

< snip >

Hoping to deal the final blow to his critics, he cited Paul’s letter to the Romans, saying: “Guess where that authority comes from to law enforcement? It comes from God,” Meeks wrote. “Read Romans 13:1 in the Bible. And while you are at it, you folks in Ferguson, Baltimore, Arlington and here, take a Gander at Romans 13:2.”

The sheriff added that anyone who criticizes the police is defying God, and that this is merely “the ignorance of some people.” He urged officers to “hang in there” while Godless citizens criticize them for punching pregnant women in the belly.

Do you agree with the Sheriff and his use of the Bible to justify police brutality?

http://www.infowars.com/texas-sheriff-says-you-have-to-obey-the-police-because-their-authority-comes-from-god/
It takes a lot of people to detain a combatant individual without harming him.
 

poncho

Well-Known Member
Your plan is simply not rational. If you think the Police are bad, try having the mafia or drug cartels in charge.

The drug cartels are in charge Darrell.

They control and regulate the market and it's a big market. The US government could be in charge of the market and regulate it but that would take legalizing drugs to gain control of the market in order to regulate it.

Which is a doubtful outcome in the near future to say the least. The government including the police depends on the continuance of the illegal drug trade to increase it's size, funding and control over the lives of every citizen.

The keep it illegal folks and the government prefer having the drug cartels in charge of this big market. Their rational? "Drugs are bad".

BTW, a lot of the keep it illegal folks are the same ones who claim they are against "big government" even though keeping drugs illegal which means leaving the drug cartels in charge of the market and the regulation there of that does nothing to curb the flow of drugs onto our streets and actually increases the size, scope, corruption of the police and other govt "officials" and the intrusiveness of the big government they claim to be against.

How is this plan (leaving the drug cartels in charge of the market) rational?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

poncho

Well-Known Member
It takes a lot of people to detain a combatant individual without harming him.

I guess that must be true because it took 14 police officers to detain this one legged man in handcuffs.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/08/watch-14-police-officers-take-down-a-one-legged-homeless-black-man-armed-with-crutches-in-san-francisco/

Here's another group of officers being careful not to harm a "combatant" individual while detaining him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ariXIEUJkyI

Not to worry no officers were harmed during this dangerous life threatening encounter.

Same here . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWQ5lu8jSMc
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The drug cartels are in charge Darrell.

They control and regulate the market and it's a big market. The US government could be in charge of the market and regulate it but that would take legalizing drugs to gain control of the market in order to regulate it.

Which is a doubtful outcome in the near future to say the least. The government including the police depends on the continuance of the illegal drug trade to increase it's size, funding and control over the lives of every citizen.

The keep it illegal folks and the government prefer having the drug cartels in charge of this big market. Their rational? "Drugs are bad".

BTW, a lot of the keep it illegal folks are the same ones who claim they are against "big government" even though keeping drugs illegal which means leaving the drug cartels in charge of the market and the regulation there of that does nothing to curb the flow of drugs onto our streets and actually increases the size, scope, corruption of the police and other govt "officials" and the intrusiveness of the big government they claim to be against.

How is this plan (leaving the drug cartels in charge of the market) rational?

No, Poncho, the drug cartels are not in charge. Go live in other countries where that might be said with a straight face.

And the only other point I would make is I did not suggest a plan for them to be in charge, but presented that as a corollary to the police being removed through "bankrupting the town."

While you may consider the government to allow them to be in charge, even if that were true then we see that that very same Law Enforcement is at the very least keeping them in check according to their efforts in this imagined conspiracy.


God bless.
 

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I guess that must be true because it took 14 police officers to detain this one legged man in handcuffs.

Wouldn't that be like getting 27 people into a volkswagon?

They must have had quite a bit of practice.

;)


God bless.
 

poncho

Well-Known Member
No, Poncho, the drug cartels are not in charge. Go live in other countries where that might be said with a straight face.

The standard go live someplace else reply? I thought you might be a different sort than that Darrell.

How can you say the drug cartels aren't in charge of the market with a straight face? If the government were in charge of the market the drugs themselves would be taxed and regulated by the government. They aren't.

Which can only mean the government isn't in charge of the market. And if the government isn't in charge of the market, who is?



And the only other point I would make is I did not suggest a plan for them to be in charge, but presented that as a corollary to the police being removed through "bankrupting the town."

My thoughts on that is the offending police officers themselves should be held responsible for their actions not the citizens of the community that employ them. Unfortunately that's not how it works.

If the police are found guilty of abusing their authority and causing damage to another individual or property the tax payers foot the bills.

If there's any question of what I'm saying here let me be clear, the offending officer should be held personally responsible for his wrong doing not the tax payers.


While you may consider the government to allow them to be in charge, even if that were true then we see that that very same Law Enforcement is at the very least keeping them in check according to their efforts in this imagined conspiracy.

What I consider is the bulk of the evidence collected over 40 years of the failed "war on drugs". Which doesn't support your assumptions at all no matter how many pejoratives you employ to defend them.

God bless.

Same to you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It's all in the training man. All in the training.

So police officers are trained to violate people's rights?

It's all in the nature, man. All in the nature.

And I would remind you...you should understand that.


God bless.
 

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
No, Poncho, the drug cartels are not in charge. Go live in other countries where that might be said with a straight face.

The standard go live someplace else reply?

No, Poncho, you have changed what I was speaking about altogether.

Let's back up:

Your plan is simply not rational. If you think the Police are bad, try having the mafia or drug cartels in charge.

The point is, if like our friend Zaac's reasoning were carried out, there would be no restraint on criminal activity.

You completely avoid that point and skip to...


The drug cartels are in charge Darrell.


They control and regulate the market and it's a big market. The US government could be in charge of the market and regulate it but that would take legalizing drugs to gain control of the market in order to regulate it.

Now the suggestion that the U.S. Government regulate "the market" is as preposterous as "bankrupting Stockton," or any other city.

Especially from someone who says they are a Christian. You can complain about how the Government is doing when they are trying to deal with criminal activity and then suggest...they change sides?

So you would rather have the Government Officials involved in Law Enforcement now...engage in what only criminals engage in?

Gotta shake my head on that one, amigo.

I thought you might be a different sort than that Darrell.

You should be familiar with me well enough by now, Poncho.

We have, after all, engaged in discussion more than once, though it has been a little while.


How can you say the drug cartels aren't in charge of the market with a straight face?

I wouldn't, lol, as it is irrelevant to the point I made.

Though I guess I am glad you brought it up.


If the government were in charge of the market the drugs themselves would be taxed and regulated by the government. They aren't.

What happened to the conspiracy theory?

Which is a doubtful outcome in the near future to say the least. The government including the police depends on the continuance of the illegal drug trade to increase it's size, funding and control over the lives of every citizen.

You suggest the Government and Police are propagating the drug trade for self serving purposes, then imply an acceptance of the Government engaging in what they currently seek to stamp out.

At least...that's how it comes across. And we see that it comes down to a matter of that replacing you, the taxpayer...as the one footing the bill for corrupt police officers.

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?


Which can only mean the government isn't in charge of the market. And if the government isn't in charge of the market, who is?

The point was that the Police are in charge of deterring crime. The scenario plays out that Zaac Bankrupts Stockton, there is no more police force, and then comes the relevance of the question of...

...who is in charge.

So my statement...

Go live in other countries where that might be said with a straight face.


...is not telling you to go live in another country (if you're not happy with things here), but, go live in another country where drug cartels are in power and say that with a straight face.

Say that conditions there are better than here.

But the truth is, people are not migrating to South America to escape police corruption here, are they?


Quote:
And the only other point I would make is I did not suggest a plan for them to be in charge, but presented that as a corollary to the police being removed through "bankrupting the town."

My thoughts on that is the offending police officers themselves should be held responsible for their actions not the citizens of the community that employ them. Unfortunately that's not how it works.

So now we return to my point. lol

Wait, are you suggesting that corrupt police officers foot their own bill?

Great idea. Let's do that with all of them.


If the police are found guilty of abusing their authority and causing damage to another individual or property the tax payers foot the bills.

I would agree those who abuse authority should be held to a higher standard, but at the same time we have a bit of a difference in determining if one did that, as opposed to cases where it is clear the person is guilty of crime.

For example, we might differ as to what we consider abuse in any given situation. The best person to answer whether a police officer has abused his power and stepped out of line would be of course another Law Enforcement Official, not the average citizen who has not been the one to stand in harms way, who might not understand an over zealous reaction to a potentially dangerous situation.


If there's any question of what I'm saying here let me be clear, the offending officer should be held personally responsible for his wrong doing not the tax payers.

And if I suggest that if you were found to be guilty of a crime that you should foot the bill...are you okay with that?

Just how exactly is the officer going to do that...if he is in jail?


Quote:
While you may consider the government to allow them to be in charge, even if that were true then we see that that very same Law Enforcement is at the very least keeping them in check according to their efforts in this imagined conspiracy.

What I consider is the bulk of the evidence collected over 40 years of the failed "war on drugs".

Failed?

As I said, go to a country where we see true failure and corruption on the part of Governments.

I don't see it as failed at all, and it would be better if we didn't have people who condemn what the Government has achieved yet suggesting that the Government go into the business.


Which doesn't support your assumptions at all no matter how many pejoratives you employ to defend them.

No assumptions or pejoratives on my part. Please quote them. I see only a manipulation of what I said to provide a pulpit to preach your views, lol.


Quote:
God bless.

Same to you.

"Same to you..."

I'll assume that was said in a nice way.

;)


God bless.
 

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If that's what you believe then you should . . .

Meet the “Expert” Who Teaches Cops to Shoot First and Then Gets Paid to Get them Off After

Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/meet-expert-teaches-cops-shoot-paid/#veXAkyQhHi0lPm8h.99

I would teach it no differently (not referring to the link, but what you said).

Doesn't matter if the perp was reaching for a comb, if he does not "freeze" when told to do so by an authorized agent of the People...he gets what he deserves.

That is not to say that cops can shoot whoever and whenever they want, but that when it comes to the Police Officer's safety...that is the highest priority.

We have them there for a reason, and only a dimwit doesn't understand that, and only an anti-authoritarian who hasn't grown up would challenge that authority.

Cop tells me freeze, I'm going to freeze, lol. Being offended that they might mistake me as dangerous or a criminal is not a reason to roll the dice that the cop holding the gun is experienced, not racist, not a dimwit himself, or incapable of proper and legal procedure.

Rather simple concept, authority is, lol.


God bless.
 

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
So police officers are trained to violate people's rights?

It's all in the nature, man. All in the nature.

And I would remind you...you should understand that.


God bless.

If that's what you believe then you should . . .

Let me rephrase: it's all in the Bible, man, All in the Bible.

;)


God bless.
 

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Maybe if we teach our kids a little respect for their elders and authority we would not have to worry about police involvement so much.

Or maybe we should remind the police that they work for the people and carrying a badge isn't license to talk to folks any kind of way and mistreat them?

I just don't look at it that way, but, being a business owner I may have, from experience in dealing with customers, a perspective other do not have.

Basically, the premise is "My tax money goes to paying for their salary, hence...they work for me."

Now that is simply not true. If they worked for you then you could walk up to one and say, "Officer Smith, I want you to go over to my neighbor's and arrest him for playing his music so loud."

Now a parallel to my own business: it is true that my customers pay me to work on or install heating and air conditioning in their house, they are "footing the bill."

Does that mean I work for them?

Nope...I am doing work for them. Big difference. If I worked for them, then I would expect them to provide medical insurance, paid holidays, paid vacations, et cetera.

Another analogy might be a burger shop employee. Do they work for you? You're footing the bill, right?

Police Officers do indeed work for the People, my friend, but not as employees, but in the sense that what they do is for the benefit of the People. And whether you want to admit it or not, you are better off because of their efforts than you would be if they were not around.


Quote:
So where exactly is this revenue going to come from?

Got me.

So destroy one system without having Plan B formulated? Is that rational?


It's fine with me if when they bankrupt some of these municipalities, that they just don't come back. Some of them need to be gone.

The people of Stockton might disagree with you.

So you have gone from utter condemnation of the police force based on the actions of a minority (though you may suppose it is the majority, which the facts do not indicate seeing crime is stopped on a daily basis in this country)...

...to condemning the People as well.

Now wait a minute...doesn't that justify the actions of the Police you are railing against? lol

Just think about that.


Quote:
I'll tell you...from criminals who would prosper greatly without the fear of Law Enforcement.

Criminals are gonna act like criminals law enforcement or not.

So do we need someone to challenge criminal activity or not? Or should we revise the system and let every man do that on his own? A Wild West scenario?


Your plan is simply not rational. If you think the Police are bad, try having the mafia or drug cartels in charge.

I'm not worried about the mafia and drug cartels. I'm talking about the police.

You're not being worried about them is a direct result of Law Enforcement's efforts, whether you want to admit it or not.


How about if someone doesn't like how you act, and feels you should be bankrupted?

If I violate their civil rights, then they can feel free to sue me. People do civil suits against others all the time. Some go somewhere, some don't.

Oh, so for you a lawsuit is in order, but for the Cops they should be removed altogether, go to jail, and according to our friend Poncho...foot the bill.

No, let's keep it straight. Is it okay for someone to take you to the cleaners and throw you in jail for similar offence? It's not just the lawsuit, but the sentiment that they are altogether corrupt and should be removed you are presenting.

And why would we listen to your defense if you felt you were simply doing your duty? Should that matter? And would we want the opinion of your peers to better gauge whether or not you felt justified in your actions?


The sad thing about the Police Force is it has humans in it. As long as there are humans, at least, more than one, involved in anything...there is going to be corruption.

I know. But there is something severely wrong with the system when again and again this stuff keeps happening.

If you compare the arrests that are made on a daily basis with those that involve questionable action, it is such a vast discrepancy that we could not, rationally, condemn Police efforts and seek to remove them from our society.

That is just ludicrous.


Somebodies somewhere have trained them to act like this.


lol...oh really?

I think I can tell you why certain cops might react aggressively...in remembrance of those Police Officers who have been slain.

I can't blame an Officer for wanting to go home to his family every night.


but the simple math would see that as a whole we are better off with having a police force we can count on to handle Law and Justice. Just because there are a few bad apples in the bunch doesn't mean we throw them all out, we just grind the bad ones up and make applesauce out of them.

Right?

Sure it does if the good apples keep sitting back and letting the bad apples do whatever they want.

If they do that then they are not good apples, right? So again...they are all corrupt in your view. It is the system itself.

And that is simply not carried out by the evidence, which, if you would like to view it...go visit a prison or jail.

Do you believe they are all innocent of the charges they have been convicted of?


if the good cops are gonna keep letting the bad cops break the law, then get rid of all of them and find some folks who will actually enforce the laws even against folks in uniform.

Which brings us full circle back to the original point: you are irrational to think that removing the police would result in a better state for this country.

Your view is not supported by some very simple realities concerning crime in our country, and that you would get rid of Law Enforcement because of a very small ratio of questionable arrests and shootings suggests what you yourself have said, you would remove one system with no clue as to what would fill the vacuum would look like.


Quote:
And I'll throw this in for free: personally I see it as a good thing for corrupt police officers to be found out. Anyone that abuses power should be punished, and while you might debate as to whether the punishment is severe or not (I might too in certain cases), it makes little difference what kind of criminal ends up in jail, just as long as they end up there.

I agree.. i just don't think we're seeing it enough.

Maybe try looking at that from a more positive light: we would have to see more corruption to elevate the percentage of something which is subjective in certain events.

Me, I think someone carrying a device that looks like a bomb is just asking for trouble. The argument "Kids make volcanos every year" doesn't fly because those kids were told to do those projects, or at least, that was an option given.

At no time, especially in this day and age, is there any justification for someone doing something like that.

Two days ago someone found a pipe with tape on it with the word written "kaboom" on it, and the school was closed.

Were they violating someone's right to freedom of expression?

And again, if a cop tells someone to do something...they better do it. Why? Because we have to give Police that authority in order for them to effectively deal with crime. Because we have stripped Teachers of authority...we are reaping the result of a lack of respect for people in positions of authority. If I had a kid showing disrespect to those in authority over them...they would be the ones in trouble, not the people in authority.


If the good cops start taking action against these bad cops,

They do, you just won't admit that.


I guarantee that the stuff that we're seeing will get fixed because departments would either do a complete overhaul or have an internal war on their hands.

And that might depend on the neighborhoods which are very different from each other. In high crime neighborhoods I would expect Law Enforcement to be a little more on edge.

How about if you do this: take one of the incidents that have a questionable collar or shooting, and research the history of the Precinct. Do you think you would find that in many of these...Police Officers had been killed in the line of duty?

I live in a more rural county and just a month or so ago a police officer shot a man to death. The guy had a gun, and he ended up dead. That kind of thing happens. Everywhere.


God bless.
 

poncho

Well-Known Member
No, Poncho, you have changed what I was speaking about altogether.

Let's back up:



The point is, if like our friend Zaac's reasoning were carried out, there would be no restraint on criminal activity.

You completely avoid that point and skip to...

I didn't avoid that point. You covered it well enough and I saw no need to repeat what you said.

Now the suggestion that the U.S. Government regulate "the market" is as preposterous as "bankrupting Stockton," or any other city.

Would it be possible to refrain from using emotionally charged "buzz words" like "preposterous" and pejoratives like "conspiracy theory" in this discussion?

I understand the urge to use them as a way of making the user appear to be endowed with unquestionable credibility but I fail to see how they benefit a discussion other than that.

Just for a change of pace could we let the facts and evidence decide the level of credibility in this discussion?

Especially from someone who says they are a Christian.

You start by questioning my Christianity? That sounds a bit like you're already struggling with supporting your own position and we've just barely begun our discussion.

You can complain about how the Government is doing when they are trying to deal with criminal activity and then suggest...they change sides?

I wasn't complaining I was merely voicing my opinion based on the available evidence collected over a 40+ year period. And no I'm not suggesting they "change sides". I'm suggesting they look at that evidence and base any further law enforcement policy on the findings instead of emotional stimulus.

So you would rather have the Government Officials involved in Law Enforcement now...engage in what only criminals engage in?

Gotta shake my head on that one, amigo.

I'm shaking my head at that one also as I'm not sure at this point whether or not you're including me in this discussion at all. It sounds as if you are doing the speaking for both of us.

You should be familiar with me well enough by now, Poncho.
We have, after all, engaged in discussion more than once, though it has been a little while.

You'll have to forgive me Darrell I'm getting up into years now. It seems like I would remember someone as skillful at creating strawmen to knock down as you. But it's all starting to come back to me now. :smilewinkgrin:

I wouldn't, lol, as it is irrelevant to the point I made.

Is that you saying that or one of your strawmen?

Though I guess I am glad you brought it up.

Why, because it gave you another opportunity to employ the following pejorative? "What happened to the conspiracy theory?"

You suggest the Government and Police are propagating the drug trade for self serving purposes, then imply an acceptance of the Government engaging in what they currently seek to stamp out.

At least...that's how it comes across. And we see that it comes down to a matter of that replacing you, the taxpayer...as the one footing the bill for corrupt police officers.

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Yes I do. And I might add that it's getting pretty boring for me here what with you arguing both sides and all. Are you going to give me a chance to speak in my own words in this discussion or are you just going to keep making them up for me as you go along?

The point was that the Police are in charge of deterring crime. The scenario plays out that Zaac Bankrupts Stockton, there is no more police force, and then comes the relevance of the question of...

...who is in charge.

So my statement......is not telling you to go live in another country (if you're not happy with things here), but, go live in another country where drug cartels are in power and say that with a straight face.

Say that conditions there are better than here.

But the truth is, people are not migrating to South America to escape police corruption here, are they?

So now we return to my point. lol

Oh good I was hoping we'd get around to your point soon . . .

Wait, are you suggesting that corrupt police officers foot their own bill?

Great idea. Let's do that with all of them.

I agree. Was that your point?

I would agree those who abuse authority should be held to a higher standard, but at the same time we have a bit of a difference in determining if one did that, as opposed to cases where it is clear the person is guilty of crime.

For example, we might differ as to what we consider abuse in any given situation. The best person to answer whether a police officer has abused his power and stepped out of line would be of course another Law Enforcement Official, not the average citizen who has not been the one to stand in harms way, who might not understand an over zealous reaction to a potentially dangerous situation.

I see. Let the police police the police. Like we let the government investigate the government. We're already doing that Darrell. That's why we're having this discussion. It hasn't worked out very well for Joe Q. Taxpaying citizen or protected the inalienable rights (see Bill of Rights) of the same in all the years we've been doing it.

We're looking for solutions not more of the same thing that brought us to this point . . . at least I am.

And if I suggest that if you were found to be guilty of a crime that you should foot the bill...are you okay with that?

I wouldn't expect anything else Darrell.

Just how exactly is the officer going to do that...if he is in jail?

Like the song says "if ya can't do the time don't do the crime". You and I wouldn't be given any special considerations if we were found guilty of a crime why should an "officer of the law" be treated differently?


Yes failed, the opposite of succeeded.

As I said, go to a country where we see true failure and corruption on the part of Governments.

Yes you said that but it doesn't show where the 40+ years of this country's war on drugs has been successful. I'm assuming that's why you keep saying this . . . to avoid having to try to provide evidence of the "success" of this country's drug prohibition policy. If it were easy you would have done it straight away instead of building all the strawmen to avoid the search. : )

Give the overworked strawmen a rest break. Just show me the evidence that the 40+ year old policy of drug prohibition has been successful if you believe it has been.

I don't see it as failed at all, and it would be better if we didn't have people who condemn what the Government has achieved yet suggesting that the Government go into the business.

Then you aren't looking at the evidence Darrell it is rather conclusive. Again I'm assuming that's why you aren't looking at it or even referring to it.

By the same rational we'd have been better off if the signatories of the Declaration of Independence had just submitted to the English Crown. Whiners and complainers one and all.

No assumptions or pejoratives on my part. Please quote them. I see only a manipulation of what I said to provide a pulpit to preach your views, lol.

Wait, is this you talking or is it me? I'm having a hard time telling the difference as you have been speaking for both of us throughout this discussion.

"Same to you..."

I'll assume that was said in a nice way.

;)

I meant it in same spirit you did. :)


God bless.

Same to you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top