As I said, the cop might have been wrong I will let it rest with a judge and jury. But the dead drug addict..so what?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Honestly, my friend, as much as I hate Monday morning quarterbacking -I don't think so. Even from that crappy a video I could tell what it was. In person? I'd have to go with you betcha. The Officer was amped up in fight mode. He made the wrong decision and a person died. That said, I do appreciate the work that law enforcement does to keep the general populous safe. Moreover though, I also question the actions of the guys who planned this fiasco. They didn't even have a warrant on site (not required though???). No, this loser was a nobody in his own home harming only himself. I guess one may argue that with the drugs he was doing the police merely sped up the end result. They should have apprehended this guy in another manner.lowing wrote:
now come on, without the previous knowledge of what you were about to watch, you would have never been able to say you knew he was carrying a golf club. Lets be honest and fair about that. In fact it is only by 20 20 hindsight that any of you can judge this video at all. As I see it, it was dark, the lights hits the guy holding something over his head in an offensive position and it scared the cop. He then reacted.
Now, much like the other instance a few years ago where a guy shot and killed some criminals outside his neighbors house I loose no sleep over a dead criminal. I simply do not care. The real tragedy here is a cop who is trying to serve his community probably will be punished for his actions. I will not judge and wait for the facts to come out.
I do remember the guy going to shoot the criminals that broke into his neighbor's home. Good on him. I too could care less about the thieves, muggers, rapists and murders.... But a druggie in his own home? That's a bit to far of a reach for me. I just look at the fact that one could call the local authorities with a false 'tip' about you or me and the next thing you know the front door is bashed down and your dog has been shot.
There aren't just criminals and good guys. It's not as Black and White as that, just differing shades of Grey. I've said it many times before. I can see how putting someone in a group (Criminals) allows you to dehumanise them and thus take the opposing side, that's fine.lowing wrote:
I watched it twice, and saw nothing that lead me to see a golf club specifically, and neither did any of you.jord wrote:
You could watch a video of a Policeman repeatedly shooting a pregnant Nurse and you'd side with the Police. Just watch the video and be objective, it's not hard.lowing wrote:
now come on, without the previous knowledge of what you were about to watch, you would have never been able to say you knew he was carrying a golf club. Lets be honest and fair about that. In fact it is only by 20 20 hindsight that any of you can judge this video at all. As I see it, it was dark, the lights hits the guy holding something over his head in an offensive position and it scared the cop. He then reacted.
Now, much like the other instance a few years ago where a guy shot and killed some criminals outside his neighbors house I loose no sleep over a dead criminal. I simply do not care. The real tragedy here is a cop who is trying to serve his community probably will be punished for his actions. I will not judge and wait for the facts to come out.
There are utter cunts in every job, military and law enforcement included.
If the pregnant nurse was a criminal and she was killed yer right I wouldn't care.
So, haven't you ever broke the law?
I'd go there too.lowing wrote:
If the pregnant nurse was a criminal and she was killed yer right I wouldn't care.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
What kind of criminal? Any? Violent?DBBrinson1 wrote:
I'd go there too.lowing wrote:
If the pregnant nurse was a criminal and she was killed yer right I wouldn't care.
Habitual speeder?
Habitual litterer?
Recreational drug user?
you mean to the point where the cops show up to my door in the middle of the night for a raid. Nope, I have no criminal record.jord wrote:
There aren't just criminals and good guys. It's not as Black and White as that, just differing shades of Grey. I've said it many times before. I can see how putting someone in a group (Criminals) allows you to dehumanise them and thus take the opposing side, that's fine.lowing wrote:
I watched it twice, and saw nothing that lead me to see a golf club specifically, and neither did any of you.jord wrote:
You could watch a video of a Policeman repeatedly shooting a pregnant Nurse and you'd side with the Police. Just watch the video and be objective, it's not hard.
There are utter cunts in every job, military and law enforcement included.
If the pregnant nurse was a criminal and she was killed yer right I wouldn't care.
So, haven't you ever broke the law?
you are right though, I do dehumanize criminals, I suppose in my mind it is better than trying to victimize them
Last edited by lowing (2011-01-20 11:52:53)
I'm not talking about raids, it's just a simple question. I'll answer first if it makes it easier, I have broken the law.lowing wrote:
you mean to the point where the cops show up to my door in the middle of the night for a raid. Nope, I have no criminal record.jord wrote:
There aren't just criminals and good guys. It's not as Black and White as that, just differing shades of Grey. I've said it many times before. I can see how putting someone in a group (Criminals) allows you to dehumanise them and thus take the opposing side, that's fine.lowing wrote:
I watched it twice, and saw nothing that lead me to see a golf club specifically, and neither did any of you.
If the pregnant nurse was a criminal and she was killed yer right I wouldn't care.
So, haven't you ever broke the law?
you are right though, I do dehumanize criminals, I suppose in my mind it is better than trying to victimize them
Have you?
come on jord, don't start that crap, you know what we are talking about.jord wrote:
What kind of criminal? Any? Violent?DBBrinson1 wrote:
I'd go there too.lowing wrote:
If the pregnant nurse was a criminal and she was killed yer right I wouldn't care.
Habitual speeder?
Habitual litterer?
Recreational drug user?
Oh, I'm with ya there. His choices, actions and results. However as a US citizen he still has rights. Who knows, maybe that night he kicked his friend and told his Mom he was going to sober up and fly the straight an narrow. Never know.lowing wrote:
As I said, the cop might have been wrong I will let it rest with a judge and jury. But the dead drug addict..so what?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Forcible felonjord wrote:
What kind of criminal? Any? Violent?DBBrinson1 wrote:
I'd go there too.lowing wrote:
If the pregnant nurse was a criminal and she was killed yer right I wouldn't care.
Habitual speeder?
Habitual litterer?
Recreational drug user?
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
jord, I know what you are trying to do, I simply am not going to allow you compare jay walking with rape murder, drug dealing drug abuse child molestation burglar etc....so please don't try itjord wrote:
I'm not talking about raids, it's just a simple question. I'll answer first if it makes it easier, I have broken the law.lowing wrote:
you mean to the point where the cops show up to my door in the middle of the night for a raid. Nope, I have no criminal record.jord wrote:
There aren't just criminals and good guys. It's not as Black and White as that, just differing shades of Grey. I've said it many times before. I can see how putting someone in a group (Criminals) allows you to dehumanise them and thus take the opposing side, that's fine.
So, haven't you ever broke the law?
you are right though, I do dehumanize criminals, I suppose in my mind it is better than trying to victimize them
Have you?
Okay.lowing wrote:
jord, I know what you are trying to do, I simply am not going to allow you compare jay walking with rape murder, drug dealing drug abuse child molestation burglar etc....so please don't try itjord wrote:
I'm not talking about raids, it's just a simple question. I'll answer first if it makes it easier, I have broken the law.lowing wrote:
you mean to the point where the cops show up to my door in the middle of the night for a raid. Nope, I have no criminal record.
you are right though, I do dehumanize criminals, I suppose in my mind it is better than trying to victimize them
Have you?
Though I don't think drug use fits in with those hard examples.
true, he HAD rights. now he just has the right to remain silentDBBrinson1 wrote:
Oh, I'm with ya there. His choices, actions and results. However as a US citizen he still has rights. Who knows, maybe that night he kicked his friend and told his Mom he was going to sober up and fly the straight an narrow. Never know.lowing wrote:
As I said, the cop might have been wrong I will let it rest with a judge and jury. But the dead drug addict..so what?
I agree they don't, I simply couldn't care less what happens to them.jord wrote:
Okay.lowing wrote:
jord, I know what you are trying to do, I simply am not going to allow you compare jay walking with rape murder, drug dealing drug abuse child molestation burglar etc....so please don't try itjord wrote:
I'm not talking about raids, it's just a simple question. I'll answer first if it makes it easier, I have broken the law.
Have you?
Though I don't think drug use fits in with those hard examples.
More or less, but for actual operations, we've spent a lot of effort in Central America and South America taking down big distributors. Colombia is one country we've extensively monitored.jord wrote:
Where there is demand there will always be a supply. The number doesn't matter. It's like using the Taliban death tally as a measure of success in Afghanistan.Nic wrote:
How many big time import operations have they actually succeeded in taking down though?jord wrote:
People have been saying that for ages. There will always be abother "top dog" to take their place.
While some progress has been made, it does seem as if the market readjusts right after one player is removed. Decriminalizing various substances would definitely save us a lot of trouble.
Noone deserves to get killed for being a drug addict lowing, thats quite harsh.
Last edited by dayarath (2011-01-20 12:10:43)
inane little opines
This is a big part of the reason I loathe drug addicts and am indifferent to their problems or demise. That demand is the reason the drugs flow so readily, it is the reason for the senseless deaths of innocent people and the reason for money being wasted on fighting the war on drugs on all fronts.Turquoise wrote:
More or less, but for actual operations, we've spent a lot of effort in Central America and South America taking down big distributors. Colombia is one country we've extensively monitored.jord wrote:
Where there is demand there will always be a supply. The number doesn't matter. It's like using the Taliban death tally as a measure of success in Afghanistan.Nic wrote:
How many big time import operations have they actually succeeded in taking down though?
While some progress has been made, it does seem as if the market readjusts right after one player is removed. Decriminalizing various substances would definitely save us a lot of trouble.
The other part of the reason is, any one that stupid to become a drug addict deserves whatever consequences that abuse brings. It is the fault of non one except the drug abuser.
never said they deserved to get killed, the closest thing I said to that is, they deserve whatever consequences their addictions brings them.dayarath wrote:
Noone deserves to get killed for being a drug addict lowing, thats quite harsh.
What I said was, I don't care what happens to them.
The illegality of drugs is why drug crimes occur. Addicts exist regardless of legality, but how society adapts to them differs depending on drug laws.lowing wrote:
This is a big part of the reason I loathe drug addicts and am indifferent to their problems or demise. That demand is the reason the drugs flow so readily, it is the reason for the senseless deaths of innocent people and the reason for money being wasted on fighting the war on drugs on all fronts.Turquoise wrote:
More or less, but for actual operations, we've spent a lot of effort in Central America and South America taking down big distributors. Colombia is one country we've extensively monitored.jord wrote:
Where there is demand there will always be a supply. The number doesn't matter. It's like using the Taliban death tally as a measure of success in Afghanistan.
While some progress has been made, it does seem as if the market readjusts right after one player is removed. Decriminalizing various substances would definitely save us a lot of trouble.
The other part of the reason is, any one that stupid to become a drug addict deserves whatever consequences that abuse brings. It is the fault of non one except the drug abuser.
In societies where drug laws are the most harsh, this usually results in more severe drug crime, because the substances dealt are worth more in a more risky environment.
In societies where drug laws are more loose, addiction is still a problem, but drug-related crime is less prevalent. Fewer people get killed for drugs in those societies.
If you want something to blame, blame stricter law enforcement for driving up the value of drugs. You really can't eliminate drug demand.
Oh I absolutely do blame that. Drugs should be legal. I say let anyone that wants to blow their mind do so with my blessing. Along with that freedom however comes the responsibility of that individual. Do not come begging for govt. assisted programs to rehab your ass. You sink or swim on your own, or beg your family to save your ass.Turquoise wrote:
The illegality of drugs is why drug crimes occur. Addicts exist regardless of legality, but how society adapts to them differs depending on drug laws.lowing wrote:
This is a big part of the reason I loathe drug addicts and am indifferent to their problems or demise. That demand is the reason the drugs flow so readily, it is the reason for the senseless deaths of innocent people and the reason for money being wasted on fighting the war on drugs on all fronts.Turquoise wrote:
More or less, but for actual operations, we've spent a lot of effort in Central America and South America taking down big distributors. Colombia is one country we've extensively monitored.
While some progress has been made, it does seem as if the market readjusts right after one player is removed. Decriminalizing various substances would definitely save us a lot of trouble.
The other part of the reason is, any one that stupid to become a drug addict deserves whatever consequences that abuse brings. It is the fault of non one except the drug abuser.
In societies where drug laws are the most harsh, this usually results in more severe drug crime, because the substances dealt are worth more in a more risky environment.
In societies where drug laws are more loose, addiction is still a problem, but drug-related crime is less prevalent. Fewer people get killed for drugs in those societies.
If you want something to blame, blame stricter law enforcement for driving up the value of drugs. You really can't eliminate drug demand.
That's almost as ineffective as making them illegal though.lowing wrote:
Oh I absolutely do blame that. Drugs should be legal. I say let anyone that wants to blow their mind do so with my blessing. Along with that freedom however comes the responsibility of that individual. Do not come begging for govt. assisted programs to rehab your ass. You sink or swim on your own, or beg your family to save your ass.Turquoise wrote:
The illegality of drugs is why drug crimes occur. Addicts exist regardless of legality, but how society adapts to them differs depending on drug laws.lowing wrote:
This is a big part of the reason I loathe drug addicts and am indifferent to their problems or demise. That demand is the reason the drugs flow so readily, it is the reason for the senseless deaths of innocent people and the reason for money being wasted on fighting the war on drugs on all fronts.
The other part of the reason is, any one that stupid to become a drug addict deserves whatever consequences that abuse brings. It is the fault of non one except the drug abuser.
In societies where drug laws are the most harsh, this usually results in more severe drug crime, because the substances dealt are worth more in a more risky environment.
In societies where drug laws are more loose, addiction is still a problem, but drug-related crime is less prevalent. Fewer people get killed for drugs in those societies.
If you want something to blame, blame stricter law enforcement for driving up the value of drugs. You really can't eliminate drug demand.
Inevitably, you're going to have addicts. There's no escaping that. However, people only kill for drugs for 2 reasons:
1) profit
2) getting their fix
You eliminate the first one for the most part by decriminalizing drugs.
The second issue is still present, however. If someone needs help kicking their addiction, it's best to help them out, because if you don't, they might get desperate enough to rob and/or kill someone for their next hit. That's a problem regardless of the legality of drugs.
It's in the best interests of preserving the lives of innocents by having a functional rehab system that addicts can enter when they inevitably become hooked and desperate.
why would it be hard for them to get their fix. We are talking about legalizing it. He could go to the wal mart pharmacy to get his fix.Turquoise wrote:
That's almost as ineffective as making them illegal though.lowing wrote:
Oh I absolutely do blame that. Drugs should be legal. I say let anyone that wants to blow their mind do so with my blessing. Along with that freedom however comes the responsibility of that individual. Do not come begging for govt. assisted programs to rehab your ass. You sink or swim on your own, or beg your family to save your ass.Turquoise wrote:
The illegality of drugs is why drug crimes occur. Addicts exist regardless of legality, but how society adapts to them differs depending on drug laws.
In societies where drug laws are the most harsh, this usually results in more severe drug crime, because the substances dealt are worth more in a more risky environment.
In societies where drug laws are more loose, addiction is still a problem, but drug-related crime is less prevalent. Fewer people get killed for drugs in those societies.
If you want something to blame, blame stricter law enforcement for driving up the value of drugs. You really can't eliminate drug demand.
Inevitably, you're going to have addicts. There's no escaping that. However, people only kill for drugs for 2 reasons:
1) profit
2) getting their fix
You eliminate the first one for the most part by decriminalizing drugs.
The second issue is still present, however. If someone needs help kicking their addiction, it's best to help them out, because if you don't, they might get desperate enough to rob and/or kill someone for their next hit. That's a problem regardless of the legality of drugs.
It's in the best interests of preserving the lives of innocents by having a functional rehab system that addicts can enter when they inevitably become hooked and desperate.
Sorry buddy, there are certain principals involved here that will not allow me to agree with you. What you are saying is nothing less than relieving an individual of their personal responsibility to do and act anyway they want while the straight and narrow stands by to pay for cleaning up the mess.
There is no way no how, I am gunna agree to that shit.
I agree that this scenario does make getting their fix much easier, but if the crime angle isn't persuasive, consider this: in an environment where drugs are legal and easily available, how do you think general drug use would be affected?lowing wrote:
why would it be hard for them to get their fix. We are talking about legalizing it. He could go to the wal mart pharmacy to get his fix.
Sorry buddy, there are certain principals involved here that will not allow me to agree with you. What you are saying is nothing less than relieving an individual of their personal responsibility to do and act anyway they want while the straight and narrow stands by to pay for cleaning up the mess.
There is no way no how, I am gunna agree to that shit.
If we use Portugal as an example of this, their drug-related crime went down, but their rehab rates went considerably up. This seems to imply that drug usage increased.
So, in a society where more people are getting hooked, don't you think that it's collectively more expensive for families to shoulder the burden of rehabbing a relative than it is to have a functional rehab system? Societal costs can manifest in several ways -- not just through taxation.
Addict rehabilitation is a burden on society that affects more than just the addicts themselves, regardless of whether you have a comprehensive rehab system or not. The costs it incurs are generally going to be more expensive to society overall if they are handled on a family basis than if they were handled by a government-provided system.
You may be right butI will stand on principal on this one. I will not send a message that it is ok to fuck yourself, without the clear message that you do so on your own accord and you will be solely responsible for the outcome of your decisions. The only other way I could concede is by heavily taxing the ever loving shit out of drug sales, and that money AND ONLY that money be used for rehab. If rehab goes in the red, tax even heavier for the drugs. No way no how does normal taxes get used for drug rehabTurquoise wrote:
I agree that this scenario does make getting their fix much easier, but if the crime angle isn't persuasive, consider this: in an environment where drugs are legal and easily available, how do you think general drug use would be affected?lowing wrote:
why would it be hard for them to get their fix. We are talking about legalizing it. He could go to the wal mart pharmacy to get his fix.
Sorry buddy, there are certain principals involved here that will not allow me to agree with you. What you are saying is nothing less than relieving an individual of their personal responsibility to do and act anyway they want while the straight and narrow stands by to pay for cleaning up the mess.
There is no way no how, I am gunna agree to that shit.
If we use Portugal as an example of this, their drug-related crime went down, but their rehab rates went considerably up. This seems to imply that drug usage increased.
So, in a society where more people are getting hooked, don't you think that it's collectively more expensive for families to shoulder the burden of rehabbing a relative than it is to have a functional rehab system? Societal costs can manifest in several ways -- not just through taxation.
Addict rehabilitation is a burden on society that affects more than just the addicts themselves, regardless of whether you have a comprehensive rehab system or not. The costs it incurs are generally going to be more expensive to society overall if they are handled on a family basis than if they were handled by a government-provided system.
I agree with this.lowing wrote:
You may be right butI will stand on principal on this one. I will not send a message that it is ok to fuck yourself, without the clear message that you do so on your own accord and you will be solely responsible for the outcome of your decisions. The only other way I could concede is by heavily taxing the ever loving shit out of drug sales, and that money AND ONLY that money be used for rehab. If rehab goes in the red, tax even heavier for the drugs. No way no how does normal taxes get used for drug rehab
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
To a degree, the taxes on alcohol go toward rehabilitation efforts. There is unfortunately not much transparency in where the funds actually go, and so funding rehabilitation through taxing substances that cause addiction would need to be much more transparent in a society where all drugs are legal.lowing wrote:
You may be right butI will stand on principal on this one. I will not send a message that it is ok to fuck yourself, without the clear message that you do so on your own accord and you will be solely responsible for the outcome of your decisions. The only other way I could concede is by heavily taxing the ever loving shit out of drug sales, and that money AND ONLY that money be used for rehab. If rehab goes in the red, tax even heavier for the drugs. No way no how does normal taxes get used for drug rehabTurquoise wrote:
I agree that this scenario does make getting their fix much easier, but if the crime angle isn't persuasive, consider this: in an environment where drugs are legal and easily available, how do you think general drug use would be affected?lowing wrote:
why would it be hard for them to get their fix. We are talking about legalizing it. He could go to the wal mart pharmacy to get his fix.
Sorry buddy, there are certain principals involved here that will not allow me to agree with you. What you are saying is nothing less than relieving an individual of their personal responsibility to do and act anyway they want while the straight and narrow stands by to pay for cleaning up the mess.
There is no way no how, I am gunna agree to that shit.
If we use Portugal as an example of this, their drug-related crime went down, but their rehab rates went considerably up. This seems to imply that drug usage increased.
So, in a society where more people are getting hooked, don't you think that it's collectively more expensive for families to shoulder the burden of rehabbing a relative than it is to have a functional rehab system? Societal costs can manifest in several ways -- not just through taxation.
Addict rehabilitation is a burden on society that affects more than just the addicts themselves, regardless of whether you have a comprehensive rehab system or not. The costs it incurs are generally going to be more expensive to society overall if they are handled on a family basis than if they were handled by a government-provided system.
I understand where you are coming from, but the only part I take issue with is the statement that addicts should be "solely responsible for the outcome of their decisions." In reality, that only happens part of the time. A lot of the time, families have to take that responsibility.
The more you dig into sociological issues, the more you realize that the lines between individual responsibility and societal responsibility are blurred and murky. Families often shoulder many burdens that, in principle, should be individual responsibilities.
This is why I don't take an idealistic approach to responsibility. Life is far too complicated to boil down to individual responsibilities.