i agree, changes nothing however.tuckergustav wrote:
That is kinda what you sign up for when you take a position in community service.
what the fuck are you talking about? the court keeps the balance of justice: if you commit a crime and are found guilty of that crime, then the court officially sanctions a regulated, considered, reasoned punishment to FIT that crime. the police are nothing but the enforcement of that justice system - the guys on the ground to practically integrate these edicts and regulations. it is not the police officer's 'job' to go out and dish out their own ham-fisted version of 'justice'. they can use reasonable force in their everyday enforcement of the law, sure, but they are not THE law themselves. they are human agents of the law, bringing the criminals to the COURT.lowing wrote:
justice and guilt or innocence are 2 different things.Uzique wrote:
the court determines the proof of the crime: INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.lowing wrote:
Sorry Dilbert, a criminal is a criminal when he commits a crime. Not getting caught does not make you innocent.
when you are arrested you are arrested 'ON SUSPICION OF', awaiting a criminal TRIAL (which should be fair in any democratic, liberal state)
letting 10 street-pounding meatheads take justice into their own hands by unleashing a can of whoopass on a citizen is ILLEGAL
your understanding of justice is pathetic
what the court does is give the accused due process to determine if there is enough evidence to convict you. You are guilty or innocent based on whether or not you did it, not on what the court can prove.
In other words, if the court finds you not guilty, that doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime. likewise, if the court finds you guilty and you didn't commit the crime you are not a criminal.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I bet it makes the guy wish he had stayed in bed that day and not gone out to fuck with someone.Uzique wrote:
all this bullshit about police being heroes of the local community annoys me. it's a profession. it's a job. it has individual motivations and incentives. these people aren't all valorous local-heroes putting their necks on the line for no reward; the public-community oriented professions have enough representation and thanks for the tasks they perform. i certainly wouldn't thank any of those officers for kicking the shit into a handcuffed, already-detained individual. what does it actually achieve?
guilty men go free and innocent men go to jail....ya it happens, just because you are found not guilty doesn't mean you didn't do it, just because you are found guilty doesn't necessarily mean you did do it.Uzique wrote:
what the fuck are you talking about? the court keeps the balance of justice: if you commit a crime and are found guilty of that crime, then the court officially sanctions a regulated, considered, reasoned punishment to FIT that crime. the police are nothing but the enforcement of that justice system - the guys on the ground to practically integrate these edicts and regulations. it is not the police officer's 'job' to go out and dish out their own ham-fisted version of 'justice'. they can use reasonable force in their everyday enforcement of the law, sure, but they are not THE law themselves. they are human agents of the law, bringing the criminals to the COURT.lowing wrote:
justice and guilt or innocence are 2 different things.Uzique wrote:
the court determines the proof of the crime: INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
when you are arrested you are arrested 'ON SUSPICION OF', awaiting a criminal TRIAL (which should be fair in any democratic, liberal state)
letting 10 street-pounding meatheads take justice into their own hands by unleashing a can of whoopass on a citizen is ILLEGAL
your understanding of justice is pathetic
what the court does is give the accused due process to determine if there is enough evidence to convict you. You are guilty or innocent based on whether or not you did it, not on what the court can prove.
In other words, if the court finds you not guilty, that doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime. likewise, if the court finds you guilty and you didn't commit the crime you are not a criminal.
You are a criminal based on your actions, NOT what the court can prove. Pretty simple really, not sure how you don't get that.
Dilbert said they are not criminals until they are convicted, I simple challenge that assumption, they are criminals the second they commit a crime, getting caught has nothing to do with it.
You are a child molester the second you molest a child, not the second someone finds out about it.
Last edited by lowing (2011-02-09 13:49:33)
Yes I agree, to tackle crime in our communities we just have to beat anyone thought to have committed any.
Every single last one of us IS A CRIMINAL. Some wise man said something about casting the first stone.lowing wrote:
Sorry Dilbert, a criminal is a criminal when he commits a crime. Not getting caught does not make you innocent.Dilbert_X wrote:
Except they aren't criminals until they've been convicted by a jury.lowing wrote:
never said they are, I said I don't give a fuck what happens to criminals. The worse the better.
Letting Police officers decide who is guilty and innocent, and who gets a beating are some of the most dangerous ideas in a civilised society.
Especially when the Police are often the dumbest, least educated and most opinionated people in that society.
You can't let the police beat people, even criminals. It is not part of their mandate, implied or otherwise. They are there to stop perceived criminal activity and gather evidence for prosecution.
By not caring how the police treat criminals, you abrogate any right you have to say anything about the police beating an innocent person too. All the police have to say then is 'oh we thought he was a criminal'.
I agree with you about criminals stuck in chimneys, but that is irrelevant here.
How do the police know, with 100% certainty, that anyone they stop IS a criminal? It has happened so many times that they are in the wrong. I.e wrong person, profiling or just plain wrong about the law. As said they mostly ain't Mensa material.
I don't care much either about criminals getting hurt but I do care about innocent people getting hurt. The police are not there to punish. They are not Judge Dread clones.
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
So, we should be okay with paying police officers to be vigilantes? uh...no
...
are you talking about the 5 cops or the alleged burglar or both?lowing wrote:
I bet it makes the guy wish he had stayed in bed that day and not gone out to fuck with someone.Uzique wrote:
all this bullshit about police being heroes of the local community annoys me. it's a profession. it's a job. it has individual motivations and incentives. these people aren't all valorous local-heroes putting their necks on the line for no reward; the public-community oriented professions have enough representation and thanks for the tasks they perform. i certainly wouldn't thank any of those officers for kicking the shit into a handcuffed, already-detained individual. what does it actually achieve?
the burglarKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
are you talking about the 5 cops or the alleged burglar or both?lowing wrote:
I bet it makes the guy wish he had stayed in bed that day and not gone out to fuck with someone.Uzique wrote:
all this bullshit about police being heroes of the local community annoys me. it's a profession. it's a job. it has individual motivations and incentives. these people aren't all valorous local-heroes putting their necks on the line for no reward; the public-community oriented professions have enough representation and thanks for the tasks they perform. i certainly wouldn't thank any of those officers for kicking the shit into a handcuffed, already-detained individual. what does it actually achieve?
Ok, so if IA rolled up at that point. Shot the officer in the face, and walked. Would he be justified, because the officer was breaking the law and it's his job to police the police, right? Then the FBI comes in, because they theoretically police the police, who police the police. They shot him in the face. Long story short, Obama kills the last member of law enforcement in the USA.
And this, this would all make perfect sense in the eyes of the "let the authorities do whatever they want" crowd
And this, this would all make perfect sense in the eyes of the "let the authorities do whatever they want" crowd
the police are supposed to set an example to us - TO PROTECT THE PEACE - and to promote justice, civil equality and high morality.
the police are not a thug-force of people that are legally granted permission to go around beating up people because they 'broke' the law (which isn't even ascertained for certain until the court-phase, anyway). what sort of example does it set to citizens in a state where the police are allowed to deal out physical damage as they see fit? "adhere and admire our fine justice system, otherwise we'll put a boot in your face"? fantastic system. really makes me want to be a participating member in that society. so much to look up to!
the police are not a thug-force of people that are legally granted permission to go around beating up people because they 'broke' the law (which isn't even ascertained for certain until the court-phase, anyway). what sort of example does it set to citizens in a state where the police are allowed to deal out physical damage as they see fit? "adhere and admire our fine justice system, otherwise we'll put a boot in your face"? fantastic system. really makes me want to be a participating member in that society. so much to look up to!
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
if you read what I wrote, I clearly maintain a position of not condoning what the cops did, rather I express a complete and utter indifference to what happens to criminals in their efforts to commit a crime. Cops are probably guilty and will be punished, but I love when a criminal gets fucked up.Mekstizzle wrote:
Ok, so if IA rolled up at that point. Shot the officer in the face, and walked. Would he be justified, because the officer was breaking the law and it's his job to police the police, right? Then the FBI comes in, because they theoretically police the police, who police the police. They shot him in the face. Long story short, Obama kills the last member of law enforcement in the USA.
And this, this would all make perfect sense in the eyes of the "let the authorities do whatever they want" crowd
uzi, I never condoned police brutality, again I applaud criminals that get turned into victims, however it may happen.Uzique wrote:
the police are supposed to set an example to us - TO PROTECT THE PEACE - and to promote justice, civil equality and high morality.
the police are not a thug-force of people that are legally granted permission to go around beating up people because they 'broke' the law (which isn't even ascertained for certain until the court-phase, anyway). what sort of example does it set to citizens in a state where the police are allowed to deal out physical damage as they see fit? "adhere and admire our fine justice system, otherwise we'll put a boot in your face"? fantastic system. really makes me want to be a participating member in that society. so much to look up to!
Last edited by lowing (2011-02-09 13:59:29)
it sure is healthy to turn a blind eye to misuses of power sanctioned by the state... what a great attitude.
so many noble examples, too! i mean the gestapo and the stasi were such fine organisations!
when individuals are granted extra-legal powers, you should constantly be watchful and critical of its wielding.
so many noble examples, too! i mean the gestapo and the stasi were such fine organisations!
when individuals are granted extra-legal powers, you should constantly be watchful and critical of its wielding.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
you are right of course, still, it was a criminal that got the shit kicked out of him for committing a crime, not a Jew for being Jewish, so please lets dispense with the nazi parallels.Uzique wrote:
it sure is healthy to turn a blind eye to misuses of power sanctioned by the state... what a great attitude.
so many noble examples, too! i mean the gestapo and the stasi were such fine organisations!
when individuals are granted extra-legal powers, you should constantly be watchful and critical of its wielding.
where are you getting this from that he was a criminal? that's not a term to be used loosely. where's the evidence? the causation? the proof?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Never watched the video nor was I there. I am strictly going on the assumption that cops don't really spend much time chasing down innocent bystanders in order to beat the shit outta them.Uzique wrote:
where are you getting this from that he was a criminal? that's not a term to be used loosely. where's the evidence? the causation? the proof?
My opinion is generally speaking, and generally speaking, I don't care what happens to criminals while they commit a crime. In fact I HOPE they get fucked up huge.
Never watched the video?lowing wrote:
Never watched the video nor was I there.
nope what difference does it make? I dunno if he is guilty or not, watching the video isn't gunna change that. I don't condone police brutality, watching the video isn't going to change that either. My opinion on how I feel about criminals getting fucked up isn't going to change based on that video thus my opinions are not based on this video.AussieReaper wrote:
Never watched the video?lowing wrote:
Never watched the video nor was I there.
Last edited by lowing (2011-02-09 14:32:24)
never said that. but if you think I will let someone break into my house without a fight because he hasn't had his day in court yet, you are mistaken.Lucien wrote:
Yes I agree, to tackle crime in our communities we just have to beat anyone thought to have committed any.
The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" was overrated anyway.
Watch the video.lowing wrote:
nope what difference does it make? I dunno if he is guilty or not, watching the video isn't gunna change that. I don't condone police brutality, watching the video isn't going to change that either. My opinion on how I feel about criminals getting fucked up isn't going to change based on that video thus my opinions are not based on this video.AussieReaper wrote:
Never watched the video?lowing wrote:
Never watched the video nor was I there.
Unless you're intentionally being ignorant.
Are you?
lowing wrote:
strictly going on the assumption that cops don't really spend much time chasing down innocent.
lowing wrote:
innocent men go to jail....ya it happens... just because you are found guilty doesn't necessarily mean you did do it.
yup yer right, and I already explained why. Basically you are punished or released based on what can be proven, your guilt or innocence is determined by whether or not you committed the crime. Again, you are a child molester based on the fact of you molesting a child, not whether or not you got caught.DesertFox- wrote:
The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" was overrated anyway.
Did you really cut off my entire sentence, quote me, and purposely take it out of context to try and prove a point? Did you really just do that?mcminty wrote:
lowing wrote:
strictly going on the assumption that cops don't really spend much time chasing down innocent.lowing wrote:
innocent men go to jail....ya it happens... just because you are found guilty doesn't necessarily mean you did do it.