To Protect and to Serve II

#51
#51
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Yes, I realize that. I simply defined what I meant by preventive policing.
Click to expand...

BTW - I am not sure that all "victimless" crimes are truly victimless. There is a cause and effect relationship between certain crimes that cannot be ignored. However, I agree that we have too many laws.
 
#52
#52
One thing that must be mentioned. It goes without saying, the wars this nation fights abroad eventually come home.
You see that come to fruition with the militarization of police.
 
#55
#55
hog88 said:
The right the others ceded to them. This isn't hard.
Click to expand...

So, it isn't hard? Can you show me a contract? Magic parchment doesn't count btw.

What happens to those who feel these laws are unjust and simply want to live their lives in peace? Are they just malcontents whose rights don't matter?
 
#56
#56
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
So, it isn't hard? Can you show me a contract? Magic parchment doesn't count btw.

What happens to those who feel these laws are unjust and simply want to live their lives in peace? Are they just malcontents whose rights don't matter?
Click to expand...

No they are not malcontents. They need to get off their ass and get politically active, work to take their government back and reclaim their power, then change the laws.
 
#57
#57
A few bad cops and encounters and we live in a police state..or the police are out of control..f the police..etc,etc....yet thousands of muslims committing acts of terror and they are "just a few outliers" who just need empathy and support from the west..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#58
#58
FLVOL_79 said:
A few bad cops and encounters and we live in a police state..or the police are out of control..f the police..etc,etc....yet thousands of muslims committing acts of terror and they are "just a few outliers" who just need empathy and support from the west..
Click to expand...

Ok, Mr. One Track Mind, there is no room for improvement. The police are good. Nothing to see here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#59
#59
hog88 said:
No they are not malcontents. They need to get off their ass and get politically active, work to take their government back and reclaim their power, then change the laws.
Click to expand...

What about those like me, who don't believe in the political process? Am I subject to the whims of others? Whims that greatly affect my life? I want to live in peace, I harm no one, I defraud no one. Yet, I'm robbed daily. If I don't follow some completely arbitrary law, I can be kidnapped, and if I resist this kidnapping, I'll be murdered as an end result of your political process.

What you're implying is mob rule. I hope you realize that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#60
#60
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
You're not seeing the point. What right does one man or any group of men have to rule over others?
Click to expand...

The strong survive and the weak perish. That is the law of nature. That is science. The meek inheriting the earth, that's a fairy tale.

There is a good correlation between one group becoming weak (and overly tolerant) and their own demise.

So you have your natural order of things. If it wasn't supposed to be that way nature and the world would be different. Everything functions off of dominating the weak, becoming a parasite, or cowering in fear, to survive.

That is where the natural right to rule others can be derived from, nature.
 
#61
#61
FLVOL_79 said:
The strong survive and the weak perish. That is the law of nature. That is science. The meek inheriting the earth, that's a fairy tale.

There is a good correlation between one group becoming weak (and overly tolerant) and their own demise.

So you have your natural order of things. If it wasn't supposed to be that way nature and the world would be different. Everything functions off of dominating the weak, becoming a parasite, or cowering in fear, to survive.

That is where the natural right to rule others can be derived from, nature.
Click to expand...

Of course you realize you just summarized government right?
 
#62
#62
ClearwaterVol said:
Ok, Mr. One Track Mind, there is no room for improvement. The police are good. Nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. There is room for improvement! Everything to make the police better can be applied to making our immigrants better.

1. Education requirements
2. Mental health checks
3. Easier to fire/deport

etc, etc
 
#63
#63
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Of course you realize you just summarized government right?
Click to expand...

Yes. I work for the government :thumbsup:

I only exist to crush the tax payers and spend all your money on elegant trips to Branson!

But the funny thing is inside the government the weak flourish with the strong get..strong armed. But that's due to a culture of inclusion, tolerance, and forced diversity.
 
#65
#65
ClearwaterVol said:
Inclusion and tolerance doesn't equal weak. False assumptions bring false conclusions.
Click to expand...

It doesn't equal strength.

I bet when the Romans were like "Oh man those Visigoths and Vandals aint such bad people; lets invite them over for a toga party!" they probably didn't think their tolerance and inclusion would destroy their empire..
 
#66
#66
FLVOL_79 said:
It doesn't equal strength.

I bet when the Romans were like "Oh man those Visigoths and Vandals aint such bad people; lets invite them over for a toga party!" they probably didn't think their tolerance and inclusion would destroy their empire..
Click to expand...

Lack of military screwed the romans not tolerance.
 
#67
#67
Let me preface this by stating, I do not believe you can fix government with government. But, if I were to set out to improve the police from within the confines of the current system, these are the things I'd do.

1. End the failed war on drugs.
2. End other victimless crime enforcement.
3. End police unions.
4. Set up independent review panels to review every use of force by police that results in harm or death.
5. Establish a zero tolerance policy, if you use unnecessary force, you will be arrested and charged. No more officers with 18-20 accusations of excessive force working a beat.

I feel that would be a good start. Won't happen, but, it's some ideas.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VolFaninFla and MercyPercy
#68
#68
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Let me preface this by stating, I do not believe you can fix government with government. But, if I were to set out to improve the police from within the confines of the current system, these are the things I'd do.

1. End the failed war on drugs.
2. End other victimless crime enforcement.
3. End police unions.
4. Set up independent review panels to review every use of force by police that results in harm or death.
5. Establish a zero tolerance policy, if you use unnecessary force, you will be arrested and charged. No more officers with 18-20 accusations of excessive force working a beat.

I feel that would be a good start. Won't happen, but, it's some ideas.
Click to expand...

Agree with #3 wholeheartedly.

#4. Who would you get to staff these panels? And furthermore, "results in harm" is pretty vague. Technically, handcuffing is a use of force. And I've seen people rub their wrists raw to try to say "they handcuffed me too tight!" A more specific definition of "harm" would be needed, though I agree in principle.

#5. I can agree to that, but change the wording to "if it's determined by the independent review board excessive force was used..." Accusations are one thing. Actual determination is another.
 
#69
#69
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Let me preface this by stating, I do not believe you can fix government with government. But, if I were to set out to improve the police from within the confines of the current system, these are the things I'd do.

1. End the failed war on drugs.
2. End other victimless crime enforcement.
3. End police unions.
4. Set up independent review panels to review every use of force by police that results in harm or death.
5. Establish a zero tolerance policy, if you use unnecessary force, you will be arrested and charged. No more officers with 18-20 accusations of excessive force working a beat.

I feel that would be a good start. Won't happen, but, it's some ideas.
Click to expand...

You can't have a zero tolerance policy and you definitely can't base it off accusations from criminals.
 
#70
#70
Grand Vol said:
Agree with #3 wholeheartedly.

#4. Who would you get to staff these panels? And furthermore, "results in harm" is pretty vague. Technically, handcuffing is a use of force. And I've seen people rub their wrists raw to try to say "they handcuffed me too tight!" A more specific definition of "harm" would be needed, though I agree in principle.

#5. I can agree to that, but change the wording to "if it's determined by the independent review board excessive force was used..." Accusations are one thing. Actual determination is another.
Click to expand...

As to who would staff the panels, I don't know. Maybe everyday citizens, kinda like jury duty?

I agree that causing harm is pretty vague. There would need to be a guideline. I'm not sure how we would get there. Perhaps review previous cases for a guideline. Of course that gets expensive quickly, as it calls for retraining.

I can go with your wording on #5.
 
#72
#72
Grand Vol said:
Agree with #3 wholeheartedly.

#4. Who would you get to staff these panels? And furthermore, "results in harm" is pretty vague. Technically, handcuffing is a use of force. And I've seen people rub their wrists raw to try to say "they handcuffed me too tight!" A more specific definition of "harm" would be needed, though I agree in principle.

#5. I can agree to that, but change the wording to "if it's determined by the independent review board excessive force was used..." Accusations are one thing. Actual determination is another.
Click to expand...

What are your thoughts on #1 and #2?
 
#73
#73
This sounds like candy land by saying this, I would also start an incentive program. The more good you do for the people you are serving, the more money and advancements you'd get.
 
#74
#74
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
As to who would staff the panels, I don't know. Maybe everyday citizens, kinda like jury duty?
Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem. It's easy to put a person on jury duty where a lawyer presents a case and proves beyond a doubt a person is guilty. ETA: Or cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt

Slightly different situation where ordinary citizens are placed into a role of making determinations on life and what could be construed as "excessive." And you still would end up with biased opinions in the end.

I'd actually say a panel of maybe a couple of (neutral) lawyers, perhaps a retired LEO (or a suitable SME) and fill it out with a couple of citizens.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top