To Protect and to Serve...

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Okay, fine, but do you agree or disagree there is possibly more to the story here?

I'm looking at it objectively. And to me, the risks are not worth the rewards in this particular case. Which leads me to believe there is something else here that hasn't been/isn't being reported.

It's pretty plain really, a scumbag cop tricked a very lonely and desperate kid into doing something the state says is illegal. The fact the kid was autistic just highlights how much of a scumbag the cop is.
I don't care if there is more to the story, the parts we know of are bad enough.

 

[Grand Vol]

It wasn't meant to address Cantwell specifically, just the mindset of the libertarian brutalist.
Mr. Tucker happens to be one of my top 5 people in the world. You should read his work sometime.

The problem I have with the original article is the fact that the author (and I use that term loosely) has zero knowledge of the officers in question. They could have been very good men doing a difficult job to the best of their abilities. So to say there is no sympathy for the officers in question without knowing them is nothing more than an attention grabbing technique meant to draw more readers with further ire to his site.

The dude is an attention whore, nothing more, nothing less. If he had any balls and truly believed in the "cause," he would be leading the charge and making himself a martyr in the process. But he is nothing more than a coward who made some shocking comments in hopes of drumming up additional hits on his site.

So why would I be outraged when he is displaying nothing more than outrageous comments that lack conviction and are intended to do little more than inflate his sense of self worth when people retort?

 

[Grand Vol]

It's pretty plain really, a scumbag cop tricked a very lonely and desperate kid into doing something the state says is illegal. The fact the kid was autistic just highlights how much of a scumbag the cop is.
I don't care if there is more to the story, the parts we know of are bad enough.

And I don't disagree that it's a tactic that shouldn't be used. However, again, there just seems like more to it that could mitigate a lot of the outrage on the other side.

Whether you agree or not, you don't get in charge of those kinds of task forces and in positions to make those kinds of decisions by being dumb. And harassing a mentally challenged teenage kid is a pretty dumb tactic that someone should have picked up on. And this alone gives me pause to think there is more to this. Because if I was in charge of that task force, my first, last and final answer would be no. And there is no way I would let something like this that could (and has) blow up in the media and my face would compromise my case.

I also agree it's bad parenting.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

The problem I have with the original article is the fact that the author (and I use that term loosely) has zero knowledge of the officers in question. They could have been very good men doing a difficult job to the best of their abilities. So to say there is no sympathy for the officers in question without knowing them is nothing more than an attention grabbing technique meant to draw more readers with further ire to his site.

The dude is an attention whore, nothing more, nothing less. If he had any balls and truly believed in the "cause," he would be leading the charge and making himself a martyr in the process. But he is nothing more than a coward who made some shocking comments in hopes of drumming up additional hits on his site.

So why would I be outraged when he is displaying nothing more than outrageous comments that lack conviction and are intended to do little more than inflate his sense of self worth when people retort?

I agree with most of that. There are those who are out to do nothing more than destroy the libertarian message, I personally put Mr. Cantwell in that camp.

We do know my feelings on the boys in blue though. I don't think they should be murdered per se for enforcing someone else's morality though. I hope to win the police forces over to the libertarian side of non violence and liberty for all. I know, I have lofty goals lol

 

[Grand Vol]

We do know my feelings on the boys in blue though. I don't think they should be murdered per se for enforcing someone else's morality though. I hope to win the police forces over to the libertarian side of non violence and liberty for all. I know, I have lofty goals lol

Problem you have is you can't and won't see that the vast majority are decent, hardworking real people that generally do things in accordance with the law (which many laws you don't agree with, but anyway), do it in a fair and impartial manner and generally are not the boogymen portrayed by the select few that make headlines.

I too try to win over folks like you and Huff to see that there are other sides to this paradigm instead of the automatic outrage with half the story. And whether you agree with the laws or not, they are the laws. And until said laws are changed, cops are duty bound to enforce the laws.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

And I don't disagree that it's a tactic that shouldn't be used. However, again, there just seems like more to it that could mitigate a lot of the outrage on the other side.

Whether you agree or not, you don't get in charge of those kinds of task forces and in positions to make those kinds of decisions by being dumb. And harassing a mentally challenged teenage kid is a pretty dumb tactic that someone should have picked up on. And this alone gives me pause to think there is more to this. Because if I was in charge of that task force, my first, last and final answer would be no. And there is no way I would let something like this that could (and has) blow up in the media and my face would compromise my case.

I also agree it's bad parenting.

The solution is really simple, end the drug war. Treat drug addiction for what it is, a medical condition. Stop locking people up for victimless crimes.

The very nature of the law makes it nearly impossible for people that want help, to not have their lives ruined by the very system they would go to for help. If that makes sense.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Problem you have is you can't and won't see that the vast majority are decent, hardworking real people that generally do things in accordance with the law (which many laws you don't agree with, but anyway), do it in a fair and impartial manner and generally are not the boogymen portrayed by the select few that make headlines.

I too try to win over folks like you and Huff to see that there are other sides to this paradigm instead of the automatic outrage with half the story. And whether you agree with the laws or not, they are the laws. And until said laws are changed, cops are duty bound to enforce the laws.

I will agree that the average copper has lost a lot of the discretion of the coppers of when I was a young lad.
It's all revenue driven now, it's not about helping people anymore.

 

[Grand Vol]

I will agree that the average copper has lost a lot of the discretion of the coppers of when I was a young lad.
It's all revenue driven now, it's not about helping people anymore.

Blame the sword for the hand that wields it?

Tell you what, let's rationally discuss something that doesn't involve shooting dogs or buying drugs from autistic kids.

Traffic laws. Should there be controls on roadways and should people be fined for violating said controls?

 

[hog88]

Blame the sword for the hand that wields it?

Tell you what, let's rationally discuss something that doesn't involve shooting dogs or buying drugs from autistic kids.

Traffic laws. Should there be controls on roadways and should people be fined for violating said controls?

Yes and no.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Blame the sword for the hand that wields it?

Tell you what, let's rationally discuss something that doesn't involve shooting dogs or buying drugs from autistic kids.

Traffic laws. Should there be controls on roadways and should people be fined for violating said controls?

Under the current system? No.
If there is no victim, there is no crime.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

It can be done.

In Germany, Traffic Signals Become a Thing of the Past - ABC News

 

[Grand Vol]

Yes and no.

Knowing your occupation, I figured you'd chime in.

Curious to hear your take.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Besides, I've never understood how, if you're caught speeding. How does paying a ransom to the state make things all better?

I will add that anytime a cop gets behind me in traffic. I have a sudden feeling of being captured. It's very unsettling.

 

[Grand Vol]

It can be done.

In Germany, Traffic Signals Become a Thing of the Past - ABC News

I spent four years in Germany. And I can say with some authority the way they drive, this cannot work everywhere. Selected locations maybe, but trust me, key word being selective.

 

[hog88]

Knowing your occupation, I figured you'd chime in.

Curious to hear your take.

My occupation? I'd be interested in knowing what you think I do?

I think most traffic enforcement is nothing but a revenue generator disguised as public safety. Traffic/dot cops are pretty much tax collectors.

 

[hog88]

I spent four years in Germany. And I can say with some authority the way they drive, this cannot work everywhere. Selected locations maybe, but trust me, key word being selective.

Much harder to get a DL there than here.

 

[Grand Vol]

Under the current system? No.
If there is no victim, there is no crime.

And here's the root problem. Common sense doesn't always get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. I've investigated more than my fair share of accidents and typically the primary cause?

Speed too fast for conditions. And in at least half those instances resulted in two vehicle accidents or property damage. Now if each and every accident resulted in a single car wrapped around a tree with only a driver inside, I would tend to agree. But speeding, rolling through stop signs, running stop lights and other "minor" infractions of the law tend to result in a victim on the other end. And sometimes it results in dead people.

So yes, there should be controls on the roadway because some people just don't know when to slow down, stop or not put others at risk from their aggressive driving. And yes, they should be fined for it as a means to curb said aggressive driving. Having said that to say this, I don't agree with quotas or speed traps. But I do agree with traffic units enforcing the rules of the road and using fines as a reminder to obey the law.

 

[Grand Vol]

My occupation? I'd be interested in knowing what you think I do?

I think most traffic enforcement is nothing but a revenue generator disguised as public safety. Traffic/dot cops are pretty much tax collectors.

I was under the impression you are (or were) a truck driver.

Much harder to get a DL there than here.

This is true, but it certainly doesn't help their accident rate.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

And here's the root problem. Common sense doesn't always get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. I've investigated more than my fair share of accidents and typically the primary cause?

Speed too fast for conditions. And in at least half those instances resulted in two vehicle accidents or property damage. Now if each and every accident resulted in a single car wrapped around a tree with only a driver inside, I would tend to agree. But speeding, rolling through stop signs, running stop lights and other "minor" infractions of the law tend to result in a victim on the other end. And sometimes it results in dead people.

So yes, there should be controls on the roadway because some people just don't know when to slow down, stop or not put others at risk from their aggressive driving. And yes, they should be fined for it as a means to curb said aggressive driving. Having said that to say this, I don't agree with quotas or speed traps. But I do agree with traffic units enforcing the rules of the road and using fines as a reminder to obey the law.

You realize all of this can be handled privately through insurance companies right?

So we fine aggressive drivers? Are there still aggressive drivers on the roadways? Yep there is. You cannot regulate human volition GV. People are going to do what they will, it's when property is damaged is when action should be taken. In my opinion, by insurance companies alone or private courts.

 

[Grand Vol]

You realize all of this can be handled privately through insurance companies right?

So we fine aggressive drivers? Are there still aggressive drivers on the roadways? Yep there is. You cannot regulate human volition GV. People are going to do what they will, it's when property is damaged is when action should be taken. In my opinion, by insurance companies alone or private courts.

And when lives are lost?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

And when lives are lost?

Doesn't matter, it's property damage either way. Insurance companies or private courts.

 

[Grand Vol]

Doesn't matter, it's property damage either way. Insurance companies or private courts.

So if a driver is going way to fast for his own abilities and ends up killing the two passengers in his vehicle, insurance companies should handle it? The person shouldn't be tried with manslaughter as a minimum for putting other lives at risk by their own willful negligence?

 

[hog88]

I was under the impression you are (or were) a truck driver.



This is true, but it certainly doesn't help their accident rate.

No but do have a CDL, can and have driven many different trucks. I require anyone who wants to be in management to have a CD, not going to make the calls without being able to get your azz out and do it yourself.

But I either set behind a desk, make client calls or generally piss the day away on VN while the minions work.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

So if a driver is going way to fast for his own abilities and ends up killing the two passengers in his vehicle, insurance companies should handle it? The person shouldn't be tried with manslaughter as a minimum for putting other lives at risk by their own willful negligence?

Will it bring the other people he killed back to life? No it won't. He will have to make amends to the family of the victims. Be it financially or what have you.

Remember that book I offered you? It explained all this.

 

[Grand Vol]

No but do have a CDL, can and have driven many different trucks. I require anyone who wants to be in management to have a CD, not going to make the calls without being able to get your azz out and do it yourself.

But I either set behind a desk, make client calls or generally piss the day away on VN while the minions work.

My mistake.