Ferguson Riots

What prevents a private employee from making the same mistake?

Nothing is fail proof, but private sector jobs are not protected the way government jobs are. Ever been to a bar when things got out of hand? Security definitely doesn't handle it like cops would.
 
No, but it's way too long of a conversation to have in the wrong thread.

Think of explaining democracy to somebody 1000 years ago. It would take you 2 months for them to understand but they'd just call you crazy. "You mean to tell me the leader of the country is just going to hand over power peaceably when he loses an election?"

They wouldn't understand cause they are too stuck in their framework. It takes a lot of thinking and discussion/reading to understand the theory of anarcho-capitalism. You may never agree with it, but everyone should understand it, IMO.

Everyone understands. You think your a "critical thinker".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
I read an interesting question last night about how the cop car engaged the situation. The video was taken in a fixed position at the time the car pulled into to view.

Has there been any indication that the car actually stopped prior to coming into video view?
 
Rolling up within 5 feet and surprising the child who is supposedly dangerous. The kid didn't have time to think clearly and comply or refuse to comply. That's an obvious fact because the cops claim the kid went for a toy gun. Why would he do that if he had time to think clearly?

So if the kid was just in the park without a BB gun he would've been shot the same?
 
I'm interested. Make a thread! I can't say I know much of the topic.

The link I provided pretty much covers everything. You could also read Murray Rothbard, Hans Herman Hoppe, And a bunch of other thinkers on the matter. Most of the books are free in digital format through mises.org.
 
Nothing is fail proof, but private sector jobs are not protected the way government jobs are. Ever been to a bar when things got out of hand? Security definitely doesn't handle it like cops would.

Most military members would disagree with this. Government contractors are crazy.
 
Why would he go for his toy gun either way? And what makes this fact obvious? Maybe he was trying to show them it was fake. Maybe he wanted to die? Going for the weapon proves nothing.

So in that split second he thought "I want to die so I'm going to go for my gun"?

If he was trying to show them it was fake then he wasn't thinking clearly. Obviously they are going to shoot him cause they see him going for the gun. He didn't have time to process that. If he had even 3 seconds to say it's fake this could have been avoided. He may have been saying it's fake while he was going for the gun. The cops didn't give him or themselves any time to make a good decision.
 
So in that split second he thought "I want to die so I'm going to go for my gun"?

If he was trying to show them it was fake then he wasn't thinking clearly. Obviously they are going to shoot him cause they see him going for the gun. He didn't have time to process that. If he had even 3 seconds to say it's fake this could have been avoided. He may have been saying it's fake while he was going for the gun. The cops didn't give him or themselves any time to make a good decision.

When someone pulls out a gun, you don't give them time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Basically. Private security companies that work on government contracts in war zones.

So the reason security at a bar behaves is because their business is contingent upon getting along with the community, because the community is their customer base and they need to keep a good portion of the community happy (not to mention they want to avoid potential law suits).

The government hires mercenaries to go abroad and they don't have that same incentive. They only have to make the government happy. It's not a 1:1 comparison, but you make an interesting point I hadn't thought of.
 
When someone pulls out a gun, you don't give them time.

Yeah, but

The only way the cops could have handled it worse is shoot out a rolled down window and keep driving. I've said this 8 damn times in this thread, and I keep getting the same question you asked me, so for the last time:

The cops made the fatal error before the kid allegedly went for the fake gun in his waistband.
 
He's a fictional character but you'd probably like him. One of the freakiest books I've ever read was the Illuminatus! Trilogy. May or may not be your cup of tea but Hagabard sounds like you're kind of guy.

I googled it, I'll check it out. Thanks for the recommendation. Cheers
 
Try The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress if you like sci-fi and are interested in the idea of anarcho-capitalism. It's a classic that got lost in the prosperous 80s and 90s and is making a comeback because people are fed up with big government.
 
No, actually the major difference in us is the fact I can admit when a cop is in the wrong as I've done before.

And you would never admit they were right about anything. And always look for even the most remote inkling of impropriety to justify your prejudice.

Good points. The Brown/Wilson case is a good example across the board. Had the total evidence shown he shot a fleeing or surrendering Brown (regardless of his recent crimes) he should have been "vigorously" prosecuted as the Gov stated months prior. Of course when he made that comment he was either ignorant, ignoring, or not willing to wait for a full picture.
 
Rolling up within 5 feet and surprising the child who is supposedly dangerous. The kid didn't have time to think clearly and comply or refuse to comply. That's an obvious fact because the cops claim the kid went for a toy gun. Why would he do that if he had time to think clearly?


Don't you think the parents share some responsibility for allowing the kid to take off the orange tip?
That orange is on there for a reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
God lord this 100x this. :good!:

:rock:

Imagine advocating democracy a thousand years ago. You sketch your basic idea: "Every few years we'll have a free election. Anyone who wants power can run for office, every adult gets a vote, and whoever gets the most votes runs the government until the next election." How would your contemporaries react?

They would probably call you "crazy." Why? Before you could even get to the second paragraph in your sales pitch, they'd interrupt: "Do you seriously mean to tell us that if the ruling government loses the election, they'll peacefully hand the reins of power over to their rivals?! Yeah, right!"

The expectations necessary to sustain anarcho-capitalism are highly unlikely to ever arrive. But the same was true for democracy a thousand years ago. Yet somehow, expectations radically changed and stable democracy arrived. How did expectations change so dramatically? It's complicated. But can expectations change dramatically? Absolutely.

Crazy Equilibria: From Democracy to Anarcho-Capitalism, Bryan Caplan | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Good points. The Brown/Wilson case is a good example across the board. Had the total evidence shown he shot a fleeing or surrendering Brown (regardless of his recent crimes) he should have been "vigorously" prosecuted as the Gov stated months prior. Of course when he made that comment he was either ignorant, ignoring, or not willing to wait for a full picture.

If you'll go back through this thread you'll see I didn't comment much on Wilson/brown as I viewed it as a self defense shooting. I posted a link to an article not knowing it was from a liberal snooze fest. I posted it for info purposes only. As I didn't know if the chaps here had seen it. I got drug into defending the article, which I kept prefacing my comments with "if true" then I'm on Browns side for some reason, when the only thing that mattered to me was that one guy lost his life and the other his anonymity for the rest of his life.

Is it true I dislike cops? Yes it is. I despise all systems based on force and extortion.
 
Last edited:

VN Store



Back
Top