To Protect and to Serve II

#1,226
#1,226
Grand Vol said:
Show me where I used those words without mocking you.
Click to expand...

Lets just go on your first post about mentioning cops being "duty bound".

Grand Vol said:
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.
Click to expand...


Now lets look at the highlighted first. Clearly, at this point at least, even you have to admit that what I have highlighted here is factually dishonest? Can we at least agree with that? Because we have come on here with case after case of cops exercising a generous amount of compassion and bending of the laws when it comes to other cops being on the wrong side of the law.

At least agree with me on this before we go on any further...
 
#1,227
#1,227
Grand Vol said:
See, there's your problem. You whine and complain and don't even follow things through. In case you didn't know, the trial is scheduled for November and the only reason it's that far out is because the DA is trying to juggle the Dylan Roof trial with this one.
Click to expand...

Grand, there is no way I can keep track of all of these cop killings that have gone on since this thread(s) were created. I do know that there hasn't been a trial yet, however. But that doesn't mean I still can't use the "busted tail light" meme.
 
#1,230
#1,230
orangeblood79 said:
Ras, DTH....one question:

(forgoing your opinions about the profession) Are all cops bad?
Click to expand...

The whole Good Cop / Bad Cop question can be disposed of much more decisively. We need not enumerate what proportion of cops appears to be good or listen to someone's anecdote about his uncle Charlie, an allegedly good cop.
We need only consider the following:
A cop's job is to enforce the laws, all of them;
Many of the laws are manifestly unjust, and some are even cruel and wicked;
Therefore every cop has to agree to act as an enforcer for laws that are manifestly unjust or even cruel and wicked.
There are no good cops. - Robert Higgs
 
#1,231
#1,231
Rasputin_Vol said:
No
Click to expand...

Thank you.

DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
The whole Good Cop / Bad Cop question can be disposed of much more decisively. We need not enumerate what proportion of cops appears to be good or listen to someone's anecdote about his uncle Charlie, an allegedly good cop.
We need only consider the following:
A cop's job is to enforce the laws, all of them;
Many of the laws are manifestly unjust, and some are even cruel and wicked;
Therefore every cop has to agree to act as an enforcer for laws that are manifestly unjust or even cruel and wicked.
There are no good cops. - Robert Higgs
Click to expand...

Sigh...so there's no good done by LEO's, ever? Correct?
 
#1,233
#1,233
orangeblood79 said:
Sigh...so there's no good done by LEO's, ever? Correct?
Click to expand...

Well, that gets back to this notion of being "duty bound". Cops should be "duty bound" to protect the Constitution of the United States, because that is the oath they take. The Constitution is the Law of the Land. But instead, the cops feel "duty bound" to enforce a lot of these evil, petty and ridiculous laws that violate the Constitution.

If cops actually protected and enforced The Constitution, you wouldn't see DUI checkpoints, people getting property confiscated over the pre-crime of possibly selling drugs, and all of the other numerous infractions that cops spend the majority of their time doing.
 
#1,235
#1,235
Rasputin_Vol said:
Lets just go on your first post about mentioning cops being "duty bound".

Now lets look at the highlighted first. Clearly, at this point at least, even you have to admit that what I have highlighted here is factually dishonest? Can we at least agree with that? Because we have come on here with case after case of cops exercising a generous amount of compassion and bending of the laws when it comes to other cops being on the wrong side of the law.

At least agree with me on this before we go on any further...
Click to expand...

Traditional Ras. Pick a quote out of a single post without regard to context. The context in this case being the drug laws that DTH and I were discussing. As well as an article posted with the first sentence being "the good news is two cops are dead."

But of course, you omit that minor detail as you imply my words are broad ranging in the face of all crime. But I'll stand by that remark, even in such limited context, that until said laws concerning drugs are changed, police are required to enforce said drug laws. But you also omit the fact, or rather ignore the words of those that have been cops before, that not all laws are enforced as strictly as you portray. That cops can (and do) dump a dime bag out on the side of the road and send a person on their way. Or won't strictly enforce DUI laws by having a driver call a friend or a cab. Your idiocy with the words "duty bound" in my context takes all context of what I was saying out and uses it as a blanket remark. And you look extremely foolish for doing so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,237
#1,237
Rasputin_Vol said:
Grand, there is no way I can keep track of all of these cop killings that have gone on since this thread(s) were created. I do know that there hasn't been a trial yet, however. But that doesn't mean I still can't use the "busted tail light" meme.
Click to expand...

BS. Just because you don't like the outcome of the trial or grand jury hearings doesn't mean these things haven't seen the inside of a courtroom.

Your argument is weak.
 
#1,239
#1,239
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
The whole Good Cop / Bad Cop question can be disposed of much more decisively. We need not enumerate what proportion of cops appears to be good or listen to someone's anecdote about his uncle Charlie, an allegedly good cop.
We need only consider the following:
A cop's job is to enforce the laws, all of them;
Many of the laws are manifestly unjust, and some are even cruel and wicked;
Therefore every cop has to agree to act as an enforcer for laws that are manifestly unjust or even cruel and wicked.
There are no good cops. - Robert Higgs
Click to expand...

And here I thought you were saying a few days ago the system was flawed and cops could be good people.
 
#1,242
#1,242
Grand Vol said:
Traditional Ras. Pick a quote out of a single post without regard to context. The context in this case being the drug laws that DTH and I were discussing. As well as an article posted with the first sentence being "the good news is two cops are dead."

But of course, you omit that minor detail as you imply my words are broad ranging in the face of all crime. But I'll stand by that remark, even in such limited context, that until said laws concerning drugs are changed, police are required to enforce said drug laws. But you also omit the fact, or rather ignore the words of those that have been cops before, that not all laws are enforced as strictly as you portray. That cops can (and do) dump a dime bag out on the side of the road and send a person on their way. Or won't strictly enforce DUI laws by having a driver call a friend or a cab. Your idiocy with the words "duty bound" in my context takes all context of what I was saying out and uses it as a blanket remark. And you look extremely foolish for doing so.
Click to expand...

So wait, you challenge me to find a quote where you are not using "duty bound" to mock me. I find the quote, and explain how (within context) that said quote is false. Then your reply back is to prove that your "duty bound" assertion truly is false by saying, " That cops can (and do) dump a dime bag out on the side of the road and send a person on their way."

Again, you just admitted yourself by saying that cops (allegedly) dump drugs out and offer cab rides for certain people (speculation on my part would be that these are cops or friends of cops that get the special treatment), but you still want to say that you are "duty bound".

It makes no sense. So just come out with it. Are cops "duty bound" to enforce the laws or are they not duty bound?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,243
#1,243
Grand Vol said:
BS. Just because you don't like the outcome of the trial or grand jury hearings doesn't mean these things haven't seen the inside of a courtroom.

Your argument is weak.
Click to expand...

A man shouldn't get shot in the back, that's number 1. A man shouldn't get shot in the back for running away from a cop, that's number 2. A man shouldn't die from a gunshot wound in the back by a cop over a busted tail light, that's number 3.

If you cannot wrap your mind around these simple, basic concepts, me and you are further apart on this issue than I would have even thought. I mean, we are at the very shallow end of the pool here. This isn't that deep. We all should understand this.

And if the grand jury or the courts cannot come up with a reasonable outcome, then that only strengthens the argument made about the entire system being corrupt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,244
#1,244
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Once again, it's the profession.
Click to expand...

And once again, the profession can be changed from within. As well as the trifecta of the ire you bring of courts, laws and police.

As I've stated before, once you demonize the profession, do you honestly think you're going to get good, qualified people to do said job? Many on here have argued the requirements for being a cop should be higher. I don't necessarily disagree, but I also know that once that profession is branded as the one for losers, high school dropouts, power hungry sociopaths, etc, you have a hard time attracting those that can help reform it from within. It's a double edged sword in this case like many professions that has it's beginnings in honorable and good intentions (and make no mistake, law enforcement is a profession that has good intentions at the core, even you would agree) that ends up pushed away from where it started.

But where to start? You won't admit the power between the three is elemental in making necessary change. Take the gun control laws in Colorado for example. How many Sheriffs and police banded together to fight against that nonsense? And even went as far as saying they wouldn't enforce said laws? Did they get props from you for doing so? But is the lack of enforcement on their part not in line with your personal beliefs?
 
#1,245
#1,245
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
You cannot achieve a moral outcome from immoral means.
Click to expand...

Your definition of moral and immoral differs to mine. As I've stated before, you and I see things fundamentally different. Your opinion on laws, and how they're written, doesn't jive with the legislative branch of our government--something we also fundamentally disagree on.

That's fine.

Rasputin_Vol said:
Well, that gets back to this notion of being "duty bound". Cops should be "duty bound" to protect the Constitution of the United States, because that is the oath they take. The Constitution is the Law of the Land. But instead, the cops feel "duty bound" to enforce a lot of these evil, petty and ridiculous laws that violate the Constitution.

If cops actually protected and enforced The Constitution, you wouldn't see DUI checkpoints, people getting property confiscated over the pre-crime of possibly selling drugs, and all of the other numerous infractions that cops spend the majority of their time doing.
Click to expand...

What actions would constitute a "pre-crime?" In other words, in your own words what is currently on the books that you feel is a "pre-crime?"
 
#1,246
#1,246
Rasputin_Vol said:
A man shouldn't get shot in the back, that's number 1. A man shouldn't get shot in the back for running away from a cop, that's number 2. A man shouldn't die from a gunshot wound in the back by a cop over a busted tail light, that's number 3.

If you cannot wrap your mind around these simple, basic concepts, me and you are further apart on this issue than I would have even thought. I mean, we are at the very shallow end of the pool here. This isn't that deep. We all should understand this.

And if the grand jury or the courts cannot come up with a reasonable outcome, then that only strengthens the argument made about the entire system being corrupt.
Click to expand...
It also leads to a question. What if no video existed of Walter Scott being murdered? The cop was fully ready to say he acted in self defense. Now, the question is, how many incidents like Walter Scott happen every day, only no video is available? You can't track the number, but it is an interesting thought project.
 
#1,247
#1,247
Rasputin_Vol said:
A man shouldn't get shot in the back, that's number 1. A man shouldn't get shot in the back for running away from a cop, that's number 2. A man shouldn't die from a gunshot wound in the back by a cop over a busted tail light, that's number 3.

If you cannot wrap your mind around these simple, basic concepts, me and you are further apart on this issue than I would have even thought. I mean, we are at the very shallow end of the pool here. This isn't that deep. We all should understand this.

And if the grand jury or the courts cannot come up with a reasonable outcome, then that only strengthens the argument made about the entire system being corrupt.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Tennessee v. Garner. Every cop in America knows that case law, or at least they should. You're right.
 
#1,249
#1,249
Rasputin_Vol said:
So wait, you challenge me to find a quote where you are not using "duty bound" to mock me. I find the quote, and explain how (within context) that said quote is false. Then your reply back is to prove that your "duty bound" assertion truly is false by saying, " That cops can (and do) dump a dime bag out on the side of the road and send a person on their way."

Again, you just admitted yourself by saying that cops (allegedly) dump drugs out and offer cab rides for certain people (speculation on my part would be that these are cops or friends of cops that get the special treatment), but you still want to say that you are "duty bound".

It makes no sense. So just come out with it. Are cops "duty bound" to enforce the laws or are they not duty bound?
Click to expand...

One time, said in specific context to a specif post about a specific topic, yet your attention was entirely on "duty bound" and you use it as a blanket and keep repeating it over and over again like it's the punchline to a joke.

You are the joke here. You have zero concept of context, you have zero idea of what to post in regards to an argument except "loose cigarettes, busted taillights, blah, blah, blah" and zero follow up on the things you're outraged about.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top