To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#5,877
#5,877
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
No, the police shouldn't be allowed to detain anyone unless they've commited a crime.
Click to expand...

By detain I mean physically restrain them from coming further and placing themselves in additional danger.

You and I both know there are dimwits out there that can and would continue towards a dangerous situation (even acknowledging they bring it on themselves) just to be that guy who got the video.
 
#5,878
#5,878
Grand Vol said:
By detain I mean physically restrain them from coming further and placing themselves in additional danger.

You and I both know there are dimwits out there that can and would continue towards a dangerous situation (even acknowledging they bring it on themselves) just to be that guy who got the video.
Click to expand...

I would still say that falls on the individual. Look at the bright side, less dimwits. lol

Sure, some attorney would try to file a wrongful death suit, I would hope the judge would throw it out on face value alone.
 
#5,881
#5,881
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I would still say that falls on the individual. Look at the bright side, less dimwits. lol

Sure, some attorney would try to file a wrongful death suit, I would hope the judge would throw it out on face value alone.
Click to expand...

I find your faith in the modern justice system disturbing. :p

I think we agree there are some instances where the recording can be a hindrance. I asked for a specific reason as it happened to me once.
 
#5,882
#5,882
Grand Vol said:
By detain I mean physically restrain them from coming further and placing themselves in additional danger.

You and I both know there are dimwits out there that can and would continue towards a dangerous situation (even acknowledging they bring it on themselves) just to be that guy who got the video.
Click to expand...

I would like to give police the ability to detain in the way you have stated if they believe their police work is being hindered. The problem with allowing that is that the police would abuse it as a gimmick (as we see often today) to make sure nothing is ever recorded unless they want it to be.
 
#5,883
#5,883
volbeast33 said:
Why would they go to Birmingham even the govt has taste lol.....they just re paved my road the other day lol
Click to expand...

The point is, we are taxed to pay for the roads. The government takes that money and gives it to contractors who provide the service of paving the roads. (Rather poorly on the interstates in bham btw)

So in a world without government, do you honestly believe 300+ million people across the country couldn't do the very same thing. Minus of course the violence of government.
 
#5,884
#5,884
SamRebel35 said:
I would like to give police the ability to detain in the way you have stated if they believe their police work is being hindered. The problem with allowing that is that the police would abuse it as a gimmick (as we see often today) to make sure nothing is ever recorded unless they want it to be.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said strict controls earlier.
 
#5,885
#5,885
Grand Vol said:
I find your faith in the modern justice system disturbing. :p

I think we agree there are some instances where the recording can be a hindrance. I asked for a specific reason as it happened to me once.
Click to expand...

If we get down to brass tacks, the police as well as the justice system have brought this on themselves.
 
#5,886
#5,886
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
The point is, we are taxed to pay for the roads. The government takes that money and gives it to contractors who provide the service of paving the roads. (Rather poorly on the interstates in bham btw)

So in a world without government, do you honestly believe 300+ million people across the country couldn't do the very same thing. Minus of course the violence of government.
Click to expand...

Why h$ll no....people aren't going to pay for sh$t if they don't have too.....who is going to decide what to pay for.....who is going to collect the money
 
#5,887
#5,887
Grand Vol said:
Which is why I said strict controls earlier.
Click to expand...

What controls could be in place to ensure they don't abuse the term "hinder"? It just seems like there would always be a way to circumvent any of those controls because of how vague and open to interpretation an actual hindrance can be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,889
#5,889
volbeast33 said:
Why h$ll no....people aren't going to pay for sh$t if they don't have too.....who is going to decide what to pay for.....who is going to collect the money
Click to expand...

You ever heard of JPMorgan? He used his own money to bail the federal government out of bankruptcy.

With 300 million people, I think most people would volunteer a few sheckles to build roads.
 
#5,890
#5,890
volbeast33 said:
Why h$ll no....people aren't going to pay for sh$t if they don't have too.....who is going to decide what to pay for.....who is going to collect the money
Click to expand...

Most likely community based financing for roads, police, and any number of services we'd expect in society. It's an interesting topic that I happen to be very passionate about. Freedom is popular, if given an honest chance.
 
#5,891
#5,891
SamRebel35 said:
You ever heard of JPMorgan? He used his own money to bail the federal government out of bankruptcy.

With 300 million people, I think most people would volunteer a few sheckles to build roads.
Click to expand...

I would be willing to take that bet.....might work at first but then people would lose interest or be pissed off cause others aren't giving
 
#5,892
#5,892
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Most likely community based financing for roads, police, and any number of services we'd expect in society. It's an interesting topic that I happen to be very passionate about. Freedom is popular, if given an honest chance.
Click to expand...

Police? Who sets the laws.....I like the freedom I have now
 
#5,895
#5,895
This book does a pretty good job of explaining a state-less society.

The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism https://www.amazon.com/dp/1507785607/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_Brtovb0E4NW1K
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1507785607/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_Brtovb0E4NW1K

Also, Murray Rothbard wrote an incredible book called For a new liberty, I highly recommend it.

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto https://www.amazon.com/dp/1478280719/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_Ottovb0RGDH73
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1478280719/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_Ottovb0RGDH73

These two books should answer most questions that should arise when thinking about a government less society. Cheers.
 
#5,896
#5,896
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
It all boils down to the definition of the word crime. A crime is injury to a person or property. If there is no victim, how can there be a crime?
Anything else is revenue collection.
Click to expand...

For the most part I agree.

I do think some regulation of behavior to prevent injury is needed. I don't believe all of it is either necessary or effective. For example, speed limits in residential areas, school zones and hospitals clearly prevent predictable injuries and I'm okay with having those laws and having them enforced, even if I might break them myself from time to time. If I get caught, then, I'm willing to own that behavior and pay the fine.

Speed limits on highways don't necessarily do so and I would change those to "speed ratings" (as in "this road way is rated to allow safe travel up to 100mph" type warnings). Getting a ticket for going 80 in a 65 area bothers me, especially when that might be the safest rate to match surrounding traffic. But that is the thing, many of our highways increased the speed limits based on citizen input because we have a process to influence the system. And if you don't care for the way politicians handle that process, you have the right and ability to get yourself elected and handle it the way you want.

Also, things like "gun free zones" or other administrative restrictions that aren't really enforceable day to day and so are imposed as a reaction an event do not have the intended deterrent affect. I think eventually we will see many of our zero tolerance laws changed--they certainly don't make a lot of sense to my millennial generation kids.

I'm also a proponent of changing what happens with the revenue collected by fines and civil asset forfeiture. None of that would go back to the departments collecting it and none would be held even by the local municipal governments. I would put it all into funds for victims recovery, addiction treatment, child welfare etc. We are seeing several states change these laws right now because citizens are influencing their politicians to make this right.

Finally, vice crimes are a reflection of old thinking and I would prefer they be moved into the realm of regulated commerce.

So, I'm not blind to the fact that some of our laws maybe over reaching and may not be having the effect they originally had in mind. Or maybe they are having the effect and cities, towns and states are enjoying ill-gotten gains. But, that doesn't mean I don't believe we need some level of regulation to keep things moving along nicely.

Having said all of that, I can happily approach any law enforcement officer and have a polite conversation. I can even respond to them politely and will respect their directions if they are reasonable and within the law. I don't even require all the information if it is clearly an urgent situation and I might be in the way. I understand what they are trying to do and will treat them with courtesy when I engage with them. If they treat me otherwise, then I'll deal with that afterwards.
 
#5,898
#5,898
YorkVol said:
For the most part I agree.

I do think some regulation of behavior to prevent injury is needed. I don't believe all of it is either necessary or effective. For example, speed limits in residential areas, school zones and hospitals clearly prevent predictable injuries and I'm okay with having those laws and having them enforced, even if I might break them myself from time to time. If I get caught, then, I'm willing to own that behavior and pay the fine.

Speed limits on highways don't necessarily do so and I would change those to "speed ratings" (as in "this road way is rated to allow safe travel up to 100mph" type warnings). Getting a ticket for going 80 in a 65 area bothers me, especially when that might be the safest rate to match surrounding traffic. But that is the thing, many of our highways increased the speed limits based on citizen input because we have a process to influence the system. And if you don't care for the way politicians handle that process, you have the right and ability to get yourself elected and handle it the way you want.

Also, things like "gun free zones" or other administrative restrictions that aren't really enforceable day to day and so are imposed as a reaction an event do not have the intended deterrent affect. I think eventually we will see many of our zero tolerance laws changed--they certainly don't make a lot of sense to my millennial generation kids.

I'm also a proponent of changing what happens with the revenue collected by fines and civil asset forfeiture. None of that would go back to the departments collecting it and none would be held even by the local municipal governments. I would put it all into funds for victims recovery, addiction treatment, child welfare etc. We are seeing several states change these laws right now because citizens are influencing their politicians to make this right.

Finally, vice crimes are a reflection of old thinking and I would prefer they be moved into the realm of regulated commerce.

So, I'm not blind to the fact that some of our laws maybe over reaching and may not be having the effect they originally had in mind. Or maybe they are having the effect and cities, towns and states are enjoying ill-gotten gains. But, that doesn't mean I don't believe we need some level of regulation to keep things moving along nicely.

Having said all of that, I can happily approach any law enforcement officer and have a polite conversation. I can even respond to them politely and will respect their directions if they are reasonable and within the law. I don't even require all the information if it is clearly an urgent situation and I might be in the way. I understand what they are trying to do and will treat them with courtesy when I engage with them. If they treat me otherwise, then I'll deal with that afterwards.
Click to expand...

Trying to fix the current system is akin to treating a gun shot wound with a bandaid. While I agree with most of your points, I feel we are too far gone.

The current system uses threats of violence and theft to survive and inflict its perceived "morality" onto others, both are immoral. I know, I know, the social contract and so forth.

I always laugh when people say "run for office and change things" so, I have to subjugate myself to the immorality of government to live my own life, and mind my own business? The problem is most Americans do not realize how deep the problem is, unless of course the force of government through "law enforcement" is brought down upon them, then they're all about some accountability.

I have 0 problems with cops, I don't deal with them and I don't allow them the chance to be a jack wagon to me, if I'm pulled over, I crack my window slightly, supply any needed documents, and refuse to answer any questions or submit to any searches. More times than not, I'm on my way as the cop can plainly see I know my rights. I film any encounter I have with police as well. If I'm approached on the street, I simply walk away.

I understand cops are the revenue/enforcement arm of government. It's all immoral on its very face, as the relationship is started with theft and threats of violence if you don't comply.
I didn't become an anarchist overnight, it took me seeing the immorality of government to lead me there. I understand anything that gov can do, a truly free market, not the sham we have now, can do much better as well as more efficient.
 
Last edited:
#5,899
#5,899
SamRebel35 said:
What controls could be in place to ensure they don't abuse the term "hinder"? It just seems like there would always be a way to circumvent any of those controls because of how vague and open to interpretation an actual hindrance can be.
Click to expand...

Strict.

I don't think it's an easy question to answer as to what a hindrance might be since every situation will be different. I think a little latitude could be built in, but with the intent of not having to shoehorn the on scene commander by making it all black and white. But a very little latitude to allow for the freedom to monitor the situation from the bystanders.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top