To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#2,751
#2,751
Grand Vol said:
I understood that. But they still have an armed force for a reason.



Missed entirely what I was saying. Don't take the example I used and put it out of context. The assault is the crime. The contributing factor was the substance. Because substances can alter a person's way of thinking to make them capable of doing such things.

So in this case, the factors have to be taken into consideration as well as the crime.



Each and every governmental system gets corrupted eventually. Even your anarcho-capitalist society would eventually reach a point where it couldn't be controlled.
Click to expand...

The assault is the crime, why take into account what a substance the person made a choice to take made him do.
That's still blaming the substance IMO. People make choices.

That's just it though, in a truly AnCap society there is no control/rulers. Don't mistake that for no laws, I want laws.
Crimes would be limited to assault against someone's person or property though.
 
#2,752
#2,752
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
The assault is the crime, why take into account what a substance the person made a choice to take made him do.
That's still blaming the substance IMO. People make choices.

That's just it though, in a truly AnCap society there is no control/rulers. Don't mistake that for no laws, I want laws.
Crimes would be limited to assault against someone's person or property though.
Click to expand...

People do make choices. But to have that mental capacity altered by a substance and not taking it into account is selecting what facts one wants to prosecute on. You and I both know some drugs make people more aggressive, just like some make them less aggressive. So one can't ignore that fact and say "they made their choice" since contributing factors are there. As a cop I had to take all the facts into consideration. I couldn't pick and choose what factors were involved in anything. And that's substance, historical factors, timing and even mental state at the time of the incident.

Take crime of passion for example. Do you honestly think people who are thinking straight would commit such crimes if given the opportunity to rationalize what's happening? I know it's still a basic choice, but it's still an altered state of reasoning. And in retrospect, such things need to be considered.

So the crime is assault or whatever. The "why" still has to be answered. Why did it happen and what were the contributing factors.
 
#2,753
#2,753
Grand Vol said:
I think in both cases the People can and should rise up against a sitting government if they believe their cause is just.

Revolutions can be violent or non-violent. They typically are violent, especially for those deposed from power. I wouldn't be here today if I didn't think people should overthrow their government. Or I'd likely be talking with a funny accent and calling trucks "lorries" before I went to the loo.

Which is why I'm hateful of the way the education system portrays the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression if you will) since it was the Confederate States revolting against the central government and attempting to start over. It wasn't all about slavery as the powers that be like people to think. But rather because of a multitude of reasons. Most of which were centered around the Federal Government.
Click to expand...

Yes, history is full of instances where violent revolution occurs, only to have another violent revolution later down the road, when those people have to be overthrown because they've became despotic. It's inevitable with a government system IMO.

I would like to see a world where people have advanced in their thinking to a point where they cannot be "governed"
What I mean by that, is acknowledging the non aggression principal as the only true "law" of the land.

We agree 100% on the war of northern aggression. It sickens me the way Lincoln is portrayed these days. The man was a monster of the highest order.
 
#2,754
#2,754
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I would like to see a world where people have advanced in their thinking to a point where they cannot be "governed"
What I mean by that, is acknowledging the non aggression principal as the only true "law" of the land.
Click to expand...

Your theory doesn't take ego and covetousness into account. And people will always have ego and covet what others have to guide their actions even if deep down they know it's wrong.
 
#2,755
#2,755
Grand Vol said:
People do make choices. But to have that mental capacity altered by a substance and not taking it into account is selecting what facts one wants to prosecute on. You and I both know some drugs make people more aggressive, just like some make them less aggressive. So one can't ignore that fact and say "they made their choice" since contributing factors are there. As a cop I had to take all the facts into consideration. I couldn't pick and choose what factors were involved in anything. And that's substance, historical factors, timing and even mental state at the time of the incident.

Take crime of passion for example. Do you honestly think people who are thinking straight would commit such crimes if given the opportunity to rationalize what's happening? I know it's still a basic choice, but it's still an altered state of reasoning. And in retrospect, such things need to be considered.

So the crime is assault or whatever. The "why" still has to be answered. Why did it happen and what were the contributing factors.
Click to expand...

The contributing factor is they decided to use violence against someone else, or their property. Their mental state isn't going to help them when they're on trial, the facts will be, they aggressed against someone else. I acknowledge the "temp insanity" plea, that's bs to me. They made the choice.
 
#2,756
#2,756
Grand Vol said:
Your theory doesn't take ego and covetousness into account. And people will always have ego and covet what others have to guide their actions even if deep down they know it's wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes it does, if someone aggresses against another, that is against the law.
Will you always have douche bags in the world? Sure, but they can be dealt with accordingly.
 
#2,757
#2,757
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
The contributing factor is they decided to use violence against someone else, or their property. Their mental state isn't going to help them when they're on trial, the facts will be, they aggressed against someone else. I acknowledge the "temp insanity" plea, that's bs to me. They made the choice.
Click to expand...

So take the situation in Texas for example. The father comes home to find his 5 year old daughter being raped killed the rapist. Do you think he was in control of his faculties at the time of the "crime?"

Texas Man Who Killed His Daughter's Rapist Will Not Be Charged | National Review Online

And should he be punished for that incident without taking into account what was happening to his family member at the time of the incident? Do you think the "temp insanity" plea or crime of passion doesn't apply in this case? That a rational choice was made to beat someone to death with their bare hands? (which was quite remarkable BTW)
 
#2,758
#2,758
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Yes it does, if someone aggresses against another, that is against the law.
Will you always have douche bags in the world? Sure, but they can be dealt with accordingly.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, when others follow said douchebags, that's when the problem starts. Hitler would have died ranting at beer halls and in living rooms had nobody followed him.

And we see much the same today with the idiots in this Mike Brown case. They ignore the facts, don't do any of their own thinking, have been conditioned to believe someone is out to get them and blindly follow whomever convinces them they are right.

And that won't ever change.
 
#2,759
#2,759
Grand Vol said:
So take the situation in Texas for example. The father comes home to find his 5 year old daughter being raped killed the rapist. Do you think he was in control of his faculties at the time of the "crime?"

Texas Man Who Killed His Daughter's Rapist Will Not Be Charged | National Review Online

And should he be punished for that incident without taking into account what was happening to his family member at the time of the incident? Do you think the "temp insanity" plea or crime of passion doesn't apply in this case? That a rational choice was made to beat someone to death with their bare hands? (which was quite remarkable BTW)
Click to expand...
We acknowledge in this society that little ones are the responsibility of the parents. He was simply defending his responsibility i.e. the child. No charges.
Self defense takes this into a whole other realm. That would be self/property defense.

I'm not saying the child is the property of the parents, one cannot own another human being. (Just clarifying before outrage by someone)
 
#2,760
#2,760
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
I'm not saying the child is the property of the parents, one cannot own another human being. (Just clarifying before outrage by someone)
Click to expand...

Concurrently, a child is not property of the State, In Loco Parentis be damned. Talk about government overreach that's gone way, way, way too far.
 
#2,761
#2,761
Take a case of adultery for instance, if a man comes home and he catches his wife in bed with another man, then kills them. That's murder, not temp insanity.
 
#2,762
#2,762
Grand Vol said:
Concurrently, a child is not property of the State, In Loco Parentis be damned. Talk about government overreach that's gone way, way, way too far.
Click to expand...

That's what government does bro. It's all they know.

12 days after the constuition was signed, James Madison was already pushing for more government power. Just saying.
 
#2,763
#2,763
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
That's what government does bro. It's all they know.

12 days after the constuition was signed, James Madison was already pushing for more government power. Just saying.
Click to expand...

No, it's what the People have allowed the government to do.

Huge difference in the government taking power for themselves and the People allowing them to do it.
 
#2,767
#2,767
davethevol said:
What about the no-knock warrants where SWAT teams invade the wrong residence and kill innocent home owners? Those guys never get charged with first degree murder, 2nd degree murder, or even manslaughter. If a home owner were to return fire in one of those situations and shoot an officer then he'd be at the very least charged with assault on an officer with a deadly weapon.

The laws should be the same across the board. If a police officer shoots someones dog, no big deal. If someone hurts a police dog, it's a whole other story.

There is a clear double standard and it needs to end.
Click to expand...

My father represented a client in Henderson about twenty years ago who faced charged for killing a cop during a raid. They burst in, wounded the defendant, and he returned fire, killing one, wounding two before surrendering. He ended up not only getting off, but receiving a settlement because one of the cops proved that the others lied about announcing their presence. It was proven to be a no knock and all the officers were fired. Drugs and unregistered weapons were on the premise as well.

We're not as defenseless as you're suggesting. Given, that was one hell of a trial.
 
#2,768
#2,768
DinkinFlicka said:
My father represented a client in Henderson about twenty years ago who faced charged for killing a cop during a raid. They burst in, wounded the defendant, and he returned fire, killing one, wounding two before surrendering. He ended up not only getting off, but receiving a settlement because one of the cops proved that the others lied about announcing their presence. It was proven to be a no knock and all the officers were fired. Drugs and unregistered weapons were on the premise as well.

We're not as defenseless as you're suggesting. Given, that was one hell of a trial.
Click to expand...
Great example of disproving this fallacy that exists among some people that there is no recourse for officers who blatantly break the law to justify their ends. No knocks work and I support them wholeheartedly. Given that they are performed correctly.
 
#2,769
#2,769
tim said:
Great example of disproving this fallacy that exists among some people that there is no recourse for officers who blatantly break the law to justify their ends. No knocks work and I support them wholeheartedly. Given that they are performed correctly.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about the outcome of the case? The officers lied under oath.
 
#2,770
#2,770
tim said:
Great example of disproving this fallacy that exists among some people that there is no recourse for officers who blatantly break the law to justify their ends. No knocks work and I support them wholeheartedly. Given that they are performed correctly.
Click to expand...

Not surprising.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,773
#2,773
tim said:
Great example of disproving this fallacy that exists among some people that there is no recourse for officers who blatantly break the law to justify their ends. No knocks work and I support them wholeheartedly. Given that they are performed correctly.
Click to expand...

What do you mean that they work? If you mean they help get convictions, then yes they work.

By any other measure of success it's a complete failure. It makes all parties involved less safe. It's ridiculous how often they get the wrong home. Innocents, including children and pets are hurt and killed. Officers' lives are put at risk. And drugs continue to be very easy to get.

A conviction is not inherently good. If you get dangerous people off the streets, then yes, but if you're just busting non-violent drug dealers then there is no societal benefit because it makes no difference to the accessibility of drugs.

All for a drug conviction. Let's make alcohol illegal. Perform no-knock raids to get convictions. Then we can ignore all the costs involved and claim it's working. SMH
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,774
#2,774
n_huffhines said:
What do you mean that they work? If you mean they help get convictions, then yes they work.

By any other measure of success it's a complete failure. It makes all parties involved less safe. It's ridiculous how often they get the wrong home. Innocents, including children and pets are hurt and killed. Officers' lives are put at risk.

All for a drug conviction. Let's make alcohol illegal. Perform no-knock raids to get convictions. Then we can ignore all the costs involved and claim it's working. SMH
Click to expand...

No knocks do have their place. And when used correctly can be a very valuable tool for the job. Like so many things though, they have been overused and justification is getting harder and harder to do with some of the incidents we've seen in the recent past.

I fully support no knocks as an effective tool that can protect officers, evidence and innocent bystanders. But I also support increased scrutiny and controls of same. There needs to be indisputable proof of a significant risk of loss of life for both parties before a judge hacks off on a no knock.
 
#2,775
#2,775
Grand Vol said:
No knocks do have their place. And when used correctly can be a very valuable tool for the job. Like so many things though, they have been overused and justification is getting harder and harder to do with some of the incidents we've seen in the recent past.

I fully support no knocks as an effective tool that can protect officers, evidence and innocent bystanders. But I also support increased scrutiny and controls of same. There needs to be indisputable proof of a significant risk of loss of life for both parties before a judge hacks off on a no knock.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything to support this? All I've ever read is that it endangers the lives of cops. Most criminals don't want a shootout with police, so there is no point from a safety perspective. I have read of several cases in which cops invade homes of innocents or people that would otherwise surrender and they kill cops because they think they are home intruders. The method endangers cops, IMO.

How does it protect innocent bystanders?

The preservation of evidence is the only pro, IMO. As MPD chief Jerry Wilson once said (paraphrasing) "who cares if they flush evidence? the objective is to get drugs off the street and if they're down the toilet, then they're off the street."

I'm OK with no-knock raids for most violent offenders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top