To Protect and to Serve...

[allvol123]

Some people deserve to be kept in the basement and fed with a slingshot.

Love it when you go into unfiltered cop speak.

 

[Grand Vol]

Love it when you go into unfiltered cop speak.

Love it when the sarcasm goes right over your head.

Perhaps once you get through "The Little Engine that Could" you will move on to more advanced language concepts.

 

[MercyPercy]

Let's just accept the fact that right now, contrary to your personal opinion, drugs are illegal. Now if you want to live in the fantasy world you've created and ignore reality, you can. But why don't you let the facts stand for themselves in this case?

That's fine, we know they are illegal. In this case, you could say it makes him dumb for getting caught so many times. But being dumb isn't the same as being bad, is it? Because that's what it seems like a lot of people are arguing. It's interesting how so many people can judge a person's heart based on drug possession charges.

"He was a bad person, so he deserved any bad that comes his way."

Is that a logical opinion, or an emotional opinion?

And don't play this cause and effect nonsense. Even if they were legal prior to, you have no way of knowing if the benevolent Freddie Gray would have turned out to be an upstanding citizen or not.

Frankly, it doesn't matter if Gray was a terrible person or Mother Theresa. That's simply distracting from the real issue, as it is an attempt to form a narrative that doesn't hold the police accountable for their actions, because Freddie's death was just part of some "cosmic karma."

I'm not saying you're particularly guilty of this weird mindset GV, but there are many here who are.

 

[Grand Vol]

That's fine, we know they are illegal. In this case, you could say it makes him dumb for getting caught so many times. But being dumb isn't the same as being bad, is it? Because that's what it seems like a lot of people are arguing. It's interesting how so many people can judge a person's heart based on drug possession charges.

"He was a bad person, so he deserved any bad that comes his way."

Is that a logical opinion, or an emotional opinion?

Frankly, it doesn't matter if Gray was a terrible person or Mother Theresa. That's simply distracting from the real issue, as it is an attempt to form a narrative that doesn't hold the police accountable for their actions, because Freddie's death was just part of some "cosmic karma."

I'm not saying you're particularly guilty of this weird mindset GV, but there are many here who are.

I would argue that getting caught so many times does make him both dumb and a bad person. You grab a hot pan on the stove 18 times and still haven't figured out it's a bad idea? At what point does he turn from "dumb" to "can't be reformed because of his inherent propensity to break the law"? Logic would tell you that this person knew the laws, continued knowingly breaking the laws and did so without concern for his own well being. However...

I will agree that he didn't deserve death. Whether self inflicted (a theory I don't support at all) or was inflicted as part of something the officers did, it wasn't a deserving end. And yes, the officers are being held accountable right now which is what the masses are clamoring for. They'll have their day in court and I'd bet reforms will come out of it as well. If I was the police chief in Baltimore, I'd make sure each transport was outfitted with cameras in any area of the vehicle suspects were transported in. And if he hasn't already started looking at such things, he's a dimwit and needs to be replaced. But I guarantee you there are police organizations out there looking at that very same thing right now in order to avoid this in the future.

It's a tragedy all around, I agree. And an unnecessary death is certainly not the way to bring about change. But my original point still stands. Ras (and others) are standing on top of his still warm body screaming about legalization and how this death could have been avoided. And it's really no different than the way liberals and gun grabbers used the dead children at Sandy Hook for their own political purposes.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Love it when the sarcasm goes right over your head.

With the way cops are behaving (or at least being portrayed right now), I'm not so sure it is sarcasm.

Instead of sarcasm, you might be better served if you showed humility and contrition.

 

[Grand Vol]

With the way cops are behaving (or at least being portrayed right now), I'm not so sure it is sarcasm.

I wouldn't make you live in the basement.

You'd have to stay in the backyard in a tent. I don't have the room to put you up down there with all the other tortured subjects I have. But I'll still feed you with the slingshot if you want.

Get a life Ras, you knew it was a joke.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Ras (and others) are standing on top of his still warm body screaming about legalization and how this death could have been avoided. And it's really no different than the way liberals and gun grabbers used the dead children at Sandy Hook for their own political purposes.

To the contrary.. my way leans on expanding human rights and restoring rights. The Sandy Hook liberals were in the business of removing fundamental rights. Totally big difference.

 

[Grand Vol]

Instead of sarcasm, you might be better served if you showed humility and contrition.

lol coming from you

 

[Cdywolfe]

22 times, and 18 of those charges were for simple possession.

Dude there's a formula that helps determine if people are good or bad.

Illegal = Immoral*

*When performed by law enforcement, an action's morality appears to be virtually uneffected by its legality. Scientist have been baffled by this for decades, as it's the sole determining factor for the rest of us. The government has released a statement though...

Don't ask questions and do what you're told.

 

[Grand Vol]

To the contrary.. my way leans on expanding human rights and restoring rights. The Sandy Hook liberals were in the business of removing fundamental rights. Totally big difference.

And yet they used dead children to achieve their goals. Goals they believed were restoring fundamental human rights to life.

At the brass tacks principles, you use Freddie Gray in the same manner that people like Feinstein and Obama used the dead children at Sandy Hook. You wouldn't have given two ****s about him had he not died.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I wouldn't make you live in the basement.

You'd have to stay in the backyard in a tent. I don't have the room to put you up down there with all the other tortured subjects I have. But I'll still feed you with the slingshot if you want.

Get a life Ras, you knew it was a joke.

You respond with jokes everytime you are backed into a corner. Its getting old.

When you are backed into a corner on your LEO duties, do you get sarcastic with the citizen (seatbelt violation or other trumped up charges), or do you give the citizen their due recognition and let them go?

You are the type of person that has to have the last word, so you would probably try to prove your point and arrest them on a bogus charge, imo.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

And yet they used dead children to achieve their goals. Goals they believed were restoring fundamental human rights to life.

At the brass tacks principles, you use Freddie Gray in the same manner that people like Feinstein and Obama used the dead children at Sandy Hook. You wouldn't have given two ****s about him had he not died.

I don't really give two s**ts about Freddie Gray right now.

Its bigger than Freddie Gray. Whether you want to admit it or not, this is a fundamental Constitutional issue. Once it becomes easier for the general public and LEO's to dismiss the rights and lives of the Freddie Grays of the world, then the govt can start picking off people in the next socio-economic bracket.

Freddie Gray is a canary in the coal mine for all of middle-class America.

 

[jp1]

22 times, and 18 of those charges were for simple possession.

Simple possession or distribution charges?

 

[Grand Vol]

You respond with jokes everytime you are backed into a corner. Its getting old.

When you are backed into a corner on your LEO duties, do you get sarcastic with the citizen (seatbelt violation or other trumped up charges), or do you give the citizen their due recognition and let them go?

You are the type of person that has to have the last word, so you would probably try to prove your point and arrest them on a bogus charge, imo.

And your tactics of switching the conversation get old as well. I'd love to see a show of hands of those that believed I was serious except you and the other idiot that posts completely idiotic statements from time to time?

Anyone else that didn't detect the sarcasm?

And this "having the last word" rant from you is a riot. You are so guilty of that very same principle it's hilarious to see you even arguing it. Because you're doing it right now. I'm backed in a corner from making statements that everyone else took as sarcasm, but you want to argue? You haven't even made a point to argue much less even had a bit of humility in saying "okay, it was a joke I didn't feel was in good taste" but I'm backed into a corner?

Laughable. And of course, when all else fails let's attack the professional behavior of someone you've never met and have no idea how they perform their duties in the most ridiculous manner you possibly can. Quick! Change the subject before anyone else figures out what a dimwit I am for taking obvious sarcasm seriously!

As stated by several members of this forum including myself. Grow up. You want to argue a point rationally, bring a rational point up that's worth arguing.

 

[MercyPercy]

I would argue that getting caught so many times does make him both dumb and a bad person.

We must have differing definitions of a bad person, because I vehemently disagree that getting arrested for possession inherently makes someone bad. Could a bad person have drugs? Yes. Could a good person have drugs? Sure. The mere fact that he's gotten caught so many times doesn't even necessitate that his drug use is anything other than standard, but he lives in an area where it's highly policed as opposed to someone like me, who is (thankfully) ignored by the cops for the most part. It certainly implies he is not careful, and therefor, not very intelligent. It does not say anything about whether he was "good" or "bad" IMO.

You grab a hot pan on the stove 18 times and still haven't figured out it's a bad idea? At what point does he turn from "dumb" to "can't be reformed because of his inherent propensity to break the law"? Logic would tell you that this person knew the laws, continued knowingly breaking the laws and did so without concern for his own well being. However...

All this can basically be summarized as, "he was a dumbass." Well, that's certainly likely. However, I would argue that he'd have a much better opportunity in life to make something for himself had he not been arrested for such petty offenses 18 times.

I will agree that he didn't deserve death. Whether self inflicted (a theory I don't support at all) or was inflicted as part of something the officers did, it wasn't a deserving end. And yes, the officers are being held accountable right now which is what the masses are clamoring for. They'll have their day in court and I'd bet reforms will come out of it as well. If I was the police chief in Baltimore, I'd make sure each transport was outfitted with cameras in any area of the vehicle suspects were transported in. And if he hasn't already started looking at such things, he's a dimwit and needs to be replaced. But I guarantee you there are police organizations out there looking at that very same thing right now in order to avoid this in the future.

It's a tragedy all around, I agree. And an unnecessary death is certainly not the way to bring about change. But my original point still stands. Ras (and others) are standing on top of his still warm body screaming about legalization and how this death could have been avoided. And it's really no different than the way liberals and gun grabbers used the dead children at Sandy Hook for their own political purposes.

I will disagree and contend that there actually is a point to be made here regarding the drug war and its immense failures, which often have a disproportionate effect on low income communities.

 

[Grand Vol]

I don't really give two s**ts about Freddie Gray right now.

Its bigger than Freddie Gray. Whether you want to admit it or not, this is a fundamental Constitutional issue. Once it becomes easier for the general public and LEO's to dismiss the rights and lives of the Freddie Grays of the world, then the govt can start picking off people in the next socio-economic bracket.

Freddie Gray is a canary in the coal mine for all of middle-class America.

Now see, this is a valid point of argument.

As for the Constitutional issue, I won't agree since it's not labeled anywhere in the Constitution. You of course will argue to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which doesn't exactly cover it. But we'll agree to disagree. It's the laws on the books that matter.

Now, can (or should) the laws be changed in the drug realm? Possibly. It's a conversation worth having for certain. And the people making their voices heard to their elected representatives to change said laws and the conduct of the "war on drugs" under those laws. And as you well know, I don't get involved in such conversations because nobody wants to talk about the outcome of such changes. And how it empowers the government even more rather than the individual.

In fact, I'm of the mind it'll take far more than changing the drug laws to effect real change in this nation. And you'd be really surprised at what I believe.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Simple possession or distribution charges?

Either one, doesn't matter. Drug related.

 

[allvol123]

Love it when the sarcasm goes right over your head.

Perhaps once you get through "The Little Engine that Could" you will move on to more advanced language concepts.

It isn't sarcasm.

Lol, a cop wanting to challenge another person's intellect. Damn that is hilarious.

 

[Grand Vol]

We must have differing definitions of a bad person, because I vehemently disagree that getting arrested for possession inherently makes someone bad. Could a bad person have drugs? Yes. Could a good person have drugs? Sure. The mere fact that he's gotten caught so many times doesn't even necessitate that his drug use is anything other than standard, but he lives in an area where it's highly policed as opposed to someone like me, who is (thankfully) ignored by the cops for the most part. It certainly implies he is not careful, and therefor, not very intelligent. It does not say anything about whether he was "good" or "bad" IMO.

You bring decent points to the conversation here (unlike others) and I won't say I entirely agree. The possession charges, okay, I will admit it doesn't make him a "bad" person. However, the intent to distribute charges are another matter entirely. Does that make a person "bad" for a one time offense? Not necessarily. But over time when you see the same charge (distribution) one has to question the lawfulness and morality of an individual. And by morality, I don't mean whether drug use is moral or not, but rather the fact from the original post that doing so is knowingly breaking the law. Ergo, multiple incidents should make a person question what kind of person they truly are.

All this can basically be summarized as, "he was a dumbass." Well, that's certainly likely. However, I would argue that he'd have a much better opportunity in life to make something for himself had he not been arrested for such petty offenses 18 times.

Of those petty incidents, seven are only possession. That still leaves 11 incidents out there of distribution. Whether that's "dumbass" or not is not debatable. You don't get caught with the amounts that typically fall under "distribution" that many times without figuring out it's wrong (lawfully) and you aren't doing what's right. That's a conscience effort to break the law, whether you agree with them or not.

I will disagree and contend that there actually is a point to be made here regarding the drug war and its immense failures, which often have a disproportionate effect on low income communities.

My point is that people are using this death for their own gains. And again, I don't believe that's the best way for it to happen. Unfortunately, it takes death in our society to effect real change most of the time. I don't agree with it, but it's reality.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Now see, this is a valid point of argument.

As for the Constitutional issue, I won't agree since it's not labeled anywhere in the Constitution. You of course will argue to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" which doesn't exactly cover it. But we'll agree to disagree. It's the laws on the books that matter.

Now, can (or should) the laws be changed in the drug realm? Possibly. It's a conversation worth having for certain. And the people making their voices heard to their elected representatives to change said laws and the conduct of the "war on drugs" under those laws. And as you well know, I don't get involved in such conversations because nobody wants to talk about the outcome of such changes. And how it empowers the government even more rather than the individual.

In fact, I'm of the mind it'll take far more than changing the drug laws to effect real change in this nation. And you'd be really surprised at what I believe.

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are not in the Constitution.

I'm making a more general argument that drug laws as they are today violate the 9th Amendment.

 

[Grand Vol]

It isn't sarcasm.

Lol, a cop wanting to challenge another person's intellect. Damn that is hilarious.

Nice comeback. But you've already lost the "you were serious" argument by making moronic statements. And if you were actually a challenge to my intellect, this could be an interesting discussion. But sadly, you just don't have the tools.

Now shoo, Mercy and I are having a rational discussion and I'd bet even he knows he won't be fed with a slingshot in my basement.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

It's the laws on the books that matter.

And here is where we disagree. If those laws on the books violate the Constitution, then those laws should not be enforced.

 

[allvol123]

Nice comeback. But you've already lost the "you were serious" argument by making moronic statements. And if you were actually a challenge to my intellect, this could be an interesting discussion. But sadly, you just don't have the tools.

Now shoo, Mercy and I are having a rational discussion and I'd bet even he knows he won't be fed with a slingshot in my basement.

You're a cop. You gave up on challenging your intellect decades ago.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

You bring decent points to the conversation here (unlike others) and I won't say I entirely agree. The possession charges, okay, I will admit it doesn't make him a "bad" person. However, the intent to distribute charges are another matter entirely. Does that make a person "bad" for a one time offense? Not necessarily. But over time when you see the same charge (distribution) one has to question the lawfulness and morality of an individual. And by morality, I don't mean whether drug use is moral or not, but rather the fact from the original post that doing so is knowingly breaking the law. Ergo, multiple incidents should make a person question what kind of person they truly are.

Eric Garner was choked out and killed in Staten Island for selling loose cigarettes multiple times. The cops that arrested and killed him walked.

Which entity is the stupid one? The cops for taking a life on such a trivial matter or Eric Garner just trying to make a few extra dollars?