Coronavirus

[Highland Rogue]

As a programmer I can't help but say "Life and human nature is analog, not binary"

I'm not a programmer and hardly computer literate.

Policing as a job, as it currently exists makes it impossible for the job itself to be "good" though. That is independent of the individual qualities or lack thereof of any individual cops.

If an individual cop happens to be a "good person" at heart, they still derive their pay from actions which would be wrong if you or I did them. That's true for all cops. THAT is what needs to change and then "good people" like your brother in law, will also be able to become good cops.

If they take an oath to enforce all laws and don't do it, they are lying at the onset of their job. That's true for all cops.

If they take an oath to enforce all laws and they do, do it, they are behaving thuggishly, since not all laws are just etc. That's true for all cops.


Also, as an aside I appreciate that you are able to hold a conversation and be polite when discussing things. Thanks.

 

[treefarmercharlie]

I'm not a programmer and hardly computer literate.

Policing as a job, as it currently exists makes it impossible for the job itself to be "good" though. That is independent of the individual qualities or lack thereof of any individual cops.

If an individual cop happens to be a "good person" at heart, they still derive their pay from actions which would be wrong if you or I did them. That's true for all cops. THAT is what needs to change and then "good people" like your brother in law, will also be able to become good cops.

If they take an oath to enforce all laws and don't do it, they are lying at the onset of their job. That's true for all cops.

If they take an oath to enforce all laws and they do, do it, they are behaving thuggishly, since not all laws are just etc. That's true for all cops.


Also, as an aside I appreciate that you are able to hold a conversation and be polite when discussing things. Thanks.

What you are asking for only exists in fairy tails. It's impossible to have every law be just, especially when the perception of laws change in time. Cops are given leeway from their superiors to use some discretion.

 

[Highland Rogue]

It happens all the time. I can tell you one perfect example. Back in the late '90s, while I was going through a divorce, I drank up a storm to deal with my depression. I was driving home from the bar one night on a road in MT that had no speed limit (they used to have signs that said "safe and prudent" on some roads instead of the speed limit back then) and this cop in front of me was doing 45 when most people did 65-70. Me, in my drunkenness thought "This guy is testing me...if I don't pass him he's going to know I'm drunk and will bag me" so I passed him on the left. Lights went on, he pulled me over, and I fucking stunk like bourbon! I was a danger to others and not only did he not arrest me, he let me drive the remaining 3/4 of a mile home while escorting me with his lights on to make sure nobody got hurt.

I'm not sure your example disproves what I've posted though.

The cop still derives his pay from an involuntary process rather than thru a voluntary agreement with customers.

What you are asking for only exists in fairy tails. It's impossible to have every law be just, especially when the perception of laws change in time. Cops are given leeway from their superiors to use some discretion.

No, what I am asking for doesn't only exist in fairy tales, it exists in everyday life and we've both participated in doing it. Voluntary exchange, where both parties agree and nobody is under duress.

It is impossible for some laws and systems, such as the present policing model system, to be just though.

So one way to do that is to fixate on what justice is and don't have two sets of standards, which happens now. Things which are wrong for you and I to do, are STILL wrong for cops and anyone else to do. It would not be just for me to try to force you to pay for my "services" if you declined them or wanted to purchase them elsewhere etc.

A system wherein a service provider and customers interact on a consensual basis, is what we've both done before. Mutual consent is what makes it just. Extortion and double standards is what makes the present policing model unjust.

 

[treefarmercharlie]

No, what I am asking for doesn't only exist in fairy tales, it exists in everyday life and we've both participated in doing it. Voluntary exchange, where both parties agree and nobody is under duress.

Where does this type of business model work when it comes to law and order? If you can give me one example then I will have no issue with saying it doesn't only exist in fairy tales. If nobody experienced duress during the policing of laws, just or unjust, then it would be human nature to exploit the legal system by ignoring it.

 

[Highland Rogue]

Where does this type of business model work when it comes to law and order?

Good question.

A voluntary business model, an actual free market, not the crony crapitalism often confused with a "free market" allows for defensive force to be used AFTER the deal is struck if one side hasn't kept it's agreement. If no deal is made consensually, then there's no agreement to enforce.
I call that defensive force and know that it is every persons right to do so. Hopefully proportionate to the wrong they received.

The present "law and order" policing model uses "offensive force" ( wrong for people to do) from the onset.
It assumes consent when no consent is actually given by at least some of the people money is extracted from.

No person has the right to use offensive force, it's unjust. Therefore that non existent right couldn't possibly be delegated to other people, by us commoners even if they are "just doing their job" in a clown suit with a badge. It is impossible to delegate a right that we ourselves don't have.

Law and order in the present model has just as much chance as doing wrong as they have of doing good. That model is based in holding two opposing beliefs at once. That cops have a right to be part of a process that initiates force (offensive force) so that they can get paid and they can also be the people who will protect you from people who might initiate force against you. That's a giant contradiction.

The nonconsensual nature of the payment soils any later attempts at calling the process "just".

 

[treefarmercharlie]

Good question.

A voluntary business model, an actual free market, not the crony crapitalism often confused with a "free market" allows for defensive force to be used AFTER the deal is struck if one side hasn't kept it's agreement. If no deal is made consensually, then there's no agreement to enforce.
I call that defensive force and know that it is every persons right to do so. Hopefully proportionate to the wrong they received.

The present "law and order" policing model uses "offensive force" ( wrong for people to do) from the onset.
It assumes consent when no consent is actually given by at least some of the people money is extracted from.

No person has the right to use offensive force, it's unjust. Therefore that non existent right couldn't possibly be delegated to other people, by us commoners even if they are "just doing their job" in a clown suit with a badge. It is impossible to delegate a right that we ourselves don't have.

Law and order in the present model has just as much chance as doing wrong as they have of doing good. That model is based in holding two opposing beliefs at once. That cops have a right to be part of a process that initiates force (offensive force) so that they can get paid and they can also be the people who will protect you from people who might initiate force against you. That's a giant contradiction.

The nonconsensual nature of the payment soils any later attempts at calling the process "just".

I think I understand what you are saying, but I also have a hard time picturing a world where a police officer could confront a person who is suspected as being violent with no type of force, without jeopardizing the life of theirs or others in the immediate area. How may people do you think would want that job? I totally agree with you when it comes to our legal system being broken, I just think it's something that will be very difficult to fix. I laugh every time I hear "Innocent until proven guilty" when people are forced to rot away in a cell until their judgement is reached.

 

[H.A.F.]

The legal system ain't broken because of cops. It's the actual courts, judges, DA's etc. that want to be God and legislate from the bench instead of enforcing the actual laws.

St Louis DA is a prime example.

 

[H.A.F.]

"Missouri recognizes the "castle doctrine" and allows residents to use force against intruders, without the duty to retreat, based on the notion that your home is your "castle." This legal doctrine assumes that if an invader disrupts the sanctity of your home, they intend to do you harm and therefore you should be able to repel their advances."

Yet she brought charges. If the McCloskey's weren't lawyers or rich they would be fucked.

 

[treefarmercharlie]

The legal system ain't broken because of cops. It's the actual courts, judges, DA's etc. that want to be God and legislate from the bench instead of enforcing the actual laws.

St Louis DA is a prime example.

I was talking about the courts, not the police.

 

[H.A.F.]

The bad cops were the ones that didn't tell her to shove the warrant up her ass instead of confiscating guns.

 

[treefarmercharlie]

"Missouri recognizes the "castle doctrine" and allows residents to use force against intruders, without the duty to retreat, based on the notion that your home is your "castle." This legal doctrine assumes that if an invader disrupts the sanctity of your home, they intend to do you harm and therefore you should be able to repel their advances."

Yet she brought charges. If the McCloskey's weren't lawyers or rich they would be fucked.

I personally believe that anyone who breaches anothers home deserves whatever happens to them. I know there are rare cases where the intruder is intoxicated, or mentally handicapped, and those are unfortunate situations. But, if one of those people get shot, then the home owner shouldn't be sued because they didn't understand that during an emotional and frightening situation.

 

[H.A.F.]

The action of confiscating the guns amounts to malicious prosecution, as do the fake felony charges.

The AG and Mayor have both stated that they will dismiss any charges and/or pardon.

The DA will not go to jail - That is where the system is broken.

 

[H.A.F.]

I know there are rare cases where the intruder is intoxicated, or mentally handicapped,

Really?

Sorry - not stopping to ask how their day has been going when they break in.
There are things called "fatal errors" - other people can learn from them. You only pay for them.

 

[treefarmercharlie]

The action of confiscating the guns amounts to malicious prosecution, as do the fake felony charges.

The AG and Mayor have both stated that they will dismiss any charges and/or pardon.

The DA will not go to jail - That is where the system is broken.

I totally agree. I personally think that any politician, DA, cop, etc that violates constitutional rights needs to be punished severely. They do this all the time in the guise of being safe and it needs to stop. It will never stop until they have to pay big for violating the constitutional rights of others.

 

[treefarmercharlie]

Really?

Sorry - not stopping to ask how their day has been going when they break in.
There are things called "fatal errors" - other people can learn from them. You only pay for them.

Read what I wrote again. I know they are still intruders. Even though they may be mentally incapable of knowing what they are doing that shouldn't mean that the homeowner should know that and put their own lives at risk.

 

[H.A.F.]

In the immortal words of my drill instructor

"If you want sympathy, look between 'shit' and 'syphilis' in the dictionary"

 

[treefarmercharlie]

In the immortal words of my drill instructor

"If you want sympathy, look between 'shit' and 'syphilis' in the dictionary"

You had Major Payne as a drill instructor? Lucky you!

 

[H.A.F.]

Read what I wrote again. I know they are still intruders. Even though they may be mentally incapable of knowing what they are doing that shouldn't mean that the homeowner should know that and put their own lives at risk.

Yes, but there are currently states that do not recognize your right to defend yourself and your property - and you can go to jail for it. And people still choose to live there

 

[H.A.F.]

You had Major Payne as a drill instructor? Lucky you!

He quoted everyone - that's their job

 

[H.A.F.]

Did I offend you Mr. Handicap Man?