I think Cyclopitchorn and Snood are correct. There is only one solution.
All US police forces must be reorganized so that only African-Americans and Latinos are members of those organizations. Everyone knows minorities are especially sensitive to physical and mental abuse.
Besides, they could get more jobs and really show that the US was on the way to become truly non-racist.
There may have to be a massive effort to help the minorities when they take the qualification tests which, of course,could be dumbed down.
But--white cops--forget it--bred in the bone racists and everyone knows it.
Yup - that's really the only way to interpret what either I or Cyclopticorn said...
I've met many a cop who I, personally disliked, and many that abused their power to one extent or another. Never-the-less, I would not want to spend most of my life dealing with the scum of society, not to mention putting my life at risk in doing so. Thus I'm willing to cut them a little slack.
Yes, ideally all of our police who are charged with upholding the law would never act as if they are above it, but that ain't ever going to happen.
Of course there is a line over which we cannot tolerate their crossing, but that line, in my opinion, needs to be further forward of the one so many so-calledcommunity activists want to draw.
Society has proven it really doesn't care enough to have White Knights policing its streets, just as it has proven it really doesn't care enough to have Talented Sages teaching its children.
If my life is in danger and I am lucky enough to have a cop come to my rescue, I really couldn't care less whether or not he abuses the person who put me in danger.
The argument that cops have chosen their occupation and therefore they should not be cut any slack works even better for the vast majority of people who suffer abuse from cops. If one chooses to break the law, to threaten the safety of another citizen, to attempt to take the property of another citizen, to resist arrest by society's enforcers, or talk smack to a guy with a gun, a club and a badge, then one can hardly complain when things get a little rougher than might have been expected.
Obey the rules, leave people and their property alone, and don't be an asshole with authority and chances are really pretty good that a cop will not be beating on your head. If you do, and he or she does, you have a perfect right to squeal, and the cop should be brought up on charges.
As for the silly back and forth about whether or not an Italian is white, why should anyone care whether Baldimo doesn't consider himself white?
Is it because there is no evidence that he has an ounce of "black" blood in him? What are the rules for being non-white these days? Are latinos non-white? If so why? Is it because some of them have some fraction of "black" or "red" blood in their veins?
If I have a great-grandmother who was an Indian, can I lay claim to non-white status?
What about Indians from India? Are they white?
It seems to me that a jealous safeguarding of non-white status is a fairly racist state of mind, but then can non-whites be racist, and what about the whites who join in on the protection of non-white status?
But then Baldimo is merely being ignorant. He doesn't understand that despite the learned opinions of numerous scholars the concept of race doesn't hold much water. Unless, of course, one wants it too.
It's easier, I bet, to imagine that the "line" over which we allow law enforcement to cross should be drawn in such a way that the benefit of doubt falls to them, and not to the wrong-doers, if one has not personally been on the receiving end of some of the unfair treatment in question.
I have. More than once. I've been manhandled and searched for no apparent reason. I've been stopped in my car and detained for no apparant reason.
Well, it is apparent that I am black. But then I wouldn't want to be accused of "wanting" that to mean something.
And I agree that the whole discussion about Baldimo's non-whiteness is ridiculous, but for different reasons than you. I would have never gotten involved in that particular back-and-forth, except that Baldimo had made some casual comment that one could just "ask some black people" if they doubted what race they thought Italians to be - as if their non-white status was oh so common knowledge. It raised my bullshyt antennae. And he never replied when I challenged him on that particular bit of bullshyt.
Finn said: "If my life is in danger and I am lucky enough to have a cop come to my rescue, I really couldn't care less whether or not he abuses the person who put me in danger."
Finn should be concerned about the abuse. It could cause the taxpayers to be liable for damages when the police department is sued for the abuse. Further, any prosecution of the person could be jeopardized because of the abuse, wasting money and resources and permitting a miscreant to go free.
Society vests in a police officer deadly power and considerable authority. Considering this, society must insist that the officer act with great rectitude.
Advocate wrote:Finn said: "If my life is in danger and I am lucky enough to have a cop come to my rescue, I really couldn't care less whether or not he abuses the person who put me in danger."
Finn should be concerned about the abuse. It could cause the taxpayers to be liable for damages when the police department is sued for the abuse. Further, any prosecution of the person could be jeopardized because of the abuse, wasting money and resources and permitting a miscreant to go free.
Society vests in a police officer deadly power and considerable authority. Considering this, society must insist that the officer act with great rectitude.
They are still only human. When humans stop making mistakes then I will expect the police to do the same. TIll that happens I will still side with the police in a majority of cases where abuse is alleged.
Baldimo, would similarly excuse a bank robber (who robs just once a year) who claims that he was just being a human (going where the money is)?
Advocate wrote:Baldimo, would similarly excuse a bank robber (who robs just once a year) who claims that he was just being a human (going where the money is)?
Wrong lock up the bank robber. I would like to see a different sentence placed on a bank robber who doesn't use violence while robbing a bank verse someone who does.
Isn't "bank robbery" always been seen as violent?
Quote:ROBBERY - The felonious and forcible taking from the person of another, goods or money to any value, by violence or putting him in fear. [...] The taking must be by violence or putting the owner in fear, but both these circumstances need not concur, for if a man should be knocked down and then robbed while be is insensible, the offence is still a robbery.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Isn't "bank robbery" always been seen as violent?
Quote:ROBBERY - The felonious and forcible taking from the person of another, goods or money to any value, by violence or putting him in fear. [...] The taking must be by violence or putting the owner in fear, but both these circumstances need not concur, for if a man should be knocked down and then robbed while be is insensible, the offence is still a robbery.
Not really. You have to guys who just walk in and hand the bank teller a note and then walk out with the cash. Then you have the guys who walk in with guns and masks and start hitting people and or shooting people.
While both types of bank robberies have a effect on the mental only the 2nd one can be seen as truely violent because of the physical harm and terror caused by the act. In the first example the other customers in the bank don't have a clue that the place was robbed. You could consider this a non-violent crime.
Well, might be. In German law, there's no difference: a robbery is a robbery qua definionem.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, might be. In German law, there's no difference: a robbery is a robbery qua definionem.
Its the same here, but the sentencing could go different depending on how the crime was commited.
So that's similar as well.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Well, might be. In German law, there's no difference: a robbery is a robbery qua definionem.
In American criminal jurisprudence, states often have different degrees or classifications of robbery, depending on whether a dangerous weapon was used in the commission of the crime, or whether the robber lead the victim to believe the robber was armed with a dangerous weapon, as opposed to merely a taking of property by threat or intimidation.
So, someone who uses a
gun in the commission of a robbery might get charged with "Armed (or Aggravated) Robbery," while someone who holds up his fist and steals a wallet might just be charged with simple "Robbery."
Baldimo wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:What, exactly, does this article have to do with cops using 'excessive force?'
The cops in question didn't even engage the subject physically. According to the article,
Quote:"Two of the officers approached the car to evaluate the driver and the driver produced a handgun and started shooting at the officers."
How would the use of excessive force have helped the situation?
How would you recommend using force to keep the 'same thing from happening to them?'
Sorry, but there's no excuse for using excessive force, ever. If you don't want to have a dangerous job, don't be a cop. If you don't want to follow the law and the rules, don't be a cop. I have zero pity for any cop who steps over the line and beats the sh*t out of some guy; a situation which has absolutely nothing to do with the article you posted.
Cycloptichorn
You don't think your fellow cop being killed won't make you act different on the job? You say you have no pity for cops you use excessive force but do you have pity for the cops you don't and end up dead.
As you see see it, we have two choices allow police officers to engage in excessive force (which by definition is against policy) or have them refrain from excessive force and be shot dead.
Your reasoning is beyond moronic; it is sub-moronic (the nicest way I can think to put it).
I generally enjoy watching Lou Dobbs on CNN. However, he goes on interminably about how the two recently-convicted border guards were treated unjustly. He provides a very wrong, one-sided, argument that they were just doing their best to stop a drug smuggler. He fails to note why they were brought to trial and subsequently convicted. This is because they assaulted the captured smuggler by hitting him with a rifle, shot him when he tried to run, and then lied about the facts. To my knowledge, he never put on a member of the prosecution or even a reporter who covered the trial. I think that members of the mass media have a special duty to be honest. Lou evidently doesn't share my view.
