0
   

Are police good for society?

 
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 10:18 am
OGIONIK wrote:
OK i have a challenge, Give me some logical, reasonable basis for ticketing people for "jaywalking", in a residential neighbhorhood, when im not even "crossing" the street, im walking parallel to it, there are no sidewalks, and they do this constantly, with no tickets issued.


So you just asked us to give you a rational reason why they do something that they don't do? Why should I give you a good reasons to give someone a ticket for something for which they don't issue tickets?

OGIONIK wrote:

And then explain why something i put into my body has any effect on other people and has any place being illegal, when alcohol is CLEARLY more destructive disruptive and harmful to society ( drunk driving)


What about stoned driving? What about addicts that rob or steal because they can't afford their habit?

OGIONIK wrote:

it seems all you can do is stereotype me as a "thug" or a druggie, a gangster or whatever i dont know. Then judge me for not following the rules, which any moron can see are utterly stupid, completely pointless and beyond ignorant. My bad for not being another sheep-lemming, giving in to whatever someone says is right without any lgoic, or even morality behind it. I mean its not even profitable! ( i think)


That's because you are giving all the stereotypical arguments. "I'm not doing anything wrong - they are just picking on me!" You're right. It's a conspiracy against you. And yes, it tends to be the morons that think the laws are stupid or useless. It sounds like you just want to stand out and be a rebel for the sake of doing it. Good job.
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 03:40 pm
USAFHokie80 wrote:
OGIONIK wrote:
OK i have a challenge, Give me some logical, reasonable basis for ticketing people for "jaywalking", in a residential neighbhorhood, when im not even "crossing" the street, im walking parallel to it, there are no sidewalks, and they do this constantly, with no tickets issued.


So you just asked us to give you a rational reason why they do something that they don't do? Why should I give you a good reasons to give someone a ticket for something for which they don't issue tickets?
my bad i meant "stopping"

OGIONIK wrote:

And then explain why something i put into my body has any effect on other people and has any place being illegal, when alcohol is CLEARLY more destructive disruptive and harmful to society ( drunk driving)


What about stoned driving? What about addicts that rob or steal because they can't afford their habit?
that would fall under "theft" and isnt relevant. comparing drunk and stoned driving? two different things.what about people who "steal" to feed their "eating" habit? not really a convincing argument IMO

OGIONIK wrote:

it seems all you can do is stereotype me as a "thug" or a druggie, a gangster or whatever i dont know. Then judge me for not following the rules, which any moron can see are utterly stupid, completely pointless and beyond ignorant. My bad for not being another sheep-lemming, giving in to whatever someone says is right without any lgoic, or even morality behind it. I mean its not even profitable! ( i think)


That's because you are giving all the stereotypical arguments. "I'm not doing anything wrong - they are just picking on me!" You're right. It's a conspiracy against you. And yes, it tends to be the morons that think the laws are stupid or useless. It sounds like you just want to stand out and be a rebel for the sake of doing it. Good job.


But i actually found out something interesting today, in nevada apparently they dont "need" probable cause (aka "jaywalking"), good thing im not a moron Smile

They can stop anyone for any reason what so ever. they have been telling me jaywalking because i guess, im not sure actually. That explains alot, i wish they would just say "were stopping you to search you for drugs, and in nevada the law states we dont need probably cause to stop you", but cops arent known for being honest so it makes sense, i dont understand, i guess they say jaywalking out of habit.

It seems i was right after all, i was getting stopped for no reason.
O_o at least now i know why. And another thing, why is it so goddamn hard to find out information about laws?
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 03:45 pm
Setanta wrote:
OGIONIK wrote:
OK i have a challenge, Give me some logical, reasonable basis for ticketing people for "jaywalking", in a residential neighbhorhood, when im not even "crossing" the street, im walking parallel to it, there are no sidewalks, and they do this constantly, with no tickets issued.


I have a challenge for you. Give me some logical, reasonable basis for claiming that this would be a good reason to do without police altogether.

Ever heard the expression: "throwing the baby out with the bathwater?"


yeah good point, im just venting my frustration on a failing system im stuck in, and trying to find a logical reason we arent trying to change it, its not working.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2007 04:29 pm
Fair enough, Ogionik, and it's good that you see the effect of your own frustrations. Those who could change things, who have the power, have little reason to do so, because they (the police) don't come into the neighborhoods they (the politicians) live in, unless they (the police) have reason to believe that a low-life like you might be lurking around, and up to no good.

I completely agree that the police could stand a good deal of reform, but i wouldn't want to be without them, warts and all.
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2007 01:39 am
Setanta wrote:
Fair enough, Ogionik, and it's good that you see the effect of your own frustrations. Those who could change things, who have the power, have little reason to do so, because they (the police) don't come into the neighborhoods they (the politicians) live in, unless they (the police) have reason to believe that a low-life like you might be lurking around, and up to no good.

I completely agree that the police could stand a good deal of reform, but i wouldn't want to be without them, warts and all.


lol you called me a low life,ya big meanie. i think im only seeing the problem from my perspective, which is probably the worst thing to do when trying to think logically.i have to consider the whole picture.

:/ its not a very bright picture.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 11:03 am
"comparing drunk and stoned driving? two different things"

Now that's the most idiotic thing I heard! Is it safer to drive while stoned? Also what is dui? Driving under the influence - not just of alcohol, but any other substance that would impair driving skills - it is the same thing.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jun, 2007 11:06 am
In 2004, 17% of State prisoners and 18% of Federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs. These percentages represent a slight increase for Federal prisoners (16% in 1997) and a slight decrease for State prisoners (19% in 1997).

Source: BJS, Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004, NCJ 213530, October 2006 and Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997, NCJ 172871, January 1999.


In 2002 about a quarter of convicted property and drug offenders in local jails had committed their crimes to get money for drugs, compared to 5% of violent and public order offenders. Among State prisoners in 2004 the pattern was similar, with property (30%) and drug offenders (26%) more likely to commit their crimes for drug money than violent (10%) and public-order offenders (7%). In Federal prisons property offenders (11%) were less than half as likely as drug offenders (25%) to report drug money as a motive in their offenses.
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2007 06:40 am
Linkat wrote:
"comparing drunk and stoned driving? two different things"

Now that's the most idiotic thing I heard! Is it safer to drive while stoned? Also what is dui? Driving under the influence - not just of alcohol, but any other substance that would impair driving skills - it is the same thing.


DUMB? they are both entirely different. yes it safer to drive stoned!
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2007 06:48 am
nice, that really doesnt prove anything though. does it take into account socioeconamic status, education and links to drug use?

do rich people steal drugs? do poor people have a higher chance of being involved in a theft crime even if they dont do drugs? O_o

does it list the types of drugs they were stealing to obtain?

does it say whether they are "users" or "distributors"? or are both considered together?
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2007 12:42 pm
OGIONIK wrote:
Linkat wrote:
"comparing drunk and stoned driving? two different things"

Now that's the most idiotic thing I heard! Is it safer to drive while stoned? Also what is dui? Driving under the influence - not just of alcohol, but any other substance that would impair driving skills - it is the same thing.


DUMB? they are both entirely different. yes it safer to drive stoned!


According to the law, they are not - DUI is driving under the influence - I would feel much safer driving my two young children around knowing that it is against the law to drive while stoned! I have been stoned in my younger years and can appreciate that I would not be safe driving while stoned.

Please provide evidence that it is safer (beyond I have full facility while I am stoned - you may think so, but it is not true).

I have seen a study on TV that showed how bad drivers were after smoking pot.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jun, 2007 12:44 pm
OGIONIK wrote:
nice, that really doesnt prove anything though. does it take into account socioeconamic status, education and links to drug use?

do rich people steal drugs? do poor people have a higher chance of being involved in a theft crime even if they dont do drugs? O_o

does it list the types of drugs they were stealing to obtain?

does it say whether they are "users" or "distributors"? or are both considered together?

There is nothing stated about socioeconomic status or education in the above - it is simply showing that those involved with drugs increase the crime rate.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/09/2023 at 02:39:39