unixknight

A Baltimore Facepalm

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

this lady was (pardon the pun) gunning for a Darwin award; and it seems she got one.

Unfortunately, she isn't qualified (as I read it): she had already passed her genes along.

Quote

Nominees significantly improve the gene pool by eliminating themselves from the human race in an obviously stupid way. They are self-selected examples of the dangers inherent in a lack of common sense, and all human races, cultures, and socioeconomic groups are eligible to compete. Actual winners must meet the following criteria:

Reproduction
   Out of the gene pool: dead or sterile.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2016 at 10:51 AM, NeuroTypical said:
On 8/17/2016 at 7:18 AM, LeSellers said:

The case involves traffic misdemeanors, but even a late library fine could result in one's death. All you need do is resist long enough and the state will send armed men with fancy hats and shiny badges and they will kill you.

So, I'm a big fan of your overall notion here, yeah, laws are enforced with force.  But no, your last statement is absolute hogwash hooey nonsense.  

Still, cops kill people every week because they "resisted long enough" and aggressively enough.

The original infraction or misdemeanor or felony may not be violent or significant, but the resistance leads to the death. Or, sometimes, as @Carborendum illustrated, the person who dies isn't even a true suspect: the old guy dies because someone called SWAT (a big mistake to even have such a force), or, worse, the cops made a mistake and went to the wrong house.

In any case, and as you note, all laws are enforced by the (threat of) lethal force. If they weren't, no one would obey them, at least not those that are purely malum prohibitum.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2016 at 9:36 AM, LeSellers said:

The only law we need is, "Don't hurt people and don't take or break their stuff."

Anything beyond that is too much.

And I think I'd like to expand on my earlier contention that no lawyer should ever be permitted on any legislative body, as it's a conflict of interest to allow them to write complex laws they then get paid to interpret.  I'm starting to really think that if a criminal case isn't strong enough that it could be successfully prosecuted by the head librarian or town drunk, it should be thrown out.  Then we don't need lawyers for that either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
35 minutes ago, NightSG said:

And I think I'd like to expand on my earlier contention that no lawyer should ever be permitted on any legislative body, as it's a conflict of interest to allow them to write complex laws they then get paid to interpret.  I'm starting to really think that if a criminal case isn't strong enough that it could be successfully prosecuted by the head librarian or town drunk, it should be thrown out.  Then we don't need lawyers for that either.

I'm not sure how much of that was serious and how much was facetious.  I'm sure there was at least a dose of both.  But...

Lawyers are very important to keeping a just society together.  We may bemoan the ambulance chasers, the SJWs, and the activist judges.  But most other lawyers just do their jobs.  It is those to whom society really owes a debt.

Shakespeare's famous line,"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" was a line pronounced by a usurper for the throne.  He figured that if he got rid of law and order, he'd become king.

The founding generation of this country was filled with enough people well educated in law.  Jefferson and Adams were both accomplished lawyers.  I'm not sure if Madison was a lawyer, but he was certainly qualified.  Instead of bemoaning laws that are written to be so complex, I'd rather bemoan a society that has lost its sense of education to the point where an average person cannot decipher simple laws, much less complex ones.  (and here comes Lehi with is GRTF or something public schools again).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Shakespeare's famous line,"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" was a line pronounced by a usurper for the throne.  He figured that if he got rid of law and order, he'd become king.

 

Bing! Bing! Bing! Exactly Carb. We've been agreeing on a lot lately. I'm getting disturbed by it. 

You could write a book on Shakespeare being misquoted or things taken vastly out of context.  This famous "kill all the lawyers" is a shining example of it. 

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/17/nyregion/l-kill-the-lawyers-a-line-misinterpreted-599990.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
5 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Et tu, Carborendum?

Lehi

That was just a barb, not a knife.  You know that in my heart, I'm with you on the homeschool issue.  But it's your presentation that I disagree with.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2016 at 11:36 AM, LeSellers said:

Still, cops kill people every week because they "resisted long enough" and aggressively enough.

The original infraction or misdemeanor or felony may not be violent or significant, but the resistance leads to the death.

You can say it over and over again as often as you like, it continues to be pure, unadulterated hogwash.  Put all the cops that have ever caused someone's death in a room.  Ask them all to ask why they did it.  There will be zero responses of "he resisted long enough", or "he resisted aggressively enough".  The responses will be about the imminent threat of serious harm or death.
Examples: "He was going for his gun"
"He was going for my gun"
"He wasn't stopping and we were headed into a busy street where people were walking"
"He refused to put his hands up and kept gesturing towards his waist band"
"I believed he had a knife, and refused to step away from the child"

What you will hear:
"He refused repeated commands to get out of the car with his hands up, and was hiding his right hand as if to conceal a weapon."

What you won't hear:
"I told him to get out of the car enough, and he just wasn't complying, so I shot him."

I mean, maybe there's a semantics issue here.  But it's your semantics which need fixing.  Cops don't kill people for resisting.  

I suppose you can find exceptions of a bad cop here or there.  They must be identified and dealt with justly.   The other 99.9% will never kill you for resisting.  They may act to end the threat if you pose one, but that's different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

The founding generation of this country was filled with enough people well educated in law.  Jefferson and Adams were both accomplished lawyers.  I'm not sure if Madison was a lawyer, but he was certainly qualified.  Instead of bemoaning laws that are written to be so complex, I'd rather bemoan a society that has lost its sense of education to the point where an average person cannot decipher simple laws, much less complex ones.

How long does it take to even read, much less comprehend the ACA?  The entire body of Federal gun laws?  On the plus side, I guess if you read all the laws, you won't have time to break any.

The Founders got enough into a few handwritten pages to build a nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Examples: "He was going for his gun"
"He was going for my gun"
"He wasn't stopping and we were headed into a busy street where people were walking"
"He refused to put his hands up and kept gesturing towards his waist band"
"I believed he had a knife, and refused to step away from the child"

And  each of these "examples" is an example of resisting aggressively, and obviously, aggressively enough.

35 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I suppose you can find exceptions of a bad cop here or there.

The problem isn't "bad cops", the problem is that the law forces cops to kill people for what are, all too often, for what are, at the base, trivial reasons.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
7 minutes ago, NightSG said:

How long does it take to even read, much less comprehend the ACA?  The entire body of Federal gun laws?  On the plus side, I guess if you read all the laws, you won't have time to break any.

The Founders got enough into a few handwritten pages to build a nation.

And if we had a nation filled with even 20% of the people who could read and understand the Constitution without a dictionary, we'd have a nation that would never have elected B.O. to be President and a nation that would have looked up the 600 page document and said,"What a huge load of *tripe*.  We can't pass this."

*Tripe, in case you couldn't guess, was a euphemism for a more appropriate epithet that cannot be reproduced on this website without rightfully incurring the righteous wrath of the moderators.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

The problem isn't "bad cops", the problem is that the law forces cops to kill people for what are, all too often, for what are, at the base, trivial reasons.

Maybe I missed something.  Which one of these is a trivial reason?

"He was going for his gun"
"He was going for my gun"
"He wasn't stopping and we were headed into a busy street where people were walking"
"He refused to put his hands up and kept gesturing towards his waist band"
"I believed he had a knife, and refused to step away from the child"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Maybe I missed something.  Which one of these is a trivial reason?

"He was going for his gun"
"He was going for my gun"
"He wasn't stopping and we were headed into a busy street where people were walking"
"He refused to put his hands up and kept gesturing towards his waist band"
"I believed he had a knife, and refused to step away from the child"

None of those is trivial. The contact with the police (and higher ups in the law enforcement community: prosecutors, judges, and so on) may have been entirely trivial. Selling loosies, jaywalking, simply lying in bed when the cops break down the wrong door, even selling drugs or having a broken tail light, these are all trivial reasons, based on incredibly stupid and immoral laws.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Bing! Bing! Bing! Exactly Carb. We've been agreeing on a lot lately. I'm getting disturbed by it. 

Don't worry.  It isn't a sign that you're as deranged as I am.  You've got a long way to go yet.  But stick with me and you'll get there.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Don't worry.  It isn't a sign that you're as deranged as I am.  You've got a long way to go yet.

lol. I'm sure we can still find many, many things we sharply disagree on. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

lol. I'm sure we can still find many, many things we sharply disagree on. :cool:

No, I don't agree with that.  Oh wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

None of those is trivial. The contact with the police (and higher ups in the law enforcement community: prosecutors, judges, and so on) may have been entirely trivial. Selling loosies, jaywalking, simply lying in bed when the cops break down the wrong door, even selling drugs or having a broken tail light, these are all trivial reasons, based on incredibly stupid and immoral laws.

So, I'm lost.  Cops don't shoot people for any of that...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

having a broken tail light, these are all trivial reasons, based on incredibly stupid and immoral laws.

Don't want to derail the conversation... But I just wanted to say that I find enforcement of proper vehicle lighting and signals to be a very important and non-trivial, and moral, reason to be pulled over. Its for public safety.

This may partially be because I get an unreasonable amount of rage when I have to deal with the many many poor college students in provo/orem that drive at night with damaged headlights/taillights/etc. It makes them a road hazard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, rpframe said:

Don't want to derail the conversation... But I just wanted to say that I find enforcement of proper vehicle lighting and signals to be a very important and non-trivial, and moral, reason to be pulled over. Its for public safety.

This may partially be because I get an unreasonable amount of rage when I have to deal with the many many poor college students in provo/orem that drive at night with damaged headlights/taillights/etc. It makes them a road hazard.

There's a big difference between a two minute stop with a fix-it-ticket and a 10-20 minute fishing expedition based on a minor equipment violation.

I've had local PD and Sheriff hold a light for me while I changed a dead taillight bulb.  (I usually keep spares in the car because they're cheap, and with only a few standard types on the market, there's a fair chance my spare may fit someone else's car too.)  It was documented as a verbal warning and I was on my way in less than 5 minutes.  One officer didn't even ask for my license.  In other places, I've gotten the full interrogation, field sobriety test and cop walking around looking in the car at every angle he can see while waiting for a full return on me, the car by plate, the car by VIN, (matched the plate) and an insurance confirmation because my license plate light was out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NightSG said:

There's a big difference between a two minute stop with a fix-it-ticket and a 10-20 minute fishing expedition based on a minor equipment violation.

I've had local PD and Sheriff hold a light for me while I changed a dead taillight bulb.  (I usually keep spares in the car because they're cheap, and with only a few standard types on the market, there's a fair chance my spare may fit someone else's car too.)  It was documented as a verbal warning and I was on my way in less than 5 minutes.  One officer didn't even ask for my license.  In other places, I've gotten the full interrogation, field sobriety test and cop walking around looking in the car at every angle he can see while waiting for a full return on me, the car by plate, the car by VIN, (matched the plate) and an insurance confirmation because my license plate light was out.

Sure, not going to disagree that some cops go overboard sometimes. But I still think its a valid reason to be pulled over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, I'm lost.  Cops don't shoot people for any of that...  

Look up the word "continuum".

People start at the trivial end, and resist (my point), and , if they resist enough, they die.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rpframe said:

Sure, not going to disagree that some cops go overboard sometimes. But I still think its a valid reason to be pulled over.

Perhaps it is. That doesn't change the fact that people die as a result of traffic stops.

Most traffic stops are not important.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now