unixknight

A Baltimore Facepalm

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Look up the word "continuum".

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

LeSellers, you've stopped making sense.

People start when they're born, then they get a driver's license, 20 years later they wake up one day, take a shower, put on clothes, have breakfast that makes them feel slightly ill, decide to not kiss their girlfriend goodbye, walk out the front door instead of the side door, get behind the wheel of their car, go driving, run a red light, pull over when a cop flashes their lights, jump out of the car and try to run, ignore commands to stop, hop a few fences, get cornered, refuse multiple commands to put their hands up, try to pull a gun on the cop, and get shot.

Things that didn't get anyone killed:
Being born
Getting a driver's license
Waking up
Taking a shower
Putting on clothes
Having breakfast that makes them feel slightly ill
Decide to not kiss their girlfriend goodbye
Walk out the front door instead of the side door
Get behind the wheel of their car
Go driving
Run a red light
Pull over when a cop flashes their lights
Jump out of the car and try to run
Ignore commands to stop
Hop a few fences
Get cornered
Refuse multiple commands to put their hands up

Things that did get someone killed:
Try to pull a gun on the cop.

If you disagree, maybe you can assign a percentage to the above list - exactly how much did hopping fences "cause" the death?  Or running the red light?  Or the morning's shower?

Here - maybe there's something wrong with my scenario.  You write one that results in someone getting killed for resisting.  I can't fathom one that makes any sense.   But maybe that's just me.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


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

LeSellers, you've stopped making sense.

No, NT, you've simply decided to act thick.

Lehi

Share this post


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

So help me thin the thickness.  Write your own scenario that makes sense to folks.

I've written more than enough for most people. Our grandson gets it, but he's not terribly self-absorbed.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you guys are talking past one another.

 

@LeSellers is trying to make the point that, ultimately, all laws are backed by the threat of force.  Now, the chances of getting killed over a traffic stop are indeed minimal, and cops aren't going to shoot me over it.  That said, if I get a speeding ticket, and refuse to pay, I'll be assessed fines and penalties.  Ignore it long enough, and my wages may be garnished or, depending on the circumstances, a warrant may be issued for my arrest.  At that point I'm looking at imprisonment.  That's Government force.  Now, I could potentially be killed by Government force if I resist physically, but that isn't the automatic result of this scenario, which I believe is what @NeuroTypical is saying.

Share this post


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

that isn't the automatic result of this scenario,

Automatic, no. Possible, yes.

Even if the final "cause" of the death, it is a necessary (albeit not sufficient) cause of this kind of death.

Washington told us "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master."

As you said (and as I have said dozens of times) all laws are backed up by (the threat of) lethal force. That is the point. Government is dangerous.

Lehi

 

Share this post


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

I think you guys are talking past one another.

 

@LeSellers is trying to make the point that, ultimately, all laws are backed by the threat of force.  Now, the chances of getting killed over a traffic stop are indeed minimal, and cops aren't going to shoot me over it.  That said, if I get a speeding ticket, and refuse to pay, I'll be assessed fines and penalties.  Ignore it long enough, and my wages may be garnished or, depending on the circumstances, a warrant may be issued for my arrest.  At that point I'm looking at imprisonment.  That's Government force.  Now, I could potentially be killed by Government force if I resist physically, but that isn't the automatic result of this scenario, which I believe is what @NeuroTypical is saying.

  You've hit on several things here Unix. 

 One reason I like Gary Johnson is that he's a sensible libertarian. Looney ones babble about cops opening fire on speeders and litterbugs-which simply doesn't happen. Practical, sensible ones focus on winnable goals-like stopping asset forfeiture abuse or legalizing small amounts of marijuana. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

LeSellers, you've stopped making sense.

 

4 hours ago, LeSellers said:

No, NT, you've simply decided to act thick.

 

4 hours ago, LeSellers said:

I've written more than enough for most people. Our grandson gets it, but he's not terribly self-absorbed.

Now, guys. :disclaimer: I of all people know what it's like to lose one's head in the heat of debate.  But I'll do my best to try to play peacekeeper.  I consider NT a friend.  And Lehi is my FIL, so I owe him some alliance as well.

Lehi is making some sense.  He's not communicating as well as he needs to.

NT is not thick nor self-absorbed.  He's usually pretty intelligent and considerate.  He's just gotten a little blinded by a bit of emotion (from both sides).

Here's what I'd like to hear from each of you, but I wonder if you'd each even admit this much.

1) There are recorded cases of police shooting individuals because of some trivial matters.  The question may be how often this occurs.  Can they be considered outliers?  Or is it common enough to say it is a "pattern"?

2) Most police do a fantastic job of keeping law and order and using an amount of force appropriate to the situation.  And we owe as much to them as we do the men and women of the armed forces for protecting our way of life.

Regardless of your primary points, you can agree to these points, right?

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, ok - this is me calming down.  I'm sorry I got hot LeSellers.

Yes, I am aware of some rare cases where cops engaged in criminal misconduct, and abused their power, their community, their system of laws they've sworn to uphold, and killed for unlawful reasons.  Maybe that could do?  

But honestly, I've never seen a recorded case of a cop shooting someone because of a trivial matter.  I mean, I hear people making the claim all the time, but when I looked into the details, there was always a much more serious reason. Maybe I need a link or something, but I've never seen so much as a single anecdotal outlier.  Accidents, negligence, or criminal conduct, I've seen.  But "I shot him because he didn't get out of the car"?  Nope.   Not in the USA.  Not even in Baltimore (or Texas, depending on your politics).  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Here's what I'd like to hear from each of you, but I wonder if you'd each even admit this much.

1) There are recorded cases of police shooting individuals because of some trivial matters.  The question may be how often this occurs.  Can they be considered outliers?  Or is it common enough to say it is a "pattern"?

2) Most police do a fantastic job of keeping law and order and using an amount of force appropriate to the situation.  And we owe as much to them as we do the men and women of the armed forces for protecting our way of life.

Regardless of your primary points, you can agree to these points, right?

My point has nothing to do with the police!* There are bad cops, there are good cops. It doesn't matter. It's the fact that governance is always by (threat of) lethal force. Politicians and bureaucrats demand, under ultimate threat of death, that we obey their edicts, diktats, laws, regulations, and other infringements on the natural rights we have. That some of the laws are useful (thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, etc.) allows them to put other laws, etc., that are immoral and unnecessary and we, recognizing the power they have in the former case, permit them to ride rough-shod over our God-given freedoms and privileges.
* The police are usually tasked with enforcing the laws, and may end up applying that ultimate pressure, but it is not their fault (in most cases). I have not attacked the police in this, and it is not my contention that cops go around, willy-nilly, killing people.

I'd like to ask a question:

Can anyone name a single law that the cops or anyone else in law enforcement would say, "Well, it's not worth it. We'll just let this ride. Go on about your business."?

I give you John Singer. He broke a lot of laws. None of which affected anyone but those in his family (and not against their wills, either). He schooled his children in the family. A woman came to him and his wife and asked to marry him, as well, and he took her in. He went out one morning to get the mail, and Utah "peace officers", under the direction of the AG (as I recall, it's been fifteen or more years since I read the book), shot him dead. They claimed he was carrying a weapon, but there is absolutely no evidence to support this contention. Singer was not harming anyone, but the law must be obeyed, however irrational, however immoral. And Singer paid with his life for not hurting anyone, but offending the powers that be. Singer resisted, he had to die.

I give you Ruby Ridge. Randy Weaver did not want to saw off the shotgun, but an undercover Peace officer" put enough pressure on him that he did it to get the man off his back. Then another "peace officer" shot and killed his wife and son. Weaver did not hurt anyone, but they killed his wife and son anyway because the law must be obeyed, whether the law is irrational or immoral. The powers that be must feel secure in their power, so they kill people. They resisted, they had to die.

I give you Waco. No one there had hurt anyone outside the "compound". Everyone, except the little children, was there of his own accord. But 76 people died because the powers that be must be obeyed without question. They resisted, they had to die.

This is not about the police, it's about irrational and immoral government. It's about the loss of freedoms. It's about living as peaceful people without what Jefferson called "swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LeSellers said:

I'd like to ask a question:

Can anyone name a single law that the cops or anyone else in law enforcement would say, "Well, it's not worth it. We'll just let this ride. Go on about your business."?

 

Last Tuesday, traffic accident, verbal warning...oh yeat, yesterday, verbal warning on a trespasser who was already banned from the store. 

 

Oh. My. Gosh.  That is two in just 7 days...imagine that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Things that did get someone killed:
Try to pull a gun on the cop.

Since Charles Kinsey only got shot in the leg and didn't die, I guess that's under "not fatal harm, no foul," then.

Same for Levar Jones, no doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
3 hours ago, LeSellers said:

I'd like to ask a question:

Can anyone name a single law that the cops or anyone else in law enforcement would say, "Well, it's not worth it. We'll just let this ride. Go on about your business."?

Well, there's this.

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Oh. My. Gosh.  That is two in just 7 days...imagine that.

 

I know someone who has been pulled over for speeding multiple times. 8-10 times for sure.  Multiple states too. He has gotten two tickets. One at 16, one at 18.  Every other time the cop has said "Slow it down bud, okay? Thanks." He is now in his late thirties. 
 

So yeah, it happens frequently I bet. A good cop can tell the difference between some dude who is speeding to get home to his wife  and kids and simply wasn't paying attention and a thug who is careless and is trying to see if he can break the sound barrier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Can anyone name a single law that the cops or anyone else in law enforcement would say, "Well, it's not worth it. We'll just let this ride. Go on about your business."?

 

I drove from the south west side of SL County, downtown and back in a marked police car twice today.  Half that drive time is on I-215 and I-15.  At least a half dozen cars sped past me at significantly higher speeds.  Not only did I not shoot any of them, I did not pull any of them over either. 

 

That doesn't even factor in the Bud Light van driver who decided after the lanes had merged that he needed to pass me nearly forcing me onto the shoulder.  Guess what?  He didn't get shot either.  Or ticketed.  Or stopped.

Imagine that.

But wait...the day isn't done yet.  I still have hours and hours to go out and interact with the public again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

I drove from the south west side of SL County, downtown and back in a marked police car twice today.  Half that drive time is on I-215 and I-15.  At least a half dozen cars sped past me at significantly higher speeds.  Not only did I not shoot any of them, I did not pull any of them over either. 

 

That doesn't even factor in the Bud Light van driver who decided after the lanes had merged that he needed to pass me nearly forcing me onto the shoulder.  Guess what?  He didn't get shot either.  Or ticketed.  Or stopped.

Imagine that.

But wait...the day isn't done yet.  I still have hours and hours to go out and interact with the public again...

Dude, could you convince city cops around here to be that way, cuz then the only thing between me and breaking the speed limit would be that ... scripture .. in the ... D&C ... oh, right, nevermind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

That doesn't even factor in the Bud Light van driver who decided after the lanes had merged that he needed to pass me nearly forcing me onto the shoulder.  Guess what?  He didn't get shot either.  Or ticketed.  Or stopped.

Ugh, I would've thrown the book at that guy. I'm generally a pretty chill driver (I've seen far worse outside the US), but I hate it when people do that.

Share this post


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

I drove from the south west side of SL County, downtown and back in a marked police car twice today.  Half that drive time is on I-215 and I-15.  At least a half dozen cars sped past me at significantly higher speeds.  Not only did I not shoot any of them, I did not pull any of them over either. 

 

That doesn't even factor in the Bud Light van driver who decided after the lanes had merged that he needed to pass me nearly forcing me onto the shoulder.  Guess what?  He didn't get shot either.  Or ticketed.  Or stopped.

Imagine that.

But wait...the day isn't done yet.  I still have hours and hours to go out and interact with the public again...

Now take what Mirkwood said and multiply it by the thousands of cops who probably do the same thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 9:55 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Perhaps, but I read him as saying that it is the overall body politic that pronounces--through the passage of a law--that citizens who refuse to comply with that law must ultimately change their minds or die.  Take Eric Garner, for example.  Assuming law enforcement followed proper procedures, it wasn't the NYPD who killed him; it was the citizens of New York who banned the sale of loose cigarettes and then tasked the thin blue line to enforce that ban at the risk of their own, and/or any potential offenders' lives.  The citizenry knew, when the law was passed, that the enforcement process would probably result in at least a few deaths; and it is they who must answer for Garner's death.  The cops were just trying to effect the people's will, and not get killed while doing it.

 

Eric Garner's Autopsy Released, Shows Cop Facing Trial Didn't Kill Him

 

 

https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesmatter/news/eric-garner-s-autopsy-released-shows-cop-facing-trial-didn-t-kill-him--bTOaovocUupiL0JCcoY9Q/?fbclid=IwAR36E9HnATnPxuCKQgiWns8h29giasETM8p2YN4HYd4YIUF1GNV65urfUUs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2018 at 3:46 PM, mirkwood said:

Too bad.  @LatterDSaint doesn't believe in innocent until proven guilty.

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