Emmanuel Goldstein

The COVID thread

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, Grunt said:

 Personally, I would be far more severe with someone in whom the public placed the trust that was violated than your average citizen.

Yup, agree totally on that one. With great power....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Colirio said:

Good to know that you are the type of person who is willing to accept the wrongs of others as long as they say they’re sorry and give you money afterwards. 

But that's not at all what NT said.

Evils will happen. Power will be abused. No system short of Zion will prevent that. But if this had happened in China (or southeast Asia in general, or Russia, or most of Latin America, or almost anywhere in Africa, or in much of Europe—in short, almost anywhere but the US), do you think the police force would have apologized for the abrogation of liberties? Do you think the victims would have been allowed to pursue redress?

I interpret NT's point as that when such things happen here, they don't fly under the radar or get covered up. Of course, sometimes they do, but not in this case. And if we assume the police officers involved meant well but were simply overexuberant, well, that doesn't justify what they did, but it does mean that we don't need to throw them in the dungeon until their trial and public execution.

We all agree that what happened to the guy was wrong and unjustified. Justice has been and is being done. No one was permanently harmed, nor even vastly inconvenienced. It was an unfortunate, stupid mistake by the cops, but not one that cost lives or long-term liberties. We need to keep perspective, lest we become the right-wing version of the liberals. Demanding a crucifixion is beyond the pale.

31 minutes ago, Colirio said:

For the record, I also am glad to live in the land of the free where my rights can be legally protected from the encroachments of others and redress of grievances can be pursued. 

Which, let me reiterate, is just what is happening in this case.

Share this post


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

Depends on the severity.  It's up to the judge.  Personally, I would be far more severe with someone in whom the public placed the trust that was violated than your average citizen.

I agree with the notion that detainment/arrest/bail should all hinge on the severity of the action.

I'd guess we differ as to the severity of the cop's actions.  The supreme court seems to draw the line that cops get to err on the side of caution, and they get a bit more leeway in temporarily detainment/restraining than you appear to feel comfortable with.   

In cases like these, where the cop(s) went a tad overboard, the investigation/appropriate action/public apology/possible recompense seems appropriate to me.

Yes, you heard me, I said a "tad" overboard.  Getting slapped in cuffs for a short period of time and then released, is not the end of the world.  What harm did the victim receive, other than a temporary violation of his freedom?  He seems rightly worried about his daughter, that's fair.  But arrest the cop at how his daughter might have felt?  Imprison someone for longer than dude was in cuffs?  Seems overboard.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

I agree with the notion that detainment/arrest/bail should all hinge on the severity of the action.

I'd guess we differ as to the severity of the cop's actions.  The supreme court seems to draw the line that cops get to err on the side of caution, and they get a bit more leeway in temporarily detainment/restraining than you appear to feel comfortable with.   

In cases like these, where the cop(s) went a tad overboard, the investigation/appropriate action/public apology/possible recompense seems appropriate to me.

Yes, you heard me, I said a "tad" overboard.  Getting slapped in cuffs for a short period of time and then released, is not the end of the world.  What harm did the victim receive, other than a temporary violation of his freedom?  He seems rightly worried about his daughter, that's fair.  But arrest the cop at how his daughter might have felt?  Imprison someone for longer than dude was in cuffs?  Seems overboard.

 

 

Like I said.  We have differing opinions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed.  Sins against "the principle of the thing", seem to be best handled with a slap on the wrist, mandatory training for everyone so it doesn't happen again, and maybe compensation for the injured party.

If cop has a track record of doing this a lot, that's much worse and the consequence should ramp up exponentially.   I don't see any news about that being the case.  

Share this post


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

Indeed.  Sins against "the principle of the thing", seem to be best handled with a slap on the wrist, mandatory training for everyone so it doesn't happen again, and maybe compensation for the injured party.

If cop has a track record of doing this a lot, that's much worse and the consequence should ramp up exponentially.   I don't see any news about that being the case.  

Once is too much.  If you can't do your job without violating my civil liberties, you can't do that job.  

Share this post


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

Once is too much.  If you can't do your job without violating my civil liberties, you can't do that job.  

Welcome to the BLM movement. 😉

Share this post


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

As Scott mentioned in the post directly preceding yours, the officer who did the arrest is now under investigation.   "Our enforcers" have apologized for the arrest, calling it an overreach.

And let's not forget he was only temporarily placed in cuffs and then released without citation.

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-officer-arrested-park-throwing-ball-daughter-due/story?id=70032966

So yeah, it's important to note the facts of the case, and not just jump to the assumption that we're all gonna be in a police state now and the eeeeeevul cops have just been waiting for this moment.   

I understand what you're getting at. And I agree with the sentiment.  But I'm making the slippery slope argument. 

It doesn't take much for even the most reasonable person to be pushed into authoritative behavior if they feel enough of a threat.  And with the media and the government both in agreement that this is a dangerous situation, that could easily be enough to push an otherwise very reasonable person over the edge.

I realize this was Colorado instead of California. But why was an Antifa group allowed to beat a news blogger to a pulp for standing on neutral ground while filming their protest while the police watched, yet a father was put in handcuffs for playing with his child?

What happens when the next populist President is NOT liberty minded, and are supported by Congress?  What happens if they are socialist?  Boy, I sure don't know of anyone (cough: Sanders) that fits that bill.

Share this post


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

Once is too much.  If you can't do your job without violating my civil liberties, you can't do that job.  

The nature of the job forces them to make lots of decisions about when to detain/restrain/arrest people.  Lots and lots.  Week after week, year after year.  One bad decision costs you freedom and maybe your career?  Doesn't sound like a feasible way to staff a police force with fallible humans.   

Share this post


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

I think you either don't understand what the BLM movement is or what my position is.  

You seem pretty gung ho about holding police officers accountable for overstepping their authority, to the point of holding them to a higher ethical and legal standard than the average citizen. Does that sound accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

The nature of the job forces them to make lots of decisions about when to detain/restrain/arrest people.  Lots and lots.  Week after week, year after year.  One bad decision costs you freedom and maybe your career?  Doesn't sound like a feasible way to staff a police force with fallible humans.   

Does to me.  With great power comes great responsibility.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Godless said:

You seem pretty gung ho about holding police officers accountable for overstepping their authority, to the point of holding them to a higher ethical and legal standard than the average citizen. Does that sound accurate?

There isn't a "higher standard " because the average citizen has no legal authority to remove liberty at their discretion.   

Share this post


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

With great power comes great responsibility.  

You stole that from me dude. And I stole it from Spiderman! 

56 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Yup, agree totally on that one. With great power....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grunt said:

There isn't a "higher standard " because the average citizen has no legal authority to remove liberty at their discretion.   

Fair enough. But you clearly want accountability and consequences for unfounded arrests and other acts of unnecessary escalation committed by police officers, correct? And you realize that there are literally countless examples of this sort of behavior on a daily basis during non-crosis conditions, right? How is Matt Mooney's arrest different from the innumerable arrests (and worse) of black Americans under shaky-at-best pretenses that happen daily in this country? And if you think there's substantially more to BLM than that, then you've been watching too much Hannity. 

Share this post


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

you've been watching too much Hannity. 

That's your favorite program, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Godless said:

Welcome to the BLM movement. 😉

Everyone here is all for holding police accountable for overstepping their authority or abusing their power.

The BLM movement was primarily founded upon the mob mentality of falsely assuming the police abused their power in the Michael Brown case.  It is based on accusing police of wrong-doing based on nothing but the race of the person being arrested.  This is why we disagree with the BLM movement.  The police officer in the Michael Brown case was cleared of all wrong doing.  But ask anyone from BLM, how long did it take for anyone from that movement to realize "oops, I guess we were wrong?"

We as the voting (and judging) public also have a responsibility.  We're held up to the standard of reserving judgment until the facts are in.  Sure, we will naturally make initial judgments.  But we always need to be open to correction once further facts are in.  The police officer in the Michael Brown case was not only judged guilty by BLM with virtually NO facts, but even when they facts were revealed, most of them still spread the lie that the police officer was guilty.

It's based on the wrong cases.  It causes people to jump to false conclusions. 

In the case I posted earlier, most of the facts were in.  Nothing about it "didn't pass the smell test."  It had nothing to do with race, and everything to do with the actual facts of the case.  And we're now finding out that the original assessment was, indeed, correct.  But if the fact proved otherwise, I'd have to say,"Oh, I guess I was wrong.  Sorry."  

If BLM has ever apologized for a high profile case against a police officer, I'd like to see the link.  I do believe I heard of ONE apology which was essentially a non-apology -- saying in effect:

Quote

We may have been wrong about this one, but...

1) We had every right to think this because of past history with police and black citizens.

2) Even though we may have been partly wrong, the police officer still....blah blah blah... (sorry, not sorry).

I'm ALWAYS for holding police accountable.  I'm NOT for falsely accusing them of anything simply because of the race of the person being arrested.

Share this post


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

Evils will happen. Power will be abused. No system short of Zion will prevent that.
 

Agreed. 
 

But I don’t believe that means we should throw our hands in the air and not seek to maintain a fair and just society. I don’t believe you feel that way either.

 

Quote

But if this had happened in China (or southeast Asia in general, or Russia, or most of Latin America, or almost anywhere in Africa, or in much of Europe—in short, almost anywhere but the US), do you think the police force would have apologized for the abrogation of liberties? Do you think the victims would have been allowed to pursue redress?

 

I don’t believe this was a point being discussed by Grunt. 
 

“Well, at least we have it better than those other guys.” - Not a valid argument in this case. 
 

We are discussing what should happen here in our nation. Land of the free and home of the brave... 

 

Quote

I interpret NT's point as that when such things happen here, they don't fly under the radar or get covered up. Of course, sometimes they do, but not in this case. And if we assume the police officers involved meant well but were simply overexuberant, well, that doesn't justify what they did, but it does mean that we don't need to throw them in the dungeon until their trial and public execution.

 

Public execution? I believe someone else mentioned lynching? 
 

Nobody made that argument and it’s disingenuous to pretend such. I believe this is you being dismissive of the sentiments of others and trying to back up your arguments with an appeal to emotion. 
 

The discussion, IMO, really boils down to whether or not a public apology and taxpayer money to an individual who is illegally detained is a valid punishment. 

 

Quote

We all agree that what happened to the guy was wrong and unjustified.
 

Yep. 

 

Quote

Justice has been and is being done.
 

Hmmmm... 

 

Is it? 
 

Officers of the law are subject to the same laws as every other citizen. And the same punishments... 

 

Quote

No one was permanently harmed, nor even vastly inconvenienced. It was an unfortunate, stupid mistake by the cops, but not one that cost lives or long-term liberties.
 

 

A stupid mistake? 

Perhaps. 

But neither of us are the thought police. (Only liberals can do that, remember?) 

 

Nobody knows the intentions here, whether a mistake or whether there might even be a pattern of abuse of authority. 

 

Quote

We need to keep perspective, lest we become the right-wing version of the liberals.


I agree that proper perspective should be kept. 
 

I also know and understand that officers of the law are subject to the same laws we are. There was nothing justifiable in the actions of this officer. There was nothing that warranted an innocent person being handcuffed and detained until he was sufficiently shown to be innocent.
 

There is a slippery slope here that warrants more than an apology. An apology and taxpayer money thrown at someone does nothing to dissuade the offending officer or others from repeating the issue in the future. In fact, this “slap on the wrist” might even encourage boldness towards an ‘arrest first, question later’ mentality. Thin, blue line and all that... 

 

Quote

Demanding a crucifixion is beyond the pale.


Uh... okay..... 

I must have missed this one being mentioned somewhere in this thread. 
 

I assume this was one more attempt to enforce arguments by an appeal to my emotions. Fail. 🙂 

Edited by Colirio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

h

3 hours ago, Grunt said:

Yeah, "seriously".   You act like this is an isolated incident and the guy should be thankful an environment exists where he can be deprived of liberty at will.

I can see where you are coming from, but

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

I want him in jail pending trial.  

I can't reason out this one in light of your prior comment.

I may not completely agree with your viewpoint, but I can understand how people feel this may set a dangerous precedent in light of what is going on.  However, if we feel depriving someone of liberty for violating a safety measure is wrong (at least initially from the viewpoint of those who were doing the arresting from what I can see), then why would we feel it is right to deprive others of their liberty for trying to do the best they could in limited interpretations of what their job entailed and trying to uphold and do it the best they could (or most likely)?

Why is it right to deprive one of liberty and the other it is okay?

There has been no one (that I know of, I am not following this in the news) in this case yet that I know of that has been convicted and found guilty.  At what point is it right to take someone and lock them up?

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JohnsonJones said:

 

Why is it right to deprive one of liberty and the other it is okay?

 

This argument makes no sense to me.   Only one person was minding their own business when their liberty was deprived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Grunt said:

This argument makes no sense to me.   Only one person was minding their own business when their liberty was deprived.

There must have been a reason for the arrest initially.  I don't know too many police officers that go around just arresting people for no reason.

I expect they felt that he was violating personal spacing issues or some item like that.   In some locations currently it is enforced as a misdemeanor.  At first, normally they would approach the individual and inform them of the violation.  I'd think most reasonable officers would merely issue a warning, but at worst they issue a citation. 

Arrest comes in when someone violently or aggressively protests.  I have not seen the film, so I don't know what happened.  I think there is more to the story than he was simply out with his daughter and they decided to arrest him.

Most officers don't go around feeling they want to just arrest people. 

If there were thoughts on how far people are to go from their homes at this time (some cities and states have issued this as part of the requirements) so as not to spread to far, they officer could have thought that the individuals had gone waaay to far from their home to actually be following the state orders or temporary rules.

In this, I can see why people who feel this could be a predecessor to taking away liberties is being set by this situation.  In this instance though, it would be upon the State or Local governments that issued the orders and the criminal laws in regards to making people follow them that are in question. 

The officer most likely was just trying to do his job.  It is on the head of his leaders in this instance who instructed him to enforce the temporary regulations rather than the officer him/her self.  They were probably just trying to complete their job to the best of their ability in the best way they understood how the new regulation had been instructed to them.

In this, why would the officer also be considered guilty if they were just trying to do as they had been instructed by those who actually were making the regulation (which is what I think most people are protesting).

In this, one would have been minding their own business (perhaps) but in the best interpretation of the officer arresting, they were violating temporary rules of which the officers was instructed to enforce.  Why should the one have their liberty but the officer not be allowed to have their liberty?

Is it the officers fault that you are arguing, or the government which issued the temporary rules in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.