Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You did not prove anything, resisting arrest is a crime, no amount of philosophical drivel is going to change that.
It seems as I posted before; you want to be able to commit certain crimes and resist arrest, without fear of consequences. You actually think you have some sort of right to commit crimes, and resist arrest when caught. This is what it basically comes down to; people like you, Brown supporters, Garner, etc, all one a set of different rules applied to them, and they feel "above" obeying the rules, this is why Brown thought it was nothing to rob the store, this is why Garner thought it was nothing to illegally sell cigarettes. People like this, and there are plenty of them, have a difficult time living in civilized society. People like them and you seem to find a thousand excuses for their behavior.
Crimes - we live in a representative democracy, thus the actions that are considered crimes are set forth by the people through their representation. You seem to have a problem with this. You want to pick and choose what crimes to break because they suit your needs.
Resisting arrest - Guess what, a cop is not just going to let you go. A cop will continually increase the amount of force needed to arrest the person. You are basically advocating everyone should be able to put themselves and a cops' life in danger without any risk of punishment.
"I'd bet you a year of my salary you've never read one of those."
I would bet my entire life's salary you have not read a fraction of what I have read, so what is your point?
The state and its minions have a firm grip on the content of your mind, my friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
people like you, Brown supporters, Garner, etc, all one a set of different rules applied to them, and they feel "above" obeying the rules
You actually have this exactly backwards. Proponents of the imposition and enforcement of state edicts are the ones who believe in two separate classes of enforcement. People such as yourselves contend, for instance, that the events in the case of Mike Brown were handled equitably. This is patently untrue.
By the police chief's own admission, Darren Wilson was treated as the "victim of an assault" from the moment the attack took place. He was allowed to leave the scene. When he returned to the station, he was allowed to wash his hands and change his clothes. He was not required to give a statement and, instead, went home and called his FOP representative. His statement to his lawyer was never even asked for, although he'd certainly be justified in not giving it for the sake of attorney-client privilege. In his formal interview, he invoked his "Garrity rights," which means that anything he admits to internal investigators is inadmissible in a court of law commissioned to determine his criminal responsibility.
See if you or I, as meager citizens, would ever be given such treatment. We would be suspects immediately. We would NEVER be allowed to wash our hands. We would be required to give a statement or remain silent and in custody. We'd be able to speak with our lawyer, but he would not in turn have the advantage of a friendly prosecutor who would be helpful in crafting a narrative. I don't defend Michael Brown as you say; again, stop with your straw man. What I am saying, and what you seem to be too obtuse to grasp, is that the framework of the law is designed to always favor the state and its actors, and be rigged against those it claims authority to lord it over.
I contend, instead, that NOBODY, the state included, is above the moral law. "War" is nothing but mass murder, "taxes" are nothing but theft, "pat downs" are sexual assault, "arrest" is kidnapping, etc. I believe fully in the natural law and its enforcement, but the state does not do that. The state enforces edicts, and nobody has any moral obligation to follow a law that is not derived from property rights.
THE ONLY law that exists by God and nature, is that we must do unto others as we would want done unto us. In other words, NOBODY has the right to commit violence against someone who is not themselves committing violence. This is law, and the only law.
You claim that what I say is "philosophical drivel" and yet you attempted to refute not one premise of anything I stated. If all philosophy was drivel, we would still live in roving bands of hunter-gatherers and life would be miserable and subject to the whims of the weather and our rival tribes. Ideas are what has civilized society, and governments is what is undoing that.
Also, you say I find "a thousand excuses for their behavior." Does it necessarily follow that because I believe resisting state authority is a just cause, that I must therefore approve of ALL of their behavior all of the time? Of course not. This is insane. MLK, for instance, kept dozens of mistresses. Ghandi was a miserable father to his own children. James Madison enforced the Sedition Acts. Just because they do things I don't approve of does not require me to unequivocally approve of all or none of their actions. You're really just trying to convince me to side with your group-think.
Examples of what I mean:
1745, New Jersey squatters rebel against colonial proprietors and threaten to kill the entire police force of Elizabethtown, thereby breaking an arrested squatter out of jail who had claimed, rightfully so, that if a proprietor did not improve his land then it did not belong to him.
1753, residents of Livingston manor burned the homes of troops who had first been sent to evict them from the land they had rightfully transformed through their own labor.
1747, Vermont (then New York) residents destroyed government buildings in Burlington to effect a tax code change.
I could go on. These people did not have a concept of being 'patriots,' but rather simply incensed and tired of the abuse of a tyrannical state.
Keep it coming.
Also, this is clever:
Quote:
I would bet my entire life's salary you have not read a fraction of what I have read, so what is your point?
I wasn't claiming that having read more implies superior intellect, but rather being unacquainted with an entire legal tradition of philosophy (upon which, by the way, this country was founded) precludes someone from being capable of dismissing it all in a single sentence which did not contain an argument. And that's a pretty bold statement to make, yourself. Thank God you're so smart, and that you're here to impart so much wisdom on all of us. Maybe one day I could aspire to have leafed through my own Alexandrian library as you have already done!
Last edited by leavingIL; 12-12-2014 at 09:52 PM..
He had weed in his system and weed does NOT make you attack ANYONE.
Glad you pointed out what I've been saying all along about Wilson's "story".
I included high on drugs, so where is your disconnect. So called "weed" is a drug whether pot heads or dopes which to classify it as one or not.
So you are an expert on what people high on weed do, and not do I see. Please list your education/occupation as to your level of expertise please.
Just as some people who are drunk become stupid/placid, others become violent. So true is it with people who react different with THC. Some become the classic stoner mellow with the munchies. Others want to attack people and eat their face off.
Regardless of that, I was just watching an episode of "Cops" from 2008 entitled "Coast to Coast". During the promos, a white suspect was resisting arrest, and a black LEO grabbed him by the throat from behind to take the suspect to the ground. While I have no idea if the suspect was hurt, I doubt a black LEO using a headlock/chokehold on a white suspect would be played up by the liberal media even if the suspect later died..
Furthermore the first segment showed a black suspect being chased by multiple LEO's and when they had him under arrest(i.e. handcuffed) they were holding the guy as he sat by his tee shirt. The black suspect stated he was being choked even though the LEO's were just holding onto his tee shirts neck ring. Also the suspect was lying about everything, despite the LEO's having recorded evidence to the contrary. This is just an example of one arrest, and the earlier example of a black LEO using force on a white suspect.
No doubt liberals and the complicit media couldn't care less about it because it does not fit their agenda.
Don't even bother responding to that marilyn troll. She has no debating skills or critical thinking ability at all. Her conversational M.O. is exactly like that of the hood rats you see on the streets of Ferguson ... To them, if you just shout the same stupid thing in someone's face over and over and louder and louder then that's winning. Follow her posts and you'll see what I mean. No discussion and no reason. Pure emotion, no thought processes and then repeat repeat repeat. Nobody here buys her 5h1t just like 90% of Americans don't buy the Ferguson idiots' 5h1t. Ignore.
Maybe so, but she and others voted Obama and his ilk into the White House. So while low information voters might not have a clue as you assert, they are still capable of voting even if they have no clue about the issues nor the qualification of the candidates they are voting for.
Maybe so, but she and others voted Obama and his ilk into the White House. So while low information voters might not have a clue as you assert, they are still capable of voting even if they have no clue about the issues nor the qualification of the candidates they are voting for.
`
I'm not sure about who the woman you describe may or may not be politically aligned with, but your use of the term "low information voter" and your generally pro-police stance indicates you get your own information from Rush Limbaugh, and, let's be honest... he and his ilk are hardly any more informed than the Obama-ites. Whether your "facts" come from Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, and Keith Olbermann, or Mark Levin, Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh, they're all just as full of ****.
You don't have to be an Obama supporter to argue that the police get special treatment and the people they kill are posthumously determined to be guilty by the character assassination attempts of the state and its minions.
My opinion of the character of MB and EG are based in hard evidence of video tape. You have MB pulling a strong arm robbery minutes before his encounter with DW. You also have EG resisting arrest. Hence they got what they got because of their own actions. If we had video of DW being a thug your opinion would hold some weight.
Note that the loose cigarillos were picked up off the floor of the store and the boxes were put back on the counter. Considering that the loosies were worth about $1.29, the store owner did not even call the police.
Note that the employee bumped Brown trying to impede his exit, but Brown pushed him.
Quote:
Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson stated that Officer Darren Wilson was unaware of this incident during his confrontation with Mike Brown. He later came out to say that he was unsure if Darren Wilson knew or didn't know.
Wilson's story changed to say he was aware of the robbery, but we don't really know that.
Eric Garner had been arrested over 30 times. The cops knew him by reputation and record.
He wasn't killed for selling cigarettes. It does serve the bleeding heart's agenda to claim that, so that's what they do. Makes it sound like the cops just walked up and strangled him.
He resisted arrest. You can see on the video that he resisted.
He died stupidly and needlessly, but he did it to himself.
Eric Garner had been arrested over 30 times. The cops knew him by reputation and record.
He wasn't killed for selling cigarettes. It does serve the bleeding heart's agenda to claim that, so that's what they do. Makes it sound like the cops just walked up and strangled him.
He resisted arrest. You can see on the video that he resisted.
He died stupidly and needlessly, but he did it to himself.
He had just broken up a fight which the police had been called about. By the time, the cops came, the fight was over.
They could have taken him down, but allowed him to get his breath had they understood that talking does NOT mean you can breathe.
This is a phrase I heard Peter King say in the wake of Eric Garner's death and I feel it's something that everyone in our profession needs to be aware of. The myth of "If you can speak you can breathe".
I know I have heard it said twice by officers I work with, whom I both corrected. One of them actually argued with me about it until I was able to get Fire and Rescue to tell them they are wrong.
Eric Garner had been arrested over 30 times. The cops knew him by reputation and record.
He wasn't killed for selling cigarettes. It does serve the bleeding heart's agenda to claim that, so that's what they do. Makes it sound like the cops just walked up and strangled him.
He resisted arrest. You can see on the video that he resisted.
He died stupidly and needlessly, but he did it to himself.
^^^ If he simply would have followed officer instructions from the beginning, he would have been handcuffed and that would have been that. He just had to to be hard headed and start resisting.
However, I do think when someone gets to a point that they are complaining about not being able to breath that the cops need to reduce the physical confrontation, even if the suspect doesn't. When someone can't breathe their survival instinct kicks and they may struggle just to try breathing again.
But, Garner didn't need to let it get to that point in the first place.
Last edited by kanhawk; 12-13-2014 at 10:56 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
