Nobody has anything to say about Jamar Clark? (Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center: 2015, city hall)

[Thedosius]

Originally Posted by srsmn

A couple of thoughts:


5. Not to your post, but a general question: did we ever get law passed about body cameras on cops? I know Hodges pushed hard for it, and if we did pass it, then these cops are in direct violation of city statute and should be suspended indefinitely from the force for that alone. Of course, it does not surprise me in the least that cops would bypass and usurp the law when they intend to kill an unarmed (black) civilian...

I get the feeling that we are not going to agree. So I will end the discussion on my end here.

Excellent post overall, but in response to this point:

Mpls. police oversight panel lays out body cam guidelines - StarTribune.com

I can't read most of it because my 10 free articles per month have been used but the little I skimmed tells me that it hasn't been implemented yet. I imagine acquiring and distributing the cams will also take some time.

[piper89]

Originally Posted by Thedosius

Right back at ya.

Sorry that I am a libertarian that doesn't want to feed into nonsensical hysteria without conclusive proof. Sorry to break it to you that the problem lies in the Great Society when Lyndon Johnson signed a bill that intentionally destroyed the black family and in turn created people like Jamar that are unruly and that do stupid things that end up getting themselves shot. When the government becomes a major supporting unit for people, society crumbles. You just haven't figured that out yet. The damage that has been done to the American way of life is deeper than it appears to simplistic left wing idealists.

[piper89]

Originally Posted by Steve Bowen

So simple assault should be considered a capital crime? Really? Wow.

If there was bodily harm invoked upon innocent people as the narrative states, then force is justified to ensure that a violent person is contained.

[Thedosius]

Originally Posted by piper89

Sorry that I am a libertarian that doesn't want to feed into nonsensical hysteria without conclusive proof.

Libertarianism is nonsensical gibberish that has no overlap with conclusive proofs or logic.

Sorry that you subscribe to a delusive ideology.

[piper89]

Originally Posted by Thedosius

Libertarianism is nonsensical gibberish that has no overlap with conclusive proofs or logic.

Sorry that you subscribe to a delusive ideology.

And statism somehow is one of noble roots. Sorry that you want to subject yourself to a life of slavery and entitlement.

[Thedosius]

Originally Posted by piper89

And statism somehow is one of noble roots. Sorry that you want to subject yourself to a life of slavery and entitlement.

And I'm sorry your small philosophy contains only pure statism or pure libertarianism. Were I so blinkered I likely would be a libertarian as well.

I would say that social market economies have much, much more going for them than that political juvenilia known as libertarianism. You bring up wanting conclusive proof yet there is no real world libertarian success story that fits the bill. I am not as binary in my thinking as you apparently are and I subscribe to a paraphrased Churchhillian philosophy "the social market is the worst possible form of economy- with the exception of all the others". I would point to Scandanavian countries as qualified (aka, real world) successes. In these United States if you compare blue state median incomes as well as various QoL measures (education, healthcare, etc.) to red states not benefitting from a wealth of natural resources you'll see the difference between small- and active- government approaches within the framework of American capitalism.

The most rigorous application of libertarian ideas in a corporate setting can be seen by studying the Sears corporation, and it has been an abject, unequivocal disaster.

[TheGrandViking]

If you were truly a libertarian, you would not be completely be anti-liberalism because some aspects of liberalism line up with libertarianism. A rough rule of thumb is libertarians have Conservative economic values and Liberal social beliefs. Libertarians are suspicious of police and do not reflexively defend a police officer. Read a prominent libertarian, such as Ronald Bailey, and you will find your position to be at odds with him. You sound closer to a tea party member or "Tea Bagger" as some call them. Many in that movement consider themselves libertarian but when pressed on policy issues are clearly not.

Here is a slice of some beliefs that are at odds with Tea Party member or "Tea Baggers"
A libertarian is for gay marriage, believe in immigration because it is a liberty issue, all religions are equal and protected, drugs should not be criminalized, the non-aggression principle at the individual level, oppose use of force in military engagement, and every right is a liberty issue not a state right.

A libertarian would be very concerned about the number of deaths caused by police against the unarmed regardless of race or religion. They absolutely would not take your position that you have held in this thread.

[piper89]

Originally Posted by TheGrandViking

If you were truly a libertarian, you would not be completely be anti-liberalism because some aspects of liberalism line up with libertarianism. A rough rule of thumb is libertarians have Conservative economic values and Liberal social beliefs. Libertarians are suspicious of police and do not reflexively defend a police officer. Read a prominent libertarian, such as Ronald Bailey, and you will find your position to be at odds with him. You sound closer to a tea party member or "Tea Bagger" as some call them. Many in that movement consider themselves libertarian but when pressed on policy issues are clearly not.

Here is a slice of some beliefs that are at odds with Tea Party member or "Tea Baggers"
A libertarian is for gay marriage, believe in immigration because it is a liberty issue, all religions are equal and protected, drugs should not be criminalized, the non-aggression principle at the individual level, oppose use of force in military engagement, and every right is a liberty issue not a state right.

A libertarian would be very concerned about the number of deaths caused by police against the unarmed regardless of race or religion. They absolutely would not take your position that you have held in this thread.

I have been involved in this for a long time and I know what a libertarian is. Just because I am one, it doesn't mean that the police are always wrong by nature. If you really knew anything about the Tea Party movement, you would understand that it had it's roots with small l libertarians and has been somewhat hijacked by neoconservatives. An important point to note is that resorting to name calling is rather childish. The non aggression principle was broken as soon as Jamar decided to assault someone and furthermore assault the EMTs on the scene. It isn't a symbol of peace no matter what.

[treemoni]

Originally Posted by Chester Burnett

Do you have anything to say?

My contributions to these topics gets threads closed, and I don't want that. I just found it weird that nobody was discussing it. It's pretty big news for the Twin Cities, I think.

[Minnesota Spring]

Originally Posted by treemoni

My contributions to these topics gets threads closed, and I don't want that. I just found it weird that nobody was discussing it. It's pretty big news for the Twin Cities, I think.

Perhaps you should read the terms of this site before commenting then? Just a thought.