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.
Just one more post, because I got sidetracked by responding to too many of the side arguments in my other posts. It’s important to note that Derrick had not been charged with a crime and was doing nothing criminal when Moore turned on his lights. He did this to serve Derrick with papers, which he had already been served hours prior. At that point even turning his lights on was uncalled for and excessive in itself. Cops can’t or shouldn’t be able to just run up on people and demand they jump. Then upon not jumping rough them up and/or arrested them when that person had done nothing to be stopped and harassed in the first place.
For Moore to then brush Derrick with his car and then jump out and stick his baton in Derricks spokes (it broke the spokes of his bike as well) when he could have just as easily stopped him and his bike with his hands (which in itself would still have been wrong) is completely excessive. Then he proceeds to have his knee on Derrick’s neck jamming his face into the ground. Now keep in mind… Moore and other police form KPD know Derrick and they know he is a person who believes in non-violence and they know he would never commit a violent act towards them. With all of those variables in place, Moore’s actions were entirely street justice, which is not only completely unethical it goes against their job duties and the oaths they swore to uphold.
To those of you out there who believe Moore was justified, because you don’t agree with Derrick’s philosophy and/or find his actions to be annoying/nuisance… You honestly think police should have the authority to engage in street justice, just because of vengeance due to someone not obeying them? You want to live in a world where police have an authority where they can do anything they want to someone?
Any way you look at this situation, Moore went beyond his job duties and oath as the law currently stands. I personally don’t believe in the law for ethical reasons, but those of you out there who support Moore, you obviously do… so why do you turn the blind eye when Moore breaks the law?
Just one more post, because I got sidetracked by responding to too many of the side arguments in my other posts. It’s important to note that Derrick had not been charged with a crime and was doing nothing criminal when Moore turned on his lights. He did this to serve Derrick with papers, which he had already been served hours prior. At that point even turning his lights on was uncalled for and excessive in itself. Cops can’t or shouldn’t be able to just run up on people and demand they jump. Then upon not jumping rough them up and/or arrested them when that person had done nothing to be stopped and harassed in the first place.
For Moore to then brush Derrick with his car and then jump out and stick his baton in Derricks spokes (it broke the spokes of his bike as well) when he could have just as easily stopped him and his bike with his hands (which in itself would still have been wrong) is completely excessive. Then he proceeds to have his knee on Derrick’s neck jamming his face into the ground. Now keep in mind… Moore and other police form KPD know Derrick and they know he is a person who believes in non-violence and they know he would never commit a violent act towards them. With all of those variables in place, Moore’s actions were entirely street justice, which is not only completely unethical it goes against their job duties and the oaths they swore to uphold.
To those of you out there who believe Moore was justified, because you don’t agree with Derrick’s philosophy and/or find his actions to be annoying/nuisance… You honestly think police should have the authority to engage in street justice, just because of vengeance due to someone not obeying them? You want to live in a world where police have an authority where they can do anything they want to someone?
Any way you look at this situation, Moore went beyond his job duties and oath as the law currently stands. I personally don’t believe in the law for ethical reasons, but those of you out there who support Moore, you obviously do… so why do you turn the blind eye when Moore breaks the law?
OK, you make fair points. Let's discuss.
1. Did Moore know that Derrick had already been served? If yes, AND he stopped him solely for that purpose, you have a valid point. Is that really established though? If Moore did not know he was already served then he had every right to turn on his lights and stop him. I would question whether or not there were no other factors involved. They seemed to video everything except what occurs right before he turned on the lights. There is video of them protesting, video of the officer right beside Derrick, but strangely enough no video of him getting on his bike and going on his merry way up to the point Moore arrived.
2. In my opinion, Derrick is automatically at fault for not stopping. It doesn't matter if you think you are being stopped for a right or wrong reason. When an officer asks you to stop you stop. It's that simple. There would be no incident had Derrick acted like 99.99% of adults in a similar situation.
3. It does appear as if Moore was more excessive than necessary. He behaved a bit heavy handed. In no way, shape, or form does it rise to the level of police brutality though. And again, there are mitigating circumstances. Derrick refused to stop. Had Derrick stopped and that happened I would agree with you 100%.
I would wager that Derrick wanted this incident to happen. Maybe the movement itself did. The video makes it clear that a lot of protesters had cameras. Heck, someone must have been riding alongside Derrick because it only took seconds for a camera to catch Derrick on the ground being restrained. Is it hard to imagine someone who knows he has his camera running purposefully refusing to stop for the police because he knew it would draw exactly this type of reaction? No, it's not a stretch to think that. If you are someone who wants to discredit the police force that might be exactly what you try to do. I suspect that is exactly what Derrick did.
Wow! I provide Internet translation services for people who have already left the planet. Let me translate your post for the benefit of those still grounded. What this guy is saying is that he wants to enjoy all of the benefits of our society without participating in our society or being held to any of the rules of our society. I think they call that freeloading.
Kinda funny reading this on the Internet; something that probably would never exist in this guy's ideal society. Who would have paid for the infrastructure? Who would have gone to the government schools to even gain the technical skills to build it? Who would have created the laws that orchestrate all of the networks and providers to connect everyone?
Your post should be required reading for every NH resident. I don't know if people realize they have this in their backyard now.
It's funny that you don't believe the marketplace could provide us with affordable internet, given how far we have come with technology. I'd wager we could have BETTER internet in a society not hamstrung by the state. As an example, in Japan, you can get ridiculously fast internet for an incredibly affordable rate. Because of how difficult it is to provide competition in our limited free market, you get crap ISP's in most places, very little choices in other places, all of them more expensive and worse then this fast service you get in Japan. This is just an example. Take it for what you will.
However, you make it seem like if we didn't have government, Chaos would descend upon us! Who will provide us with schools?! Who would keep all the bad men at bay? Etc Etc....
The government provides us with two things primarily, inefficiency and corruption. Let me tell you that a free market will provide you with anything the government can and it will do it better and faster than you could ever dream of. This includes, schools, roads, hospitals, waste management, shipping, protection, etc etc etc. But I believe in freedom, so if you want people controlling the way you live your life, telling what to do, where to send your kids to school, and how to raise your kids period, please, live under a government. Just don't force me to do so as well. You and people who want the same thing can move to someplace in our large country where you can live under a government. All I want is the freedom to say "No thanks, please leave me alone".
But no, you want me to just take it like everyone else, to shut up and go with the flow.
When an officer asks you to stop you stop. It's that simple
2. exactly. There are rules of the road that you agree to when you set out on the road (and should be taught as a child). When an emergency vehicle of any sort is moving with it's sirens and flashing lights, you pull over and let it pass. When a school bus has stopped with it's red flashers on -even if you know the child exiting lives on that side of the road- you may NOT pass the school bus until it turns off its flashing lights. If a policeman tells you to stop, you stop -whether you are doing anything wrong, whether you've already been served, whether you think you should or not. It's simple rules of the road.
addendum:
Quote:
The video makes it clear that a lot of protesters had cameras
a lot of people have cell phones and many cellphones have the ability to video. that's why there is so much 'live' activity caught and posted - everything from store robbery to flash mobs. so it really means that a lot of protesters whipped out their phones to catch the action.
I generally support Libertarian views, however people need to get over this idea that a functioning society is possible without government. Anarchy fails the nano-second it's tried becuase like all organisms in the universe we immediatley fall to larger forces. There will now be zero disincentive to steal your stuff, rape you, hurt you, etc just becuase someone feels like it and can. The world is ruled by the use of force and all that will occur is bigger, more sociopathic individuals will kick around smaller, more moral ones. Some true believers may even feel that's okay, but then that would be hypocracy since then it's only freedom for the few rather than freedom for all.
I do believe in reigning in the federal behemoth that is Washington and maybe even reverting to a Confederacy rather than a Federal Republic, however anarchy is a very bad idea.
Back to the OP: It is NOT ok to propagate certain personal information of someone else regardless of their employer. Even if that individual chooses to share certain personal information- it should be their choice.
Do we need a law to deal with this? No. But society should regard it as NOT ok.
The original author failed to mention ??WHY?? Derrick was being served papers by the police? He was being served a non trespass order because he went to the local high school and handed out anti Bearcat (armored personnel carrier) fliers. The police must really need a $250,000 armored personnel carrier paid for by the taxpayers to go to these extremes.
And private information IS NOT published in the White Pages.
Fenrisulfr wrote:
"Shire Society is associated with the Free State Project."
This is not true. Neither the Shire Society forum nor Free Keene is affiliated with the Free State Project. The goal of the Free State Project is to convince 20,000 liberty lovers to move to New Hampshire. The FSP does not take a position on activism that participants engage in after moving, and there is no FSP-affiliated forum outside of the forum on the official FSP website.
Some of the people involved in this incident moved to New Hampshire as part of the FSP. However, many other FSP movers disapprove. I also moved to New Hampshire for the FSP, and, in my opinion, it is ridiculous and embarrassing.
Neither the Shire Society forum nor Free Keene is affiliated with the Free State Project.
<snip>
However, many other FSP movers disapprove. I also moved to New Hampshire for the FSP, and, in my opinion, it is ridiculous and embarrassing.
After checking the FSP website this appears to be true, Granted there bay be some folk who associate with each group but they are seperate groups.
I too moved here in support of the FSP and soon disassociated myself due to the silly and annoying antics of the fringe members.
Like others I believe the FSP idea of Libertarianism equates with anarchy. Some government is required to prevent chaos.
The biggest issue we face collectively is minimizing the size and role of our existing bureaucracy and reining in the Federal government using political activism before we are forced to resort to more desperate means.
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.
