Advertisement
by Kelinfort » Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:02 am
by Ethel mermania » Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:12 am
Sheltopolis wrote:Conglomerate of Iron wrote:Most cops anymore are jack booted, order following morons who like shooting innocent people and playing god.
Some are ok though.
No, the opposite is true. Most cops are law-abiding, and the only ones that are bad are the ones you hear about in the media. Society has been getting the impression that cops are evil, just out to get black people, hippies, etc. when facts or reason don't support that.
by SaintB » Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:21 am
Kelinfort wrote:I see the police this way: a lot of them mean well and are actually good at their job, but there is a high amount of preventable brutality that could ultimately be prevented. Not only is more training necessary, but also, a lot more community outreach, restrictions on lethal weapons, and change for a positive image. For a functioning police force that focuses on the public safety needs of an individual community, it would be much easier to obtain cooperation and public support.
by Kelinfort » Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:24 am
SaintB wrote:Kelinfort wrote:I see the police this way: a lot of them mean well and are actually good at their job, but there is a high amount of preventable brutality that could ultimately be prevented. Not only is more training necessary, but also, a lot more community outreach, restrictions on lethal weapons, and change for a positive image. For a functioning police force that focuses on the public safety needs of an individual community, it would be much easier to obtain cooperation and public support.
I think a lot of problems with police forces these days is that they are alienating themselves from the community rather than being part of it so people adopt an 'us vs them' attitude on the force and in the general public. They also do not recieve the training that they should be getting. Then there is also the way that money is being wasted on unecesary equipment that costs unholy amounts of money to maitain and has next to no chance of actually being useful in their everyday jobs.
by Vazdania » Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:27 am
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Or at least that's the title of an essay in National Review by A.J. Delgado, who calls into question much of the right's seemingly knee-jerk defense of police officers. Without denying that individual law enforcement officials do stellar and brave work, or denying the need for a police force, she points out what could be seen as an inherent contradiction in conservative philosophy and the tendency of conservatives to stand solely on the side of representatives of the law regardless of the facts of the case. In doing so, she touches on many of the stories we've discussed on this forum over the past few months.
A sample:Imagine if I were to tell you there is a large group of government employees, with generous salaries and ridiculously cushy retirement pensions covered by the taxpayer, who enjoy incredible job security and are rarely held accountable even for activities that would almost certainly earn the rest of us prison time. When there is proven misconduct, these government employees are merely reassigned and are rarely dismissed. The bill for any legal settlements concerning their errors? It, too, is covered by the taxpayers. Their unions are among the strongest in the country.
No, I’m not talking about public-school teachers.
I’m talking about the police.
We conservatives recoil at the former; yet routinely defend the latter — even though, unlike teachers, police officers enjoy an utter monopoly on force and can ruin — or end — one’s life in a millisecond.
For decades, conservatives have served as stalwart defenders of police forces. There have been many good reasons for this, including long memories of the post-countercultural crime wave that devastated, and in some cases destroyed, many American cities; conservatives’ penchant for law and order; and Americans’ widely shared disdain for the cops’ usual opponents. (“Dirty hippies being arrested? Good!” is not an uncommon sentiment.) Although tough-on-crime appeals have never been limited to conservative politicians or voters, conservatives instinctively (and, it turned out, correctly) understood that the way to reduce crime is to have more cops making more arrests, not more sociologists identifying more root causes. Conservatives are rightly proud to have supported police officers doing their jobs at times when progressives were on the other side.
But it’s time for conservatives’ unconditional love affair with the police to end.
Let’s get the obligatory disclaimer out of the way: Yes, many police officers do heroic works and, yes, many are upstanding individuals who serve the community bravely and capably.
But respecting good police work means being willing to speak out against civil-liberties-breaking thugs who shrug their shoulders after brutalizing citizens.
On Thursday in Staten Island, an asthmatic 43-year-old father of six, Eric Garner, died after a group of policemen descended on him, placing him in a chokehold while attempting to arrest him for allegedly selling cigarettes. A bystander managed to capture video in which Garner clearly cries out, “I can’t breathe!” Even after releasing the chokehold (chokeholds, incidentally, are prohibited by NYPD protocol), the same officer then proceeds to shove and hold Garner’s face against the ground, applying his body weight and pressure on Garner, ignoring Garner’s pleas that he cannot breathe. Worse yet, new video shows at least eight officers standing around Garner’s lifeless, unconscious body.
Who can defend this?
And police-department Internal Affairs divisions are nearly as concerning as the cops themselves. Last week, a Miami police officer witnessed a car driving at high speeds in a pedestrian area. When he pulled the car over, the indignant driver stormed out. “Don’t you know the [expletive] I am?” the driver barked. It turns out that the driver was a police lieutenant within . . . Internal Affairs. The department in charge of ensuring proper police behavior consists of gents like this, whose first response is to assume that cops, like members of Congress, are above the law. What happened to the lieutenant? He has been transferred to “Special Investigations,” which, as a local NBC reporter points out, is more a promotion than a punishment.
You can find the entire essay here. For those who don't care to read the whole thing, here's the TL;DR: As people who value the rights of the individual over the rights of the state to control the individual, it seems ludicrous to automatically defend law enforcement officers in the face of convincing evidence that they have violated the constitutional rights of those who they are supposed to be protecting. Fourth amendment violations, police abuse resulting in injury and death, and other abuses of power are violations of the rights of the individual at the hands of agents of the state, and conservatives should constantly be on the lookout for overreach by the state, defending individual liberties against overzealous or otherwise inappropriate actions.
It's an interesting take, I believe, and one that actually makes some sense to me even as a leftist. However, I'm curious to know what conservatives on this site think of the article...not that the thread is limited to their input, of course.
by SaintB » Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:59 am
Vazdania wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Or at least that's the title of an essay in National Review by A.J. Delgado, who calls into question much of the right's seemingly knee-jerk defense of police officers. Without denying that individual law enforcement officials do stellar and brave work, or denying the need for a police force, she points out what could be seen as an inherent contradiction in conservative philosophy and the tendency of conservatives to stand solely on the side of representatives of the law regardless of the facts of the case. In doing so, she touches on many of the stories we've discussed on this forum over the past few months.
A sample:
You can find the entire essay here. For those who don't care to read the whole thing, here's the TL;DR: As people who value the rights of the individual over the rights of the state to control the individual, it seems ludicrous to automatically defend law enforcement officers in the face of convincing evidence that they have violated the constitutional rights of those who they are supposed to be protecting. Fourth amendment violations, police abuse resulting in injury and death, and other abuses of power are violations of the rights of the individual at the hands of agents of the state, and conservatives should constantly be on the lookout for overreach by the state, defending individual liberties against overzealous or otherwise inappropriate actions.
It's an interesting take, I believe, and one that actually makes some sense to me even as a leftist. However, I'm curious to know what conservatives on this site think of the article...not that the thread is limited to their input, of course.
I'm conservative and I mostly dislike the police...they should be saving kittens...not pulling you over for speeding (a victimless crime)
by Vazdania » Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:11 am
by Spoder » Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:14 am
Vazdania wrote:SaintB wrote:Is not. Going over the speed limit puts pedestrians, cyclists, other drivers, and yourself at greater risk for injury or death.
Yes, but with that argument you could say smoking puts others in greater danger of death due to inhalation of smoke. Unless there is a clear and present danger than its victimless. Speeding is a victemless crime. And cops shouldn't pull you over for speeding. They should be saving kittens, helping old people cross the street, and bustin' down chomo's doors.
by Viritica » Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:15 am
The New Sea Territory wrote:Conservatives defend the police because they believe that the men dressed up in costumes with shiny badges do nothing but bust black people who deal heroin and arrest hippy anti-war protesters.
So, fuck their opinion. They are wrong, plain and simple. To be honest, most conservatives believe that there is a man in the sky who watches everyone. Why should we care about their opinions....?
by Soldati Senza Confini » Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:16 am
Vazdania wrote:SaintB wrote:Is not. Going over the speed limit puts pedestrians, cyclists, other drivers, and yourself at greater risk for injury or death.
Yes, but with that argument you could say smoking puts others in greater danger of death due to inhalation of smoke. Unless there is a clear and present danger than its victimless. Speeding is a victemless crime. And cops shouldn't pull you over for speeding. They should be saving kittens, helping old people cross the street, and bustin' down chomo's doors.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by SaintB » Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:17 am
Vazdania wrote:SaintB wrote:Is not. Going over the speed limit puts pedestrians, cyclists, other drivers, and yourself at greater risk for injury or death.
Yes, but with that argument you could say smoking puts others in greater danger of death due to inhalation of smoke. Unless there is a clear and present danger than its victimless. Speeding is a victemless crime. And cops shouldn't pull you over for speeding. They should be saving kittens, helping old people cross the street, and bustin' down chomo's doors.
by Vazdania » Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:17 am
Soldati senza confini wrote:Vazdania wrote:Yes, but with that argument you could say smoking puts others in greater danger of death due to inhalation of smoke. Unless there is a clear and present danger than its victimless. Speeding is a victemless crime. And cops shouldn't pull you over for speeding. They should be saving kittens, helping old people cross the street, and bustin' down chomo's doors.
Speeding is a victimless crime, but for the sake of safety speed regulations are in place.
There was a time when there were no speed regulations. It was not pretty.
by Vazdania » Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:19 am
Spoder wrote:Vazdania wrote:Yes, but with that argument you could say smoking puts others in greater danger of death due to inhalation of smoke. Unless there is a clear and present danger than its victimless. Speeding is a victemless crime. And cops shouldn't pull you over for speeding. They should be saving kittens, helping old people cross the street, and bustin' down chomo's doors.
You can hold your breath as you walk past a smoker.
The issue is that if nobody enforces the speed limit, then you'll get all sorts of traffic problems, and there'll be people t-boning others at 150mph.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:21 am
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Vazdania » Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:22 am
by Soldati Senza Confini » Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:25 am
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Vazdania » Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:29 am
by Vazdania » Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:30 am
Soldati senza confini wrote:Vazdania wrote:The utter horror. I mean its 35 through school zones here...so.....
Down here is 35 unless the yellow light on top of the sign is on, then it must be reduced to 20 or at least 15MPH.
I used to live and go to school in El Salvador. You don't want to be crossing the street in a school zone with people making speeds over 40MPH on their cars.
by Soldati Senza Confini » Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:35 am
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Chestaan » Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:37 am
Vazdania wrote:SaintB wrote:Is not. Going over the speed limit puts pedestrians, cyclists, other drivers, and yourself at greater risk for injury or death.
Yes, but with that argument you could say smoking puts others in greater danger of death due to inhalation of smoke. Unless there is a clear and present danger than its victimless. Speeding is a victemless crime. And cops shouldn't pull you over for speeding. They should be saving kittens, helping old people cross the street, and bustin' down chomo's doors.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Big Eyed Animation, Cannot think of a name, Corporate Collective Salvation, Greater Somoiland, Hyacinthe, Pasong Tirad, Shrillland, The Black Forrest, Tiami, Unmet Player, Washington Resistance Army
Advertisement