Uneducated Police

[The PeoplesFreedom]

Erm, are you serious?

What are we doing using sockpuppets to pad your arguments?

All because somebody does not agree with establishment theories, does not mean this person needs to be brought up to speed on "Polisci 101" and make his arguments invalid.

[Bendira]

You actually cannot tell people to leave this is a free country you know

LOL

Future is like 5, leave him alone.

[The Future Kingdom]

You actually cannot tell people to leave this is a free country you know

LOL

Free country free site whats the difference Lawl

[Norstal]

I'm beginning to think the OP puts people who proved him wrong on ignore, looking back on the thread.

In other words, troll.

Who are you refering to?

The OP, which is you. I was wondering why some of the people you're quoting have their nation's name missing in the quote. Which seems to correlate with the ignore function on the forum mechanics. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure. If you haven't put me in your ignore list, thus proving me wrong, you may eviscerate me with this sword at dawn.

Cat-Tribe's facts are usually section of laws or court cases too. Some of those laws are usually Federal or State laws, so that it could be more applicable. Tell me, which federal/state law or court case require a police officer to follow an ethical code of conduct?

None. I am not an advocate for "ethics laws" or whatever you would call it for police, but you don't see anything wrong with somebody who is trained to kill people and imprison them not knowing why their actions are justified? Whats the difference between a cop and a serial killer?

Well Cat-Tribe's here. But I'll restate my previous post.

No, I don't see why I should worry about that. Because, everything in the outside world can kill us. Cars, birds, dogs. Everything. That includes cops. And yes, I know cops can shoot me. There are several incidence where a cop mistakenly kills someone. But the chances of that is low. IMO, when I think about it, police officers DO follow ethics even if they don't say they do. They won't shoot people who do not have weapons on them.

None. Because their situation fluctuates when they do their jobs. Their victims can become suspects. Their suspects can become victims. Their suspects can be the kindest old man in the world. Their victims can be an evil old witch (not wiccan). If they follow what you would call "ethics" or to follow an "ethical" law, they would have to do their jobs with extreme prejudice. Not to mention if they have "ethics" that it would conflict with the most basic laws.

Ethics actually aren't as "relative" as you would think. I know that its extremely difficult to prove that statement without referencing you a book to read. But the fact is that systems built on unethical practices end in failure (soviet union). Natural Law is a universal code of ethics.

And the definition of ethics, as I've said before, changes in every situation. A young-male robber trying to escape can be easily tackled by the police without causing any serious concern. A paraplegic robber can't be just tackled. Also, Natural Laws are harder to enforce by cops as it is malleable and easily broken. Then again, most of the laws officers enforce laws that are based on Natural Laws.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that it has become necessary for the United States to assume "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". Some early American lawyers and judges perceived natural law as too tenuous, amorphous and evanescent a legal basis for grounding concrete rights and governmental limitations. Natural law did, however, serve as authority for legal claims and rights in some judicial decisions, legislative acts, and legal pronouncements. Robert Lowry Clinton argues that the U.S. Constitution rests on a common law foundation and the common law, in turn, rests on a classical natural law foundation.

In other words, police officers enforce both.

That's why police officers don't have "ethics" when doing their jobs. They can have such things when they're not wearing a uniform, but when they have a badge on, they require quick-thinking. Not ethics. Also, this is why we have a judicial system. To see if the law they are enforcing is just. That's why we have judges in courtrooms. If you want police officers to use their "ethics", that means you want a judge as police officers, followed by a group of jury following them around to see if their ethics is just or not.

What makes a cop different than a serial killer then if there are no ethical considerations involved in murder and imprisonment?

A cop is compelled to enforce the law. Serial killers don't have to obey any law.

[The Future Kingdom]

LOL

Future is like 5, leave him alone.

i'm 20 and a Police officer in training

[Panzerjaeger]

What are we doing using sockpuppets to pad your arguments?

All because somebody does not agree with establishment theories, does not mean this person needs to be brought up to speed on "Polisci 101" and make his arguments invalid.

Pray tell how can anything he say be right when he has been proven to not know anything he is talking about? Really? He has even admitted he is confused by what everyone is bringing up. That you defend him is hilarious if not disturbing you should probably read the thread and play White Knight a lot less.

[The PeoplesFreedom]

All because somebody does not agree with establishment theories, does not mean this person needs to be brought up to speed on "Polisci 101" and make his arguments invalid.

Pray tell how can anything he say be right when he has been proven to not know anything he is talking about? Really? He has even admitted he is confused by what everyone is bringing up. That you defend him is hilarious if not disturbing you should probably read the thread and play White Knight a lot less.

"Proven".

[Achaea-Graecia]

I think we should turn this into a no-bullshit debate. Sometimes the government does things against your will that you don't like. You can cry a river but the day the government says, "Okay, your truly insignificant opinion matters," will be the day pigs fly.

Soooo...

So your argument is that I should just accept this immoral system? Will you atleast agree with me that I should have a right to protest this system?

Also, if you finally have admitted to yourself it is an unjust system, would you be willing to consider alternatives to this system. Such as free market anarchy, where laws are based on Natural Law. (Its also possible that social contracts would be enforced if you so choose to join a court system that provides one to your liking. Obviously in this scenario you aren't obligated/compeled to follow the social contract unless you willingly consent to it)

A. Yes, because America accepts a broad range of cultures and as a Democratic nation, it will adhere to the majority of those cultures' opinions. If you are not the majority, you can't just "have" things be your way because then the majority of the population will be unhappy.
B. Yes, you have a right to protest whatever you wish. There is a very dull line for what is the freedom of speech and what isn't.

[Bendira]

The OP, which is you. I was wondering why some of the people you're quoting have their nation's name missing in the quote. Which seems to correlate with the ignore function on the forum mechanics. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure. If you haven't put me in your ignore list, thus proving me wrong, you may eviscerate me with this sword at dawn.

Actually the reason why the names aren't left in it is because of my ignorance of the quoting function.

Well Cat-Tribe's here. But I'll restate my previous post.

No, I don't see why I should worry about that. Because, everything in the outside world can kill us. Cars, birds, dogs. Everything. That includes cops. And yes, I know cops can shoot me. There are several incidence where a cop mistakenly kills someone. But the chances of that is low. IMO, when I think about it, police officers DO follow ethics even if they don't say they do. They won't shoot people who do not have weapons on them.

I think its hard to make a comparison between somebody whose job it is to threaten people with force, and a random act of nature. The reason I say it is cops job to kill and imprison, is because every law cops enforce, they enforce with the threat of murder. I can explain this by taking you through the chain of events that will happen if you do not comply with an officer.

I start a hotdog stand to compete with the gross monopoly price the college cafeteria charges. I do not have permission to set up this hotdog stand. After many futile attempts by campus security and staff to instruct me to leave, the police arrive. They ask me to leave, and I refuse. They then approach me to put me under arrest. I obviously do not want to be kidnapped, so I resist arrest. They begin beating me and attempting to handcuff me. They fail to subdue me, and I escape. They draw their guns on me. In self defense, I pull my own gun. They shoot me dead.

If you follow any chain of "non-compliance" with police, you will end up dead. Therefor, police's jobs are to kill and imprison. Obviously most people just choose the imprison option.

And the definition of ethics, as I've said before, changes in every situation. A young-male robber trying to escape can be easily tackled by the police without causing any serious concern. A paraplegic robber can't be just tackled. Also, Natural Laws are harder to enforce by cops as it is malleable and easily broken. Then again, most of the laws officers enforce laws that are based on Natural Laws.

Your example of tackling a robber seems to be less of an ethical one, and more of a "liability" one. Lets assume that under natural law, the officer had justification to initiate force against this robber. It dosn't matter whether he is parapelegic or not. The reason why he won't tackle him is to avoid a lawsuit. Its less of an ethical issue, and more of a liability issue. Although I can see the slight ethical implications here, this specific case isn't really a good example of ethics being relative. Im discussing ethics on the macro level, if that makes any sense.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that it has become necessary for the United States to assume "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". Some early American lawyers and judges perceived natural law as too tenuous, amorphous and evanescent a legal basis for grounding concrete rights and governmental limitations. Natural law did, however, serve as authority for legal claims and rights in some judicial decisions, legislative acts, and legal pronouncements. Robert Lowry Clinton argues that the U.S. Constitution rests on a common law foundation and the common law, in turn, rests on a classical natural law foundation.

In other words, police officers enforce both.

A lot of our social contract in the united states is based on natural law, yes. But what I don't agree with is me being forced to accept their specific interpretation of natural law. (Things like aggressing agains't peoples private property in drug raids is a clear violation of natural law).

That's why police officers don't have "ethics" when doing their jobs. They can have such things when they're not wearing a uniform, but when they have a badge on, they require quick-thinking. Not ethics. Also, this is why we have a judicial system. To see if the law they are enforcing is just. That's why we have judges in courtrooms. If you want police officers to use their "ethics", that means you want a judge as police officers, followed by a group of jury following them around to see if their ethics is just or not.

Im not advocating this at all. Im advocating a society of voluntary association, where you have the freedom to choose what court system you want to be a member of.

A cop is compelled to enforce the law. Serial killers don't have to obey any law.

A cop is not compelled to force the law. They chose to accept the job, just like a serial killer chose to kill.

[Bendira]

A. Yes, because America accepts a broad range of cultures and as a Democratic nation, it will adhere to the majority of those cultures' opinions. If you are not the majority, you can't just "have" things be your way because then the majority of the population will be unhappy.

This, again, is assuming that democracy works as advertised. But even if it does, I still feel its unethical to force the minority to be beholden to the majority.

B. Yes, you have a right to protest whatever you wish. There is a very dull line for what is the freedom of speech and what isn't.

I don't have a right to protest whatever I wish. If I want to protest drug laws, and as a protest I want to smoke a joint in public, I would be arrested.

[Avenio]

The difference between a social contract, and natural law, is that natural law does not operate under the consent on the governed. Natural law is something that evolves from the human condition and human nature, wheras social contracts are things essentially forced upon the governed by the majority or the ruling elite.

One thing that social science has told us is that very few, if any, modern human social behaviours are objective. Even things as simple as pooping in a particular corner, smiling or language are not processed through genetics. Why is natural law developed into our genetics, independently and singularly out of every other social nuance in the human repertoire, when such simple and universally necessary things to our survival are not?

People know that aggression against others unprovoked is wrong. Now throughout history, you could attempt to debate this fact. But systems based on aggressive theft have always failed (prime example = soviet union, a theft based society). Also, if you want to look at conquest or genocide, factors such as societal indoctrination or nationalism were the cause for "dehumanizing" the enemy. Just like the U.S. military today employs tactics to turn regular kids into cold killers. People aren't born cold blooded killers (in most cases, unless they are mentally different than others).

Well, yes, we are born that way. In the Pleistocene, we needed to kill for food. We also needed to defend our territory, mates and food supply from those within our own species. From there, it was just a hop, skip and a jump for a whole range of human social pathologies, many of them normal, to develop, that cause us to justify killing in other ways. Most of the behaviours you list are elaborations on some very basic survival urges; nationalism can be seen as an extension of the notion of 'kin' to that of a nation, rather than a family.

As I said before, I don't consider natural law a social contract. An understanding of a social contract would be something that society has to teach you to follow, where as natural law is something you are born able to understand.

Is there a social contract gene? What of when babies steal toys from each other, and we have to correct their behaviour? Or small children taking toys from the store, which we scold them for?

With this in mind, a society run on natural law would eliminate all of the immoralities associated with social contract theories (and the tyranny by majority problem these social contracts impose).

So what if I don't subscribe to natural law?

[Achaea-Graecia]

Actually the reason why the names aren't left in it is because of my ignorance of the quoting function.

When you click "Quote" on the first quote you desire to reply to, click the topic and open it in a new tab, which is above the box that you right it. Find the second quote, and click quote. Highlight and copy the quote, and paste it after your reply to the first quote. You can also memorize the user's country name and type it into the quote box, like so.

Code: Select all

[quote="Bendira"]blah blah blah...[/quote]

[Achaea-Graecia]

A. Yes, because America accepts a broad range of cultures and as a Democratic nation, it will adhere to the majority of those cultures' opinions. If you are not the majority, you can't just "have" things be your way because then the majority of the population will be unhappy.

This, again, is assuming that democracy works as advertised. But even if it does, I still feel its unethical to force the minority to be beholden to the majority.

B. Yes, you have a right to protest whatever you wish. There is a very dull line for what is the freedom of speech and what isn't.

I don't have a right to protest whatever I wish. If I want to protest drug laws, and as a protest I want to smoke a joint in public, I would be arrested.

I believe I used the term "freedom of speech" to describe your protests. Smoking weed in public is not speaking.

protest, v. 1. To object to, especially in a formal statement

[Bendira]

One thing that social science has told us is that very few, if any, modern human social behaviours are objective. Even things as simple as pooping in a particular corner, smiling or language are not processed through genetics. Why is natural law developed into our genetics, independently and singularly out of every other social nuance in the human repertoire, when such simple and universally necessary things to our survival are not?

I certainly am not a psychologist. But I personally believe there to be MUCH empirical evidence throughout history to support the theory of natural law. If you ask people, in a vacuum, the question of whether they feel it is ok to agress agains't others without any provocation, I would say based on personal experience 99% of the people would say no. Now obviously if you begind adding things like "An enemy combatant" or something like that in, a different part of our brain where our social conditioning and nationalism lies, we would answer differently. But I believe if you look back through history at the most immoral systems (by natural law morality), you will see they were not successful. Take the soviet union for example, where the government essentially robbed everybody of their possessions. This creates a rather inefficient master/slave relationship, where the slave purposely becomes inefficient. Most human beings have a hatred towards those that impose their will on them. The only way people become comfortable with others will being imposed on them, is when society says it must be that way (police, government, etc.). If you take a human being, and put them in a vacuum, and force them to be a slave in a slave/master relationship, this hatred of slavery phenomenon will occur.

Well, yes, we are born that way. In the Pleistocene, we needed to kill for food. We also needed to defend our territory, mates and food supply from those within our own species. From there, it was just a hop, skip and a jump for a whole range of human social pathologies, many of them normal, to develop, that cause us to justify killing in other ways. Most of the behaviours you list are elaborations on some very basic survival urges; nationalism can be seen as an extension of the notion of 'kin' to that of a nation, rather than a family.

With our technology and society the way it is today, I no longer believe we need to justify killing any longer. Things like religion and nationalism are no longer needed in a world with modern technology and thought.

Is there a social contract gene? What of when babies steal toys from each other, and we have to correct their behaviour? Or small children taking toys from the store, which we scold them for?

These children are not fully developed yet, and as a result the whole "hatred of slavery" phonemenon I described earlier dosn't really occur. If you want proof that this hatred of slavery phenomenon exists en masse, just look at the classic parents/children relationship.

So what if I don't subscribe to natural law?

You are mentally abnormal, or you have been indoctrinated.

[Norstal]

I think its hard to make a comparison between somebody whose job it is to threaten people with force, and a random act of nature. The reason I say it is cops job to kill and imprison, is because every law cops enforce, they enforce with the threat of murder. I can explain this by taking you through the chain of events that will happen if you do not comply with an officer.

I start a hotdog stand to compete with the gross monopoly price the college cafeteria charges. I do not have permission to set up this hotdog stand. After many futile attempts by campus security and staff to instruct me to leave, the police arrive. They ask me to leave, and I refuse. They then approach me to put me under arrest. I obviously do not want to be kidnapped, so I resist arrest. They begin beating me and attempting to handcuff me. They fail to subdue me, and I escape. They draw their guns on me. In self defense, I pull my own gun. They shoot me dead.

If you follow any chain of "non-compliance" with police, you will end up dead. Therefor, police's jobs are to kill and imprison. Obviously most people just choose the imprison option.

No, see this is where you're wrong again. The police do not want you to be dead, they are only enforcers who are committed to the safety of EVERYONE, including the suspects, birds, and pets. They, as law officers, are also under the jurisdiction of the laws they are enforcing. Pull out a gun on any officers and they will pull their own gun too, but they are bound to the law to not shoot. In fact, they will be persecuted by the law if they kill, even if it was justified. This is why we have the court. To interpret if the murder was necessary. Same with shooting in self-defense.

Your example of tackling a robber seems to be less of an ethical one, and more of a "liability" one. Lets assume that under natural law, the officer had justification to initiate force against this robber. It dosn't matter whether he is parapelegic or not. The reason why he won't tackle him is to avoid a lawsuit. Its less of an ethical issue, and more of a liability issue. Although I can see the slight ethical implications here, this specific case isn't really a good example of ethics being relative. Im discussing ethics on the macro level, if that makes any sense.

I understand. However, cops, no matter what kind of genius they are, cannot think (very deeply) of the ethical issues when enforcing these laws. We can think of this in an internet forum, because we don't have to take swift action to solve a problem. That's why most police officers say they don't enforce with ethics, even though its there, they have to think of the law first.

A lot of our social contract in the united states is based on natural law, yes. But what I don't agree with is me being forced to accept their specific interpretation of natural law. (Things like aggressing agains't peoples private property in drug raids is a clear violation of natural law).

So you don't agree with the Supreme Court. That's fine with me. That's why people try to be Supreme Court Justices.

Im not advocating this at all. Im advocating a society of voluntary association, where you have the freedom to choose what court system you want to be a member of.

There are only fifty-one court systems in this land and that is called the Supreme Court. Even the State's Supreme Court obeys them. Any other court system that does not obey the Federal Supreme Court is illegal or unrecognized.

A cop is not compelled to force the law. They chose to accept the job, just like a serial killer chose to kill.

No, they are. If they are not enforcing the law in a specific situation, they maybe arrested themselves.

[The PeoplesFreedom]

With our technology and society the way it is today, I no longer believe we need to justify killing any longer. Things like religion and nationalism are no longer needed in a world with modern technology and thought.

Because all religious people love killing and war is a result of religion.

[Norstal]

By the way, Cat-Tribes also said that police officers in the U.S have code of ethics. I think this thread can die now

[Panzerjaeger]

By the way, Cat-Tribes also said that police officers in the U.S have code of ethics. I think this thread can die now

Yes but the OP conveniently ignored his post and will continue on his crusade of nonsense. Then again POST and other Law Enforcement Training Organizations have always made Ethics a top priority.

[Bendira]

No, see this is where you're wrong again. The police do not want you to be dead, they are only enforcers who are committed to the safety of EVERYONE, including the suspects, birds, and pets. They, as law officers, are also under the jurisdiction of the laws they are enforcing. Pull out a gun on any officers and they will pull their own gun too, but they are bound to the law to not shoot. In fact, they will be persecuted by the law if they kill, even if it was justified. This is why we have the court. To interpret if the murder was necessary. Same with shooting in self-defense.

The police may not WANT me to be dead, but its their job to kill me or arrest me regardless of what they personally want. They aren't commited to the safety of those whose homes they raid and shoot up, I can tell you that much. If it wasn't for the police, they would have been much safer. And the people they throw in jail to be raped and beaten by the prison populations aren't protecting us either. idk what you mean by "they will be persecuted". You mean investigated? None of that makes it any less of a threat of violence/murder.

I understand. However, cops, no matter what kind of genius they are, cannot think (very deeply) of the ethical issues when enforcing these laws. We can think of this in an internet forum, because we don't have to take swift action to solve a problem. That's why most police officers say they don't enforce with ethics, even though its there, they have to think of the law first.

Id argue, on a macro scale, the job itself is blatantly unethical for the reasons I have outlined earlier. The micro-ethics if we want to call it that arent my concern here.

So you don't agree with the Supreme Court. That's fine with me. That's why people try to be Supreme Court Justices.

To participate in the government is to participate in the violent unjust system. Even if I made it to the approval hearings, id be shot down. Plus id be a judge that enforced natural law incourt.

There are only fifty-one court systems in this land and that is called the Supreme Court. Even the State's Supreme Court obeys them. Any other court system that does not obey the Federal Supreme Court is illegal or unrecognized.

ok.

No, they are. If they are not enforcing the law in a specific situation, they maybe arrested themselves.

The act of becoming a cop or not is a choice.

[Bendira]

With our technology and society the way it is today, I no longer believe we need to justify killing any longer. Things like religion and nationalism are no longer needed in a world with modern technology and thought.

Because all religious people love killing and war is a result of religion.

Not all. But I think religion tends to distort our ethics and justifies things like holy wars and aggression against others.

[The PeoplesFreedom]

Because all religious people love killing and war is a result of religion.

Not all. But I think religion tends to distort our ethics and justifies things like holy wars and aggression against others.

Funny. I am a Protestant, and I believe in the non-aggression axoim. Oops.

[Bendira]

Not all. But I think religion tends to distort our ethics and justifies things like holy wars and aggression against others.

Funny. I am a Protestant, and I believe in the non-aggression axoim. Oops.

Well like I said, not all. Most likely your protestant sect took the non-aggression principle from natural law. There are some contradictions between christianity particularly and natural law. One being that jesus was a communist hippie that believed in redistribution of wealth, which is theft.

[The PeoplesFreedom]

Funny. I am a Protestant, and I believe in the non-aggression axoim. Oops.

Well like I said, not all. Most likely your protestant sect took the non-aggression principle from natural law. There are some contradictions between christianity particularly and natural law. One being that jesus was a communist hippie that believed in redistribution of wealth, which is theft.

Lol, no he did not. Read Gary North's stuff on the bible and economics.

[Bendira]

By the way, Cat-Tribes also said that police officers in the U.S have code of ethics. I think this thread can die now

Yes but the OP conveniently ignored his post and will continue on his crusade of nonsense. Then again POST and other Law Enforcement Training Organizations have always made Ethics a top priority.

I PMed Cat Tribe informing him I will type up a response for himat a later date. His post was long, and in an attempt to keep up with the debate, I am postponing my response.

[Bendira]

After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, "Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?"
"Yes, he does," he replied.

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?"

"From others," Peter answered.

"Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him. "But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

Jesus loved himself some extortion . He even took the liberty of doing some groovy hippie magic to pay the guy.