Law Enforcment and Cameras

[AeroJonesy]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

I guess people who think it's cool to text during movies at the theater are evil. We could probably get away with purging them. :thumbup:

Damn straight. My $8.50 pays for total silence and total darkness. In fact, I don't even want to hear them breathe.

 

[PFSS]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

I guess people who think it's cool to text during movies at the theater are evil. We could probably get away with purging them. :thumbup:

You would not like living in the Middle East - people regularly have lengthy conversations on their mobile or demonstrate their new I-Phone speaker system to their friends by playing music for (literally) half the movie.

 

[BobCox2]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

Quote:
Originally Posted by HegemonKhan
"you're right, it is NOT remotely logical.

it IS UNEQUIVICALLY logical.

you ARE responsible for the dead. either you are responsible for the 1 dead or the 100 dead. i'd rather only be responsible for 1 dead than 100 dead. it's softer on my conscious."

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaroDarksbane
"So just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, I am responsible for someone's death either way? I don't buy it.

I didn't put the train on the track, nor did I put the group in front of the train. If the train runs them over, it is in no way my fault.

If however, I pull the lever, I have directly put someone in harm's path, and in fact killed them. Then, I am responsible."

Yes and I want the guy that would pull the lever in my community and the guy that does nothing while not deserving of punishment has also demonstrated that he does not have the guts to make the hard decisions I expect of my friends and neighbors in times of need and is no longer welcome in my community if on reflection he thinks he made the right decision.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

Yes and I want the guy that would pull the lever in my community and the guy that does nothing while not deserving of punishment has also demonstrated that he does not have the guts to make the hard decisions I expect of my friends and neighbors in times of need and is no longer welcome in my community if on reflection he thinks he made the right decision.

No problem here. I fully support your right to associate with people of your choosing, and I don't want to make friends with a group of people who think it's just fine and dandy to sacrifice my life at their whim. :wave:

Also, I think you meant "make a hard decision the way I would choose". Clearly I had to make a decision, and yes, it was a hard one; it's just not the decision you apparently would have made in the same situation.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

You pay taxes to the government so they will have mercy and grant you rights?

Here I thought we paid taxes so people with guns could defend the rights we have as humans.

Cute. The latter, of course, but the critical part is your use of the word, "we". "We" as in "us", not "them" - those who would violate our rights, and particularly those who would attempt to override them with Shari'ah or international law.

I guess it needs to be asked, then: If the military just went in and killed all the prisoners tomorrow, you'd see no rights issue?

Yes and no: the problem would be under the Geneva treatment of prisoners, and not under American criminal or civil law.

All of which are humans with "inalienable rights".

Therefore, you are an horrific fasciscstsst because you would deny the mass-murderers, paedo-bears, and bestiality fans their right to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

You can re-bucket them and call them anything you want; they remain human at the end of the day.

By medical definition, if at all.

And to backtrack to a different response,

The difference between a soldier and a terrorist depends largely on a person's point of view.

Greater BS you have never spewed, so far as I can recall. Soldier vs. freedom fighter or partisan, I'd grant. But your claim above is full of quality A manure.

I'm pretty sure they also found water boarding produced ****ty intelligence too.

And you'd be astoundingly wrong; waterboarding led to numerous revelations which prevented further terrorism, even though there was bad intelligence as well. The Brooklyn Bridge plot was confirmed by someone who was initially waterboarded, IIRC. And all intelligence can be faulty (which is back on my old saw about stupid people insisting that intelligence be of the same quality of evidence, and the pretense that war is crime).

Well if they're attacking armed soldiers it's not really fair to judge them as illegal combatants and start torturing them.

Yes, it is. If they had been Talibs fighting against the U.S. or Northern Alliance, and not in Al Quaeda, they don't receive the moniker. But those who came from outside Afghanistan, or even those who were Afghani but were part of the Al Quaeda military command, do. They are not resident partisans, nor are they part of a regional militia, therefore they are unlawful combatants. If you were to come to Russia and start trying to kill Russian armed forces in Chechnya, you'd qualify for the same title. They're on the lowest rung of the ladder, worse even than a freelance mercenary (who is contractually paid by some group).

So if a foreign power invades your country, and you grab a rifle and run out to try and stop them, you lose all your human rights?

No, you'd be a partisan and that portion of Geneva would apply. See my example of Johnny above.

But a quick question - Nelson Mandela? He should have been tortured before being executed yes?

Interesting question. Even though he was obviously a terrorist (someone using terror as a tactical weapon for strategic gain), he was part of a partisan movement which, despite not always acting on its own soil and being part of the greater ComIntern, definitely had an aspect of civil war rather than extra-national terror.

If Mandela had been plotting to kill Parisians in order to 'make a statement', you're damn straight he could have been.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

Cute. The latter, of course, but the critical part is your use of the word, "we". "We" as in "us", not "them"

Once they are in our custody (i.e. not shooting at us), they are we.

Yes and no: the problem would be under the Geneva treatment of prisoners, and not under American criminal or civil law.

Right, but that implies you see no rights issue with going in and just executing them all; only a treaty violation issue.

Therefore, you are an horrific fasciscstsst because you would deny the mass-murderers, paedo-bears, and bestiality fans their right to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Due process, my friend, due process.

Greater BS you have never spewed, so far as I can recall. Soldier vs. freedom fighter or partisan, I'd grant. But your claim above is full of quality A manure.

Oh, don't get me wrong; I have a very specific definition of what constitutes a terrorist. The problem is, not everyone does. :crazyeyes: If the test as to whether or not someone has human rights coincides whether or not you can apply the label of "terrorist" to that person, we are well and truly screwed, because in today's political climate, well, you could pin that on almost anyone.

"Ahhmygod, he shot at US troops in Iraq! He's one of them terrorizers!"

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

Once they are in our custody (i.e. not shooting at us), they are we.

Prove it, please. IMO this is so much bullcarp.

Right, but that implies you see no rights issue with going in and just executing them all; only a treaty violation issue.

No, you're quibbling legal semantics and I'm following suit.

Due process, my friend, due process.

Which is precisely what generated all the cries of, "OH NOES!!" from the left regarding Gitmo. In most cases the claim was that simply on the basis of the court being a military tribunal the process was somehow less valid than if it was a civilian judge.

If the test as to whether or not someone has human rights coincides whether or not you can apply the label of "terrorist" to that person, we are well and truly screwed, because in today's political climate, well, you could pin that on almost anyone.

That's more than true, and I doubt I need to mention yet again the Clinton Administration's consideration of Christianity as being suspects, or indeed the modern similar consideration of third party voters and Ron Paul bumper-sticker display-ers.

My own definition is pretty clear, but if I need to remind anyone, it is the attack with malice aforethought on civilians with the intention of causing terror. And yes, by my logic, the firebombing of Dresden and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would theoretically qualify, had they been conducted by non-state actors.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

Prove it, please. IMO this is so much bullcarp.

Prove what? That I think humans rights apply to all humans?

I think you can take me at my word that I believe it. :crazyeyes:

or indeed the modern similar consideration of third party voters and Ron Paul bumper-sticker display-ers.

Ha, I hadn't heard that one. Have a link? That sounds interesting.

My own definition is pretty clear, but if I need to remind anyone, it is the attack with malice aforethought on civilians with the intention of causing terror.

Yep.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

Prove what? That I think humans rights apply to all humans?

No, that anyone, anywhere on earth becomes subject to U.S. law once they are in the custody of an American citizen. "Viral law", so to speak.

Ha, I hadn't heard that one. Have a link? That sounds interesting.

I'm surprised. Of course, it's a mountain out of a molehill, at the moment. But it's the thought that counts.

 

[BobCox2]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

No problem here. I fully support your right to associate with people of your choosing, and I don't want to make friends with a group of people who think it's just fine and dandy to sacrifice my life at their whim. :wave:

Also, I think you meant "make a hard decision the way I would choose". Clearly I had to make a decision, and yes, it was a hard one; it's just not the decision you apparently would have made in the same situation.

I think it's more of according to the ethics accepted by the community members and I don't think it's a sacrifice after all both the 1 person and the larger group are standing on the train tracks with a train coming and have apparently lost the ability to get out of the way so they need to ultimately take responsibility for putting themselves in that position. (Something Heg seems to miss)
As to it being a whim, you say yourself it's a hard decision.

I'm glad we agree that people should be able to associate with and form or quit communities based on ethical standards.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

I don't think it's a sacrifice after all both the 1 person and the larger group are standing on the train tracks with a train coming and have apparently lost the ability to get out of the way so they need to ultimately take responsibility for putting themselves in that position. (Something Heg seems to miss)

Of course, only one of those groups is currently in front of the train. By switching the train to avoid the group standing in it's path, you cause it to run over the guy who wasn't originally in it's path. :crazyeyes:

 

[BobCox2]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

Your on the tracks and a train is coming you can't tell from behind the switch which way it's set, get off the tracks.
Meh heres one for heg
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/30105703/?GT1=43001
The young woman had been attacked in full view of a New York City subway clerk, then dragged down the steps onto a deserted platform where she was raped and raped again, the assailant not stopping even when a subway train pulled into the station.
Now, after nearly four years of constant nightmares, bouts of depression and anxiety, the woman has been told by a judge that two transit workers who saw her being attacked had no obligation to do anything to help her other than to signal their superiors that police were needed at the station.
In response, the woman, who asks to be identified only by her first name, Maria, is going public with her story in the hope that something will be done to save other women from enduring a similar nightmare.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

The law should never force people to put their lives in danger. However, that doesn't mean people shouldn't do it.

 

[BobCox2]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

Meh - Back on topic

Video has emerged that shows the Police LIED in regard to the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 Protests. The Police claimed they had tried to protect Mr Tomlinson but had come under attack by the Protesters, this Video clearly shows the Police OUT OF CONTROL launching an UNPROVOKED attack on Mr Tomlinson
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/09/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson-g201

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

Your on the tracks and a train is coming you can't tell from behind the switch which way it's set, get off the tracks.
Meh heres one for heg
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/30105703/?GT1=43001
The young woman had been attacked in full view of a New York City subway clerk, then dragged down the steps onto a deserted platform where she was raped and raped again, the assailant not stopping even when a subway train pulled into the station.
Now, after nearly four years of constant nightmares, bouts of depression and anxiety, the woman has been told by a judge that two transit workers who saw her being attacked had no obligation to do anything to help her other than to signal their superiors that police were needed at the station.
In response, the woman, who asks to be identified only by her first name, Maria, is going public with her story in the hope that something will be done to save other women from enduring a similar nightmare.

if i had power,

the judge would be found to be "unfit" (removed from the bench and revoked licience) and than criminally charged. the two workers at the police station would be criminally charged. every other person there (both subway workers and commuters) would be criminally charged. the rapist(s) (is it one guy or more?) would be "censored" (too brutal to describe) and finally executed/dies..... no need to waste time or money or grief/trauma on a trial.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

According to you, the person at the train tracks trying to decide whether or not to pull the lever is a murderer either way, so yes, when you define everyone as a criminal with no way to not be a criminal, all you'll have is . . . well, criminals. =P

Notice that this isn't an indictment of the human race; just your ridiculous philosophy.

I hesitate to to use the word "evil" when describing people, but in terms of actions, what you have just described is the root of some of the most major evils that have ever taken place.

"Christians are evil! they must be purged!"
"Heathens are evil! they must be purged!"
"Capitalists are evil! They must be purged!"
"Communists are evil! They must be purged!"
"Jews are evil! They must be purged!"
"Israelis are evil! They must be purged!"
"Americans are evil! They must be purged!"

Until humanity realizes that the ruthless "cleanse the evil-doer" way of thinking is wrong, the bloodbath will continue. But by all means, continue to be part of the problem.

I hesitate to to use the word "evil" when describing people, but in terms of actions, what you have just described is the root of some of the most major evils that have ever taken place.

"Christians are evil! they must be purged!"
"Heathens are evil! they must be purged!"
"Capitalists are evil! They must be purged!"
"Communists are evil! They must be purged!"
"Jews are evil! They must be purged!"
"Israelis are evil! They must be purged!"
"Americans are evil! They must be purged!"

Until humanity realizes that the ruthless "cleanse the evil-doer" way of thinking is wrong, the bloodbath will continue. But by all means, continue to be part of the problem.

-saro


i actually understand this very well. in this subject we understand one another.

the difference is that the "jewish people are evil, etc." is ERROREOUS

whereas, evil people ARE evil.

and yes, my evil people may not be your evil people. we get into the mess of humanity and it's opinions again.

let me clarify something that people are getting confused with:

i DO believe in this axiom of the U.S. law (see constitution, bill of rights 1-10 of the amendments. i'm too lazy to look up which amendment says that punishment must equal the crime)

punishment=crime

petty crimes=petty punishment

average crimes=decent punishment

heinous/fatal/rape(adult on adult)/taboo crimes=SERIOUS punishment (life imprisonment or execution)

beyond crime (like the rape of a lil girl or terrorism) = evil = ZERO tolerance = torturous punishment and finally death = MAKE THEM AGONIZINGLY REGRET IT = make them suffer, make they really suffer, as much pain as possible, make them scream and thrash even louder and harder than the lil girl they raped.

for example:

a lil kid who steals a 25 cent (1/4 dollar) candy from a store, i am NOT for executing (DUH).

an adult (male and ESPECIALLY a female, since females never get punished equally, unless i were to become a prosecutor...scary...) who rapes a lil girl (or boy), i AM for at least executing on the spot (though i'd rather torture them first).

 

[TheOgreMan]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

Dude, seriously, get some help. Most colleges and high schools offer free, confidential counselors and/or psychologists. Your world view is extremely skewed and dangerous. You need to talk to someone before you hurt people who don't deserve it.

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

well so far, i'm not a criminal or not in trouble with the law. there's nothing wrong with me. you simply have a different view. don't confuse yourself.

if u don't like my view than say u don't like my view.

no personal attacks, it's not proper/decent/civil discussion. it only belittles u.

 

[Amra]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

beyond crime (like the rape of a lil girl or terrorism) = evil = ZERO tolerance = torturous punishment and finally death = MAKE THEM AGONIZINGLY REGRET IT = make them suffer, make they really suffer, as much pain as possible, make them scream and thrash even louder and harder than the lil girl they raped.

I don't like your view.

If I may ask, how old are you?

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: Law Enforcment and Cameras

if i had power,

the judge would be found to be "unfit" (removed from the bench and revoked licience) and than criminally charged.

You'd charge a judge with a crime because he followed the law? Thank god you have no power in this world. You'd be a really really bad leader and judge of morality.

edit: And you should quit the high and mighty act you've got going on. Your morality is as perverse as that which you criticize.