Philly police arrest man carrying.

I've gathered, but that's not what I'm asking. Currently, in the real world, the only thing keeping those that society deems "dangerous"*

this second) off the streets are the police. Your safety relies on these policemen who sometimes subject individuals to degrading behavior like forcing them to the ground and handcuffing them. You stated that anyone whose safety relies on the degradation of others don't deserve it. Therefore, you do not deserve safety, correct?

EDIT: Friggin' page topper. Added in what I was replying to.

edited 18th May '11 12:17:15 AM by Wulf

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?

Many, many, many rules could simply go without enforcing and it would cause no loss.

I would gladly part with that safety. When it comes to freedom vs safety, I'm a freedom nut. Don't try to spin authoritarianism like it's my fault!

Also, what you're stating is correct. If a fascistic police force is needed to keep evil off the streets, it would be better to simply have evil on the streets.

edited 18th May '11 12:18:32 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

But the real harm done in the stopping was the degrading the cops forced on the man - and seeing how the stopping was in fact wrong, there should ideally be a way to sue the police department and get compensation.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

Savage, I honestly hope that one day you get to spend some time in Somalia or somewhere else that actually does have thugs wielding all the power. Maybe then you might figure out the difference between the rule of law and the rule of whoever gets together the most people with guns.

EDIT: @ Octo (again): Not really. While the police officer was making a bad judgement call by stopping the man, he was within legal boundaries to do so. While an individual may find prudent protocols for handling armed individuals degrading, so long as officer safety was the purpose and no gratuitous acts for the purpose of humiliation occur, there's really no grounds to sue. Besides, suing the department would be punishing the city and, by extension, the taxpayers rather than the police officer himself.

edited 18th May '11 12:22:07 AM by Wanderhome

I can see where sh is coming from, but I cant agree with it. The police are necessary in a society as large as ours.

Please.

@Wanderhome: I don't see open carry as a necessity in urban areas. And the sort of people who rabidly push for the right are the sort of gunshop-commando douchebags I wish didn't own guns in the first place.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

@Wander: It's the exact same thing. Thugs are still thugs, no matter how many badges you slap on them.

And the laws are still arbitrary dictates from those in government. They've got no merit by themselves.

edited 18th May '11 12:20:19 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Laws are not arbitrary. They are flawed, at times, but never arbitrary.

Please.

I'm not trying to, and I'm sorry if it seemed like I was, I'm just making sure I understand you correctly and that you are consistent. Now, a rebuttal. Dignity is important, I agree with you there—however, I find safety is more important than that, in cases where both cannot coexist, at least to a point. Being forced to kneel on the ground because I have a gun that I may or may not be legally allowed to have and could conceivably put a bullet in a man's head with is not so degrading as to risk myself or others being shot because of.

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?

Well, eh, the officer might be a legal target, too, but that's not how it usually works. He was acting in an official fashion, after all, backed up by legal authority that was granted to him by the police department (i.e. by the city). Usually in case of police misbehaviour the authority behind the police is sued, and that makes sense, too. As for "punishing taxpayers", well, that's how public representation works - the city represents those taxpayers and is elected by them. Using that argument one shouldn't be able at all to sue cities, states, countries, which clearly would be absurd and even oppressive.

And there is of course the concept of proportionality. Police may have the right to enact certain procedures to go about their work, if it is necessary. However, since it was a wrong action to stop the guy in the first place, it was not necessary, and hence not proportional. And hence ideally it SHOULD be open grounds for suing.

edited 18th May '11 12:27:44 AM by Octo

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

@Dead Mans: Enforcing an unjust law is unjust.

edited 18th May '11 12:26:42 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

@ DS: Thanks for generalizing.

My point is, just because it's not a necessity doesn't mean it should not be allowed. Coffee isn't a necessity, has unhealthy side effects, and some people might find the bitter smell offensive. Should it then be banned?

@ SH:

Laws, by definition, are not arbitrary. The whole purpose of having laws is to make sure that there are codified rules of behavior that govern the use of force and prohibit harm to others. Arbitrary enforcement is what you have when you get rid of laws, and a couple guys can decide to blow your brains out because they think your voice sounds annoying, with no consequences for their actions. You know, anarchy.

All thugs are not created equal, however. A man who uses his authority to rape, rob, and kill (not necessarily in that order) is different than one who uses it to try and protect others.

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?

Well Heathen, you can make broad statements like that all day if you want but it's still not telling us why it's unjust, you're just telling us it simply is. And when you say "Because governments are evil", you have yet to tell us why they're inherently evil. After all, authority does not automatically equate to abuse. Tyranny is authority being abused but authority in of itself is not directly linked to abuse.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Laws are the fiat of the rulers. They're the very definition of arbitrary.

edited 18th May '11 12:29:44 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

@SH: You know, I think it's morally unjust that we're not allowed to beat the shit out of people for being idiots. Those cops are completely wrong in letting him go without a beating!

See how little morals mean?

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Enforcing an unjust law is necessary. There are ways to combat unjustice, but not enforcing them is inexcusable.

Please.

@Wanderhome: personal experience talking. When I meet a well-reasoned open-carry activist I'll reevaluate.

And the analogy is ludicrous. People aren't killed accidentally when someone drops their Starbucks cup. But hey, I'll bite.

What you've pointed out is the age-old "where do you draw the line?" In this case, it's between individual rights vs. the rights of the group. I just see open carry as a case where an individual's rights aren't as important as the basic safety and health of society at large. You're free to disagree.

As to the specific incident...well, both sides fucked up, but if precedent is anything to go by, only one side will actually suffer; the police, the city and (as someone else pointed out), the taxpayers.

People like you and me, in other words.

So in this specific incident, I feel sympathy or understanding with no one involved. The guy was an asshole, the cops screwed up, and the result is likely going to be a lot of collateral damage with no real benefit to anyone.

Except, perhaps, the dick with the Glock.

edited 18th May '11 12:32:21 AM by drunkscriblerian

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

@ Octo: "However, since it was a wrong action to stop the guy in the first place, it was not necessary, and hence not proportional. And hence ideally it SHOULD be open grounds for suing. "

Except it was necessary. Just because he may have been wrong to stop the man does not mean that the man was therefore harmless. He may have had warrants out for his arrest, a short temper, or any number of other motivations to try to shoot the officer once he was stopped. And while the police officer probably shouldn't have stopped him and behaved unprofessionally once he did, he was still legally within the bounds of his position to do so, giving no grounds for a lawsuit.

Rulers who (in this country) are elected by the people because they align with their beliefs.

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?

An individual's dignity is not worth someone else's safety. No matter who either person is. Personally, I would have no problem being handcuffed or made to kneel by a police officer if they had a reason to believe I was dangerous. I wouldn't expect them to put their lives at risk for my safety all the time, I'm not going to ask them to do it for my dignity as well. Whatever the rather nebulous idea of 'dignity' means.

Be not afraid...

@Dead Mans: What you just said is so wrong that I don't know what to reply.

People should not submit to injustice, whether it's presented under color of law or not.

Enforcing injustice is evil.

edited 18th May '11 12:35:16 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

That's the point. You can't divide it like that. It was unlawful to stop the man, and hence ANY, each and any consequence of that action should be open for claims of compensation.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

A persons dignity is worth others safety. Kneeling is not undignified.

Please.

It appears nobody's safety was actually threatened.

And forcing somebody to kneel IS violating his or her dignity.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic