Philly police arrest man carrying.

Laws are not created by one individual or passed by an individual so they can not be arbitrary.

All I'm hearing is "laws are bad when I dont like them, unless I agree with them."

You are either for laws or against them, pick a side, we're at war.

Against. Better no law than unjust laws.

edited 18th May '11 1:08:00 AM by SavageHeathen

Soooo....Just becuase you want to drive 100 miles per hour, we should no longer go after rapists, murderers, and streakers ?

You're the one forcing either support to the whole of the law, or blanket opposition to it all.

I had stated earlier that some laws are unjust, not that all laws are. I maintain that unjust laws should go unenforced, and I maintain that all authoritarian laws are unjust.

The all laws are unjust is your very own Strawman Political: Fight it at your leisure.

edited 18th May '11 1:15:19 AM by SavageHeathen

Alright, just wanted to clear up the misunderstanding.

Of course there are unjust laws out there, no one is gonna deny that.

For example (let's re-rail), since we have RKBA, restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are unjust and should be unenforced.

edited 18th May '11 1:29:23 AM by SavageHeathen

To which I can argue, some restrictions on that right are now necessary, due to changing times.

Rights are rights: Changing times never justify authoritarianism, or restricting any of the rights of the people.

edited 18th May '11 1:24:36 AM by SavageHeathen

Rights change over time, for good or bad.

edited 18th May '11 1:24:36 AM by Thorn14

Savage, you keep using the word, "unjust". I don't think you realize the complexity of your argument. Justice is a moral concept, involving the consideration of ethics, fairness, reason, and law. The police is just the enforcement of whatever we have determined legislatively and judicially.

The not-enforcing of "unjust" laws is legally done through legislative means by striking it down. Not by telling police officers which laws to not enforce. That would be a tremendous ethical violation.

Because what you consider "just" may not be what the other 7 billion people on this planet consider "just".

Any way to stop an authoritarian law is ethical by definition.

edited 18th May '11 1:27:23 AM by SavageHeathen

Not following laws you consider unjust is still breaking the law, no matter how noble you think it is.

Savage: So who gets to say what laws are just/unjust? I doubt it is you.

Assuming a certain government is worth subverting is a personal choice, not one you make for other people.

edited 18th May '11 1:34:33 AM by victorinox243

Thumped.

edited 18th May '11 1:35:01 AM by SavageHeathen

QFT.

Savage; I am sorry to say the majority is very likely fine to some extent with the way things are.

He was hardly being argumentative. Or belligerent. He did everything the cop told him to do (except shut up. which he has every right NOT to). He offered to show his ID and his permit. The cop didn't even give a shit to see it. He blatantly antagonized this individual for no good reason, as he was not a threat, nor doing anything illegal or suspicious. Instead of getting upset or combative the individual calmly explained everything was doing was legal and explained he was complying with the officer's directive and asked to be treated better then he was, and asked why he was being treated so poorly.

Then the SOB officer told his backup a bunch of bullshit lies and tried to destroy evidence to the contrary when discovered he was being taped. (Which, btw, you don't know by what).

And you DON'T see what's wrong with that?

If this went to court and I were on a Jury I'd call that obstruction of justice right there and abuse of power.

And your "proof" is essentially just that he had something capable of recording and did so.

Maybe you should actually listen to the tape. These comments make me feel as though you're ignoring it on purpose.

edited 18th May '11 2:28:32 AM by CommandoDude

I've said it once Savage, and I will say it again:

The People have not entrusted within you the responsibility to determine what is just and unjust, and what should and should not be law. You are not qualified to make that decision, I am not qualified to make that decision. The difference is that it is my occupation, the means by which I make a living, to enforce those decisions.

Besides, anyone can say a law is unjust after they have violated it. If I think a law is just, and you think it is unjust, that is no different from a man murdering someone and saying it is just, while you say it is unjust. The law is there for that purpose, to be a universal standard to which we are held to, a standard which may be changed.

Don't be upset because there is piddly bullshit out there that you don't like within the confines of the law. There are certain abilities of discretion that officers are given. (Such as the fact that in California, you are not obligated to arrest someone for a misdemeanor committed in your presence, you may simply let someone go for a misdemeanor.)

^

I already stated that the cop in question needs to be fired, and that he was unprofessional and lacked the proper knowledge of carry laws in his jurisdiction to be considered a competent or qualified officer. He's a shithead who needs to be fired, end of story.

That being said, the guy in question still needed to shut the fuck up and obey. When I say take a knee so I can safely pull your gun away from you so I don't get shot in the face while I read your carry permit, I mean get on your fucking knees. I don't read documents while some guy with a gun on his hip, someone who I do not know is or is not a felon or violent individual, looks at me while I have eyes off of him. Especially not with backup. That is absolutely unsat to do, and you would fail any exercise where you performed that way.

Listen to that last sentence again: The way police are taught, if you performed that way in an exercise scenario, you would fail.

edited 18th May '11 2:39:57 AM by Barkey

No need to get all belligerent, Commando Dude.

edited 18th May '11 2:49:30 AM by victorinox243

Look, I'm a cop, and I don't know what sort of response Commando Dude and others like him want.

This cop is a sack of shit and needs to be fired. End of story. Doesn't mean I think the civilian was just a box of fucking rainbows about it either, I've made plenty of arrests, and the way he was acting would have pissed me off. Not enough to hurt him or overreact the way the Philly cop did, but enough to annoy the crap out of me when he started cutting me off when I was trying to speak. The fact that the cop was a shithead does not mean I will overlook the fact that the guy he arrested was almost expressly looking for trouble.

He was arguing, and he needed to stop. That really impedes the crap out of what could have been a very brief and very peaceful encounter.

edited 18th May '11 2:45:20 AM by Barkey

It is true, though, that in some (not all, but far too many) occasions some policemen and other representatives of the State get a little overzealous in exerting their authority, or worse.

For example, my mother's job has her helping immigrants take care of all the unholy bureaucratic mess required to ask a residence permit, and this is mostly done through police offices. The things she told me she saw and heard... well, I do not think I have the right to report them here without her permission, but suffice to say there was plenty of racism, lack of basic decency and other general unpleasantness.

Personally, I'd be in favor of policemen and other authority figures having to record all their interactions with the population while in service. This would protect the decent majority of them from false accusations, and give those who feel like going in an unwarranted power trip something to worry about.

edited 18th May '11 2:52:45 AM by Carciofus

So long as we can turn off the recorder when we aren't dealing with others, sure.

Well, yes, nobody cares to hear you taking a leak .

Dude. Barkey. He got on his knees. So stop going on about it. Whatever YOU would have done doesn't matter. It's what THAT officer DIDN'T do that DOES. And he clearly showed NO intention of either A) Disarming the civilian or B) Checking his identification or C) Trying to resolve the situation peacefully.

edited 18th May '11 2:56:57 AM by CommandoDude