| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
28 Jan 2005 04:31:24 AM |
| Object: |
Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
Why is it that a cop who kills an unarmed man is not charged with
murder like the rest of us would be? Why are cops allowed to abduct
people off the street and it's a crime to use your right to
self-defense? Why are most cops domestic batterers? Why do cops steal
so much of our money through asset forfeiture? For people who sell
themselves as "serving" and "protecting" us, they sure don't act like
it:
http://brownwatch.squarespace.com/police-brutality-archives/
http://www.fear.org/
Could it be that the cops have nothing to do with protecting average
citizens? Probably so.
------------------------------------------
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/peters3.html
To Serve and Protect - Itself
by John M. Peters
On November 18, 2001, a woman was shot to death in her suburban Detroit
home by her distraught husband. He then turned the gun on himself and
died instantly.
Unfortunately, this scenario is played out all too often across the
nation. If these were the only facts, you might shrug with empathy and
ask yourself why this merits your consideration. This case was
different.
In this case, the police were present - not following the
murder/suicide - but before and during it.
Following threats by her husband to her life and the lives of her
children, the woman went directly to the local police. She informed
them that she was in fear for her life and the lives of her children if
she tried to move out of the marital home. She informed the police that
her husband had a gun, had threatened her and her children that day,
and that she wanted to move out of the home. The police computer
confirmed a personal protection order had been issued by the court
against the husband.
The police agreed to accompany the woman to her home and remain there
while she removed her personal belongings and her children. Two
officers accompanied her to her home and remained inside to the end -
the end of her life and her husband's.
Despite encountering the husband, and having been apprised of all the
facts which led them to accompany the woman to her home, the police
never questioned the husband, segregated him from his wife or even
bothered to search him for a gun. They hung around and watched as the
husband followed his wife back and forth from the home to her car with
her personal belongings.
As the police spoke with others in the house, the husband followed his
wife into her bedroom, closed the door and shot her. He then shot
himself. This was exactly what the wife had asked the police to protect
her from, and what they had agreed to do.
If these police officers had been private security officers instead,
they and their employer would be held accountable in a court of law
under breach of contract or negligence theories. Alas, they are
government employees. The result is that they are not accountable for
their malfeasance or her death. This is what separates the private
sector from government.
Another government branch - the courts - has decided that police
are not legally responsible for such gross failures. In Michigan, the
state's highest court has decided that individual police officers may
not be sued unless they are the only cause of the injury or death. This
special treatment is not available to those in the private sector. In
every case involving private individuals or companies, negligence is
assessed on the basis of each party's percentage of fault. Yet
another branch of government - the Michigan legislature - passed a
statute which grants absolute immunity to any municipality, thereby
barring any claim against the officers' employer. No such privilege
is available to private sector employers.
Faced with these obstructions, the deceased woman's estate pursued a
claim against the officers' employer in federal court alleging that
she was deprived of her life without due process of law. On June 9,
2004 a federal judge dismissed the estate's case. The basis for the
dismissal was that, "a State's failure to protect an individual
against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the
Due Process Clause." Coming from the U.S. Supreme Court, this is the
law in every state. This outrage is compounded by the government's
simultaneous efforts to prevent citizens from taking any steps to
protect themselves, and punishing them when they do.
How do you explain this state of affairs to the family of the deceased?
It was not easy. I was the attorney left with the task.
Writers such as Steven Greenhut and Paul Craig Roberts have sounded the
alarm on this growing trend of law enforcement's lack of
accountability, but the truth is that most citizens actually believe
that the police are under some legal duty to come to your aid.
In oral arguments before the federal court, I closed by noting that if
this is the state of the law in this country the courts should require
that all police vehicles be posted with a warning label which reads:
Caution: We are not required to protect you. Then, I explained, we will
at least know the truth, and be able to take steps to protect
ourselves.
The next time you read the phrase To Serve and Protect on a police
vehicle, remember that this is government's motto about itself, not
you.
June 24, 2004
John M. Peters [send him mail] is a practicing attorney in Michigan.
Copyright =A9 2004 LewRockwell.com
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
07 Feb 2005 12:14:51 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Rump Ranger wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
buttpirate@fadmail.com wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
That sounds like complete *****. There's nothing preventing a
group of
100 people from governing themselves via anarchy, except the fact
that it won't work.
In your faulty opinion. Do you lord over your family and treat
them
like you are their superior? If they do that which you don't
like,
do
you put them in bondage? If so, then the statistics show that
people
in your family will more likely be violent people to others in
return.
You obviously have no clue as to what a libertarian society is all
about. Part of it, of course, stems from your belief in the myth
that
once a government collapses, society ends. If that was the case,
human
society would have ended long ago. *All* governments eventually
collapse. Humans will endure without them when they do like they
have
since the dawn of history.
By creating a new government. Anarchy doesn't work because someone
always feels that they should lead and make things go their way.
And until that trend ends, humanity will have hell to pay. I'd say
when government collapses, all those who decide they should "lead"
should be shot or exiled. Their leadership "for the greater good"
will
lead to disaster. Too bad most people never learn that lesson.
Most people feel that leader should either be them or reflect their
views.
So get rid of the problem: no leaders.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morphys ghost" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 11:24:25 AM |
|
|
In the year of our Lord Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:56:16 -0600, "Denis
Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c646e851a01349c989732@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <pJWdneFVPq8RHWfcRVn-1A@io.com>, Denis Loubet said...
Ok, the whining is pretty clear.
Any solutions in mind?
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that applies in
civil proceedings.
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Well, surely we'll make better choices in that situation than the
Iraqi's did.
Won't we?
Truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be
believ'd.-- William Blake
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 07:03:08 PM |
|
|
"Morphy's ghost" <stewieisaheretic@religiousheresy.org> wrote in message
news:41fbc698.2773630@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
In the year of our Lord Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:56:16 -0600, "Denis
Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"Brian E. Clark" <reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c646e851a01349c989732@news.comcast.giganews.com...
In article <pJWdneFVPq8RHWfcRVn-1A@io.com>, Denis Loubet said...
Ok, the whining is pretty clear.
Any solutions in mind?
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that applies in
civil proceedings.
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Well, surely we'll make better choices in that situation than the
Iraqi's did.
Won't we?
Shudder!
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Clarke" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 07:11:28 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:56:16 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
<IamdnUqqvOyxzWbcRVn-sg@io.com>
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that applies in
civil proceedings.
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Exactly what we do before they arrive: be each of us responsible for our own
protection and that of those we love.
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 07:10:15 PM |
|
|
"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nn2nv0hjt51g7d5vo6j1c0g13a20ovjkbi@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:56:16 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
<IamdnUqqvOyxzWbcRVn-sg@io.com>
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that applies in
civil proceedings.
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Exactly what we do before they arrive: be each of us responsible for our
own
protection and that of those we love.
Well, I'd be dead in short order.
Thanks.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
30 Jan 2005 07:19:24 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nn2nv0hjt51g7d5vo6j1c0g13a20ovjkbi@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:56:16 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
<IamdnUqqvOyxzWbcRVn-sg@io.com>
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that applies in
civil proceedings.
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Exactly what we do before they arrive: be each of us responsible
for our
own
protection and that of those we love.
Well, I'd be dead in short order.
That's right. You're one of those "special" people who doesn't really
need the law to make you good but *everybody else* needs to have it
because *everyone else* is evil. Do you get far with such an elitist
paranoid attitude? Tell me, is the only reason you're not out raping
and murdering people is because there are cops around? If so, your
kind would be killed in a libertarian society fast.
That's assuming you're not a rapist or murderer, of course.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
31 Jan 2005 07:26:26 PM |
|
|
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107091164.149337.77720@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nn2nv0hjt51g7d5vo6j1c0g13a20ovjkbi@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:56:16 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
<IamdnUqqvOyxzWbcRVn-sg@io.com>
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that applies in
civil proceedings.
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Exactly what we do before they arrive: be each of us responsible
for our
own
protection and that of those we love.
Well, I'd be dead in short order.
That's right. You're one of those "special" people who doesn't really
need the law to make you good but *everybody else* needs to have it
because *everyone else* is evil.
What are you suggesting? That everyone breaks the law, or that everyone
doesn't break the law? Are you suggesting that everyone is exactly the same?
Do you get far with such an elitist
paranoid attitude?
Well, so far so good.
Tell me, is the only reason you're not out raping
and murdering people is because there are cops around?
No, it's because I don't like to rape and kill.
How about you?
Are you suggesting that there are no rapes and murders? Or perhaps you're
suggesting that someone's dog is responsible for murders and rapes? Because
if it's people that commit such crimes, then obviously some people LIKE it.
If so, your
kind would be killed in a libertarian society fast.
By those people who like to rape and kill. Yes, probably.
That's assuming you're not a rapist or murderer, of course.
Your assumption, in this case, is correct.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
03 Feb 2005 05:20:07 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107091164.149337.77720@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nn2nv0hjt51g7d5vo6j1c0g13a20ovjkbi@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:56:16 -0600, "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
<IamdnUqqvOyxzWbcRVn-sg@io.com>
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that applies
in
civil proceedings.
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Exactly what we do before they arrive: be each of us responsible
for our
own
protection and that of those we love.
Well, I'd be dead in short order.
That's right. You're one of those "special" people who doesn't
really
need the law to make you good but *everybody else* needs to have it
because *everyone else* is evil.
What are you suggesting? That everyone breaks the law, or that
everyone
doesn't break the law? Are you suggesting that everyone is exactly
the same?
I'm suggesting that we're all equal IRT rights and opportunity, yes.
No man is inherently superior to another to the point that he has a
right to impose his will on them.
Do you get far with such an elitist
paranoid attitude?
Well, so far so good.
As long as you got yours, screw everyone else.
Tell me, is the only reason you're not out raping
and murdering people is because there are cops around?
No, it's because I don't like to rape and kill.
But you're implying that cops are the only reason you don't rape and
kill. *If* you wouldn't rape and kill when all the cops are gone, then
what makes you think everyone else would?
How about you?
Are you suggesting that there are no rapes and murders? Or perhaps
you're
suggesting that someone's dog is responsible for murders and rapes?
Because
if it's people that commit such crimes, then obviously some people
LIKE it.
And they'd be dead very fast if everyone was armed. I'm not the one
implying that everyone else would become a rapist and murderer should
cops not be around. You are.
If so, your
kind would be killed in a libertarian society fast.
By those people who like to rape and kill. Yes, probably.
Nope. You'd be killed by those you try to rape and kill because the
only reason you don't do it is because the cops are around. Your
logic.
That's assuming you're not a rapist or murderer, of course.
Your assumption, in this case, is correct.
And is it because there are cops around? If not, then why do you
assume everyone else would become rapists and murderers should there be
no cops?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
03 Feb 2005 05:35:47 PM |
|
|
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107429607.630822.247290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107091164.149337.77720@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nn2nv0hjt51g7d5vo6j1c0g13a20ovjkbi@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:56:16 -0600, "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
<IamdnUqqvOyxzWbcRVn-sg@io.com>
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that applies
in
civil proceedings.
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Exactly what we do before they arrive: be each of us responsible
for our
own
protection and that of those we love.
Well, I'd be dead in short order.
That's right. You're one of those "special" people who doesn't
really
need the law to make you good but *everybody else* needs to have it
because *everyone else* is evil.
What are you suggesting? That everyone breaks the law, or that
everyone
doesn't break the law? Are you suggesting that everyone is exactly
the same?
I'm suggesting that we're all equal IRT rights and opportunity, yes.
No man is inherently superior to another to the point that he has a
right to impose his will on them.
That doesn't seem to address my question...
Do you get far with such an elitist
paranoid attitude?
Well, so far so good.
As long as you got yours, screw everyone else.
I didn't say that.
Tell me, is the only reason you're not out raping
and murdering people is because there are cops around?
No, it's because I don't like to rape and kill.
But you're implying that cops are the only reason you don't rape and
kill. *If* you wouldn't rape and kill when all the cops are gone, then
what makes you think everyone else would?
I never suggested that!
How about you?
Are you suggesting that there are no rapes and murders? Or perhaps
you're
suggesting that someone's dog is responsible for murders and rapes?
Because
if it's people that commit such crimes, then obviously some people
LIKE it.
And they'd be dead very fast if everyone was armed. I'm not the one
implying that everyone else would become a rapist and murderer should
cops not be around. You are.
No I'm not. Never did.
If so, your
kind would be killed in a libertarian society fast.
By those people who like to rape and kill. Yes, probably.
Nope. You'd be killed by those you try to rape and kill because the
only reason you don't do it is because the cops are around. Your
logic.
No, not at all. I never suggested such a thing.
That's assuming you're not a rapist or murderer, of course.
Your assumption, in this case, is correct.
And is it because there are cops around? If not, then why do you
assume everyone else would become rapists and murderers should there be
no cops?
Ok, obviously you're arguing with some imaginary opponent now. I'll just
leave you to work it out between yourself.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
04 Feb 2005 03:38:09 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107429607.630822.247290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107091164.149337.77720@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nn2nv0hjt51g7d5vo6j1c0g13a20ovjkbi@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:56:16 -0600, "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
<IamdnUqqvOyxzWbcRVn-sg@io.com>
The article implied at least one line of remediation: hold
police to the same standard of partial liability that
applies
in
civil proceedings.
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Exactly what we do before they arrive: be each of us
responsible
for our
own
protection and that of those we love.
Well, I'd be dead in short order.
That's right. You're one of those "special" people who doesn't
really
need the law to make you good but *everybody else* needs to have
it
because *everyone else* is evil.
What are you suggesting? That everyone breaks the law, or that
everyone
doesn't break the law? Are you suggesting that everyone is exactly
the same?
I'm suggesting that we're all equal IRT rights and opportunity,
yes.
No man is inherently superior to another to the point that he has a
right to impose his will on them.
That doesn't seem to address my question...
Since your question was irrelevant to my post in the first place, I
thought I'd play the non-sequiter game too.
Do you get far with such an elitist
paranoid attitude?
Well, so far so good.
As long as you got yours, screw everyone else.
I didn't say that.
You might as well have.
Tell me, is the only reason you're not out raping
and murdering people is because there are cops around?
No, it's because I don't like to rape and kill.
But you're implying that cops are the only reason you don't rape
and
kill. *If* you wouldn't rape and kill when all the cops are gone,
then
what makes you think everyone else would?
I never suggested that!
Then how can you imagine that rapes and murders would skyrocket if all
the cops were gone and everyone was armed and responsible for their own
and their neighbor's self defense? Why else would you believe you'd be
in anymore danger than you are now if you didn't believe the cops are
the only reason people are moral?
How about you?
Are you suggesting that there are no rapes and murders? Or perhaps
you're
suggesting that someone's dog is responsible for murders and
rapes?
Because
if it's people that commit such crimes, then obviously some people
LIKE it.
And they'd be dead very fast if everyone was armed. I'm not the
one
implying that everyone else would become a rapist and murderer
should
cops not be around. You are.
No I'm not. Never did.
Oh? You're the one saying that your safety would be significantly
lowered if there were no cops around and we all owned weapons. What
else are you implying if not that?
If so, your
kind would be killed in a libertarian society fast.
By those people who like to rape and kill. Yes, probably.
Nope. You'd be killed by those you try to rape and kill because
the
only reason you don't do it is because the cops are around. Your
logic.
No, not at all. I never suggested such a thing.
You sure did. How else are you to believe *everyone else* would turn
into viscious killers and rapists if you're not projecting?
That's assuming you're not a rapist or murderer, of course.
Your assumption, in this case, is correct.
And is it because there are cops around? If not, then why do you
assume everyone else would become rapists and murderers should
there be
no cops?
Ok, obviously you're arguing with some imaginary opponent now. I'll
just
leave you to work it out between yourself.
Don't blame me because you don't like the implications of your own
argument taken to it's conclusion.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Clarke" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 09:49:25 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:10:15 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
<6bSdneE0ptPsqWHcRVn-ow@io.com>
"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nn2nv0hjt51g7d5vo6j1c0g13a20ovjkbi@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:56:16 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
<IamdnUqqvOyxzWbcRVn-sg@io.com>
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Exactly what we do before they arrive: be each of us responsible for our
own protection and that of those we love.
Well, I'd be dead in short order.
Because you would not defend yourself or your loved ones? Or because no one
loves you enough to defend you? In either case, possibly that's a good thing.
Non-survival of the unfit...
Thanks.
You're welcome.
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
30 Jan 2005 12:34:46 AM |
|
|
"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:m5mov052tvpl65i37rgoio56q7j3sjnscn@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:10:15 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
<6bSdneE0ptPsqWHcRVn-ow@io.com>
"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nn2nv0hjt51g7d5vo6j1c0g13a20ovjkbi@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:56:16 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
<IamdnUqqvOyxzWbcRVn-sg@io.com>
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Exactly what we do before they arrive: be each of us responsible for our
own protection and that of those we love.
Well, I'd be dead in short order.
Because you would not defend yourself or your loved ones?
Oh, I would try. But I don't hold any illusions about my effectiveness.
Or because no one
loves you enough to defend you?
A guy with a 50 caliber machine gun mounted on his Hummer can easily kick my
*****.
How about you?
In either case, possibly that's a good thing.
Non-survival of the unfit...
Your solution that we return to the dog-eat-dog world of the caveman is less
than attractive to me.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
30 Jan 2005 12:53:36 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
A guy with a 50 caliber machine gun mounted on his Hummer can easily kick my
*****.
How about you?
yea, i could kick your *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
30 Jan 2005 03:04:29 AM |
|
|
"Sam" <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:Qv%Kd.18033$wZ2.2617@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
A guy with a 50 caliber machine gun mounted on his Hummer can easily kick
my *****.
How about you?
yea, i could kick your *****
You see my problem then.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
30 Jan 2005 07:37:11 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:m5mov052tvpl65i37rgoio56q7j3sjnscn@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:10:15 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
<6bSdneE0ptPsqWHcRVn-ow@io.com>
"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nn2nv0hjt51g7d5vo6j1c0g13a20ovjkbi@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:56:16 -0600, "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
<IamdnUqqvOyxzWbcRVn-sg@io.com>
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Exactly what we do before they arrive: be each of us responsible
for our
own protection and that of those we love.
Well, I'd be dead in short order.
Because you would not defend yourself or your loved ones?
Oh, I would try. But I don't hold any illusions about my
effectiveness.
Then that should tell you that you should get out more and learn how to
defend yourself. Make bonds with your neighbors. In the end it's only
you, your family, and your neighbors who'd save you from a psycopath
right now. If you believe the "boys in blue" will save you, you're
living in TV land. They don't save hundreds of lives a day. They pick
up the pieces *after* the crime's been done.
Or because no one
loves you enough to defend you?
A guy with a 50 caliber machine gun mounted on his Hummer can easily
kick my
*****.
How about you?
Could he take on an *entire neighborhood* who was armed? A guy firing
off a 50-cal isn't going to get far when it's in the best interest of
everyone involved that he doesn't. He'd be mowed down in a heartbeat.
In either case, possibly that's a good thing.
Non-survival of the unfit...
Your solution that we return to the dog-eat-dog world of the caveman
is less
than attractive to me.
Suprise for you. We already live in a "dog-eat-dog" world. Don't tell
me your life is this sheltered.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
31 Jan 2005 01:15:39 PM |
|
|
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107092231.456868.160330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:m5mov052tvpl65i37rgoio56q7j3sjnscn@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:10:15 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
<6bSdneE0ptPsqWHcRVn-ow@io.com>
"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nn2nv0hjt51g7d5vo6j1c0g13a20ovjkbi@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:56:16 -0600, "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
<IamdnUqqvOyxzWbcRVn-sg@io.com>
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Exactly what we do before they arrive: be each of us responsible
for our
own protection and that of those we love.
Well, I'd be dead in short order.
Because you would not defend yourself or your loved ones?
Oh, I would try. But I don't hold any illusions about my
effectiveness.
Then that should tell you that you should get out more and learn how to
defend yourself. Make bonds with your neighbors. In the end it's only
you, your family, and your neighbors who'd save you from a psycopath
right now. If you believe the "boys in blue" will save you, you're
living in TV land. They don't save hundreds of lives a day. They pick
up the pieces *after* the crime's been done.
So the solution is that we all become survivalists? That's what it sounds
like you're saying.
Or because no one
loves you enough to defend you?
A guy with a 50 caliber machine gun mounted on his Hummer can easily
kick my
*****.
How about you?
Could he take on an *entire neighborhood* who was armed? A guy firing
off a 50-cal isn't going to get far when it's in the best interest of
everyone involved that he doesn't. He'd be mowed down in a heartbeat.
So, we basically are talking anarchy. Everyone armed, and no policing force.
I remain skeptical that such a state of affairs will be superior to the one
we have.
In either case, possibly that's a good thing.
Non-survival of the unfit...
Your solution that we return to the dog-eat-dog world of the caveman
is less
than attractive to me.
Suprise for you. We already live in a "dog-eat-dog" world. Don't tell
me your life is this sheltered.
I don't see how your solution maintains our society. Without a policing
force, I see no reason that society won't break up into armed camps. City
States, if you will, and the constant conflict that seems part and parcel of
such a condition.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
01 Feb 2005 05:00:35 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:q56dnebV0ODPGWPcRVn-oQ@io.com...
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107092231.456868.160330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:m5mov052tvpl65i37rgoio56q7j3sjnscn@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:10:15 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
<6bSdneE0ptPsqWHcRVn-ow@io.com>
"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nn2nv0hjt51g7d5vo6j1c0g13a20ovjkbi@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:56:16 -0600, "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
<IamdnUqqvOyxzWbcRVn-sg@io.com>
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Exactly what we do before they arrive: be each of us responsible
for our
own protection and that of those we love.
Well, I'd be dead in short order.
Because you would not defend yourself or your loved ones?
Oh, I would try. But I don't hold any illusions about my
effectiveness.
Then that should tell you that you should get out more and learn how to
defend yourself. Make bonds with your neighbors. In the end it's only
you, your family, and your neighbors who'd save you from a psycopath
right now. If you believe the "boys in blue" will save you, you're
living in TV land. They don't save hundreds of lives a day. They pick
up the pieces *after* the crime's been done.
So the solution is that we all become survivalists? That's what it sounds
like you're saying.
Or because no one
loves you enough to defend you?
A guy with a 50 caliber machine gun mounted on his Hummer can easily
kick my
*****.
How about you?
Could he take on an *entire neighborhood* who was armed? A guy firing
off a 50-cal isn't going to get far when it's in the best interest of
everyone involved that he doesn't. He'd be mowed down in a heartbeat.
So, we basically are talking anarchy. Everyone armed, and no policing
force.
Sounds like gated communities to me. They certainly are peaceful enough and
with considerably less crime, with a "police force" that is really
interested in protecting it's people and solving any crimes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
03 Feb 2005 04:42:02 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107092231.456868.160330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:m5mov052tvpl65i37rgoio56q7j3sjnscn@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:10:15 -0600, "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
<6bSdneE0ptPsqWHcRVn-ow@io.com>
"Frank Clarke" <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nn2nv0hjt51g7d5vo6j1c0g13a20ovjkbi@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:56:16 -0600, "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
<IamdnUqqvOyxzWbcRVn-sg@io.com>
When all the cops are gone, what will you do then?
Exactly what we do before they arrive: be each of us
responsible
for our
own protection and that of those we love.
Well, I'd be dead in short order.
Because you would not defend yourself or your loved ones?
Oh, I would try. But I don't hold any illusions about my
effectiveness.
Then that should tell you that you should get out more and learn
how to
defend yourself. Make bonds with your neighbors. In the end it's
only
you, your family, and your neighbors who'd save you from a
psycopath
right now. If you believe the "boys in blue" will save you, you're
living in TV land. They don't save hundreds of lives a day. They
pick
up the pieces *after* the crime's been done.
So the solution is that we all become survivalists? That's what it
sounds
like you're saying.
If learning basic survival skills is what you think I'm saying, then
you're right. *Nobody* outside of you, your family, and neighbors is
going to help you survive should some psychopathic ***** decide to
break into your house. Even if the cops were reliable (which they're
not known to be in areas where it matters), the system isn't built to
stop crime. They'd most likely show up *after* the crime has been
done.
Or because no one
loves you enough to defend you?
A guy with a 50 caliber machine gun mounted on his Hummer can
easily
kick my
*****.
How about you?
Could he take on an *entire neighborhood* who was armed? A guy
firing
off a 50-cal isn't going to get far when it's in the best interest
of
everyone involved that he doesn't. He'd be mowed down in a
heartbeat.
So, we basically are talking anarchy. Everyone armed, and no policing
force.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Violence would drop dramatically
if everyone played on the same level.
I remain skeptical that such a state of affairs will be superior to
the one
we have.
Remain skeptical all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the
policing force isn't able to protect you:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
This is an idea behind an anarchistic society.
In either case, possibly that's a good thing.
Non-survival of the unfit...
Your solution that we return to the dog-eat-dog world of the
caveman
is less
than attractive to me.
Suprise for you. We already live in a "dog-eat-dog" world. Don't
tell
me your life is this sheltered.
I don't see how your solution maintains our society. Without a
policing
force, I see no reason that society won't break up into armed camps.
City
States, if you will, and the constant conflict that seems part and
parcel of
such a condition.
Wrong. The only reason you get armed camps when governments collapse
is because groups with weapons decide to impose their will on those
without weapons. If everyone was armed, there'd be less of a chance of
one armed group abusing the vast majority who are defensless (look at
now, the cops who have all the weapons generally abuse the unarmed
populace).
I'm no Utopian. I accept humanity for all it's warts and know that bad
people will always exist. What *is* Utopian is to believe that (like
you and most reasonable people do) and then believe there should be a
group in charge and that they wouldn't become the worst people in a
given society. It's entirely Utopian to believe that giving all the
power to a small group will result in the greater good. History and
even present affairs is full of examples of why that is so.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton Villanes" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
31 Jan 2005 02:04:13 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:15:39 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Trimmed
I don't see how your solution maintains our society. Without a policing
force, I see no reason that society won't break up into armed camps. City
States, if you will, and the constant conflict that seems part and parcel of
such a condition.
Denis,
There are already armed camps, places where the law abiding can not go
about in a safe manner. These areas are often called ghettos, barrios,
etc. The reasons they don't cause more widespread social disorder is
due to the presence of law enforcement on the perimeters. The reasons
for those areas' continued existence is the lack of public support to
move in and take control with the ever watchful eye of the civil
rights groups who unfortunately tend to represent the victims while at
the same time taking up the legal sword for the perpetrators. It is a
legal-poltical schizophrenics that muddies the water of any possible
answer(s). Further few answers are ever provided as to why anyone
would try to raise a family in these condition. Those answers seem
related to political benign neglect with little economic opportunities
to move out and on. Time immemorial has not provided solutions, only
tolerance and avoidance. Believe it or not, there are some people who
can not live peaceably in any community.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
31 Jan 2005 03:31:11 PM |
|
|
<Clayton Villanes> wrote in message
news:3l2tv0du57b6647magog9lh6hn40ld9fom@4ax.com...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:15:39 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Trimmed
I don't see how your solution maintains our society. Without a policing
force, I see no reason that society won't break up into armed camps. City
States, if you will, and the constant conflict that seems part and parcel
of
such a condition.
Denis,
There are already armed camps, places where the law abiding can not go
about in a safe manner. These areas are often called ghettos, barrios,
etc. The reasons they don't cause more widespread social disorder is
due to the presence of law enforcement on the perimeters. The reasons
for those areas' continued existence is the lack of public support to
move in and take control with the ever watchful eye of the civil
rights groups who unfortunately tend to represent the victims while at
the same time taking up the legal sword for the perpetrators.
I'll grant this.
It is a
legal-poltical schizophrenics that muddies the water of any possible
answer(s).
Or it could be the inevitable result of a complex, non black and white
problem that's not solvable by simple answers.
Further few answers are ever provided as to why anyone
would try to raise a family in these condition.
I've wondered about that myself. I don't know the factors that prevent
someone in those conditions from simply moving somewhere else. Then again,
human behavior is often counterituitive.
Those answers seem
related to political benign neglect with little economic opportunities
to move out and on. Time immemorial has not provided solutions, only
tolerance and avoidance. Believe it or not, there are some people who
can not live peaceably in any community.
I agree with this.
Is there a solution?
I run a massively multiplayer computer role playing game. It has had
thousands of players on it. A large percentage of the players are concerned
primarily with playing the system and finding exploitable situations to
their advantage. They will also go to extraordinary lengths to make other
players miserable. Their inventiveness and cunning is as astounding as their
utter lack of remorse is scary.
This inadvertently acts as sort of a window on human nature. An experimental
platform, if you will, for testing how rules affect human behavior. It's
illuminating and depressing at the same time.
But a virtual microcosm allows us to change the rules of the game to see how
it affects the "criminal element", in an effort to lessen their impact on
the better behaved players. I've learned a lot, and wonder if game designers
could create better laws than we currently have in the real world.
Interestingly, the three branches of government are a very game-like method
of checks and balances, and they work pretty well. The founding fathers were
no dummies. But I see other laws on the books that just feed corruption and
beg for exploitation even though I can clearly see the good intentions
behind them.
Trying to steer human behavior is far more difficult than people realize.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "James H. Hood" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
31 Jan 2005 09:18:09 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:hOCdna51Dc2KOWPcRVn-2w@io.com...
I run a massively multiplayer computer role playing game. It has had
thousands of players on it. A large percentage of the players are
concerned
primarily with playing the system and finding exploitable situations to
their advantage. They will also go to extraordinary lengths to make other
players miserable. Their inventiveness and cunning is as astounding as
their
utter lack of remorse is scary.
This inadvertently acts as sort of a window on human nature. An
experimental
platform, if you will, for testing how rules affect human behavior. It's
illuminating and depressing at the same time.
But a virtual microcosm allows us to change the rules of the game to see
how
it affects the "criminal element", in an effort to lessen their impact on
the better behaved players. I've learned a lot, and wonder if game
designers
could create better laws than we currently have in the real world.
A terrible example.....what you have is a group of mostly adolescents who
know they're free from any effective repercussions for acting the *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
31 Jan 2005 10:26:47 PM |
|
|
"James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> wrote in message
news:41fef4e8$0$38730$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net...
Denis Loubet <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:hOCdna51Dc2KOWPcRVn-2w@io.com...
I run a massively multiplayer computer role playing game. It has had
thousands of players on it. A large percentage of the players are
concerned
primarily with playing the system and finding exploitable situations to
their advantage. They will also go to extraordinary lengths to make other
players miserable. Their inventiveness and cunning is as astounding as
their
utter lack of remorse is scary.
This inadvertently acts as sort of a window on human nature. An
experimental
platform, if you will, for testing how rules affect human behavior. It's
illuminating and depressing at the same time.
But a virtual microcosm allows us to change the rules of the game to see
how
it affects the "criminal element", in an effort to lessen their impact on
the better behaved players. I've learned a lot, and wonder if game
designers
could create better laws than we currently have in the real world.
A terrible example.....what you have is a group of mostly adolescents who
know they're free from any effective repercussions for acting the *****.
Your point does not support your opinion.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "James H. Hood" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
01 Feb 2005 02:38:39 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:rtOdnX4zRtYdmGLcRVn-iQ@io.com...
"James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> wrote in message
news:41fef4e8$0$38730$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net...
Denis Loubet <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:hOCdna51Dc2KOWPcRVn-2w@io.com...
I run a massively multiplayer computer role playing game. It has had
thousands of players on it. A large percentage of the players are
concerned
primarily with playing the system and finding exploitable situations to
their advantage. They will also go to extraordinary lengths to make
other
players miserable. Their inventiveness and cunning is as astounding as
their
utter lack of remorse is scary.
This inadvertently acts as sort of a window on human nature. An
experimental
platform, if you will, for testing how rules affect human behavior.
It's
illuminating and depressing at the same time.
But a virtual microcosm allows us to change the rules of the game to
see
how
it affects the "criminal element", in an effort to lessen their impact
on
the better behaved players. I've learned a lot, and wonder if game
designers
could create better laws than we currently have in the real world.
A terrible example.....what you have is a group of mostly adolescents
who
know they're free from any effective repercussions for acting the *****.
Your point does not support your opinion.
Makes me wonder just how much time you've really spent on game servers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
02 Feb 2005 12:37:44 AM |
|
|
"James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> wrote in message
news:41ffe8d9$0$92310$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net...
Denis Loubet <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:rtOdnX4zRtYdmGLcRVn-iQ@io.com...
"James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> wrote in message
news:41fef4e8$0$38730$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net...
Denis Loubet <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:hOCdna51Dc2KOWPcRVn-2w@io.com...
I run a massively multiplayer computer role playing game. It has had
thousands of players on it. A large percentage of the players are
concerned
primarily with playing the system and finding exploitable situations
to
their advantage. They will also go to extraordinary lengths to make
other
players miserable. Their inventiveness and cunning is as astounding as
their
utter lack of remorse is scary.
This inadvertently acts as sort of a window on human nature. An
experimental
platform, if you will, for testing how rules affect human behavior.
It's
illuminating and depressing at the same time.
But a virtual microcosm allows us to change the rules of the game to
see
how
it affects the "criminal element", in an effort to lessen their impact
on
the better behaved players. I've learned a lot, and wonder if game
designers
could create better laws than we currently have in the real world.
A terrible example.....what you have is a group of mostly adolescents
who
know they're free from any effective repercussions for acting the *****.
Your point does not support your opinion.
Makes me wonder just how much time you've really spent on game servers.
Why? I agree with your point, but it does not indicate a terrible example.
I'm not saying that the virtual world has a 1 to 1 correspondence to the
real world, but I'm saying we can learn a lot by observing and manipulating
human behaviors in virtual worlds.
Do you disagree?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
03 Feb 2005 05:14:30 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
<Clayton Villanes> wrote in message
news:3l2tv0du57b6647magog9lh6hn40ld9fom@4ax.com...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:15:39 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Trimmed
I don't see how your solution maintains our society. Without a
policing
force, I see no reason that society won't break up into armed
camps. City
States, if you will, and the constant conflict that seems part and
parcel
of
such a condition.
Denis,
There are already armed camps, places where the law abiding can not
go
about in a safe manner. These areas are often called ghettos,
barrios,
etc. The reasons they don't cause more widespread social disorder
is
due to the presence of law enforcement on the perimeters. The
reasons
for those areas' continued existence is the lack of public support
to
move in and take control with the ever watchful eye of the civil
rights groups who unfortunately tend to represent the victims while
at
the same time taking up the legal sword for the perpetrators.
I'll grant this.
It is a
legal-poltical schizophrenics that muddies the water of any
possible
answer(s).
Or it could be the inevitable result of a complex, non black and
white
problem that's not solvable by simple answers.
Further few answers are ever provided as to why anyone
would try to raise a family in these condition.
I've wondered about that myself. I don't know the factors that
prevent
someone in those conditions from simply moving somewhere else. Then
again,
human behavior is often counterituitive.
Never lived in a black "ghetto", did you? If you did, you'd realize
that about a third of the adult males at any given time are in lockdown
and that the poverty there is self-sustaining. How else do you expect
them to go upward economically when most families are destroyed by
ridiculous "laws" and an inherently racist system (and the Criminal
"Justice" System is inherently racist because a black man is far more
likely to go to prison for the same crime than a white person who would
get probation). Then again, the black "leaders" don't get off scot
free either. They've betrayed their people by telling them that since
they're screwed, they might as well not do anything for themselves.
These "coalitions" are based on eternal victimhood and thrive on making
people not take responsibility for themselves. If the people actually
took action, most would be out of a job. Lastly, look at how welfare
works. For decades the system rewarded people who never worked or had
multiple children out of wedlock (I don't oppose children out of
wedlock for religious reasons but that two parents always do a better
job at raising the kids than one by themselves). Since there's little
to no investment going on in those neighborhoods, there's little chance
for them to gain a job which pays a livable wage. They're not poor
because they want to be no matter how much that fantasy comforts you.
Those answers seem
related to political benign neglect with little economic
opportunities
to move out and on. Time immemorial has not provided solutions,
only
tolerance and avoidance. Believe it or not, there are some people
who
can not live peaceably in any community.
I agree with this.
Is there a solution?
I run a massively multiplayer computer role playing game. It has had
thousands of players on it. A large percentage of the players are
concerned
primarily with playing the system and finding exploitable situations
to
their advantage. They will also go to extraordinary lengths to make
other
players miserable. Their inventiveness and cunning is as astounding
as their
utter lack of remorse is scary.
This inadvertently acts as sort of a window on human nature. An
experimental
platform, if you will, for testing how rules affect human behavior.
It's
illuminating and depressing at the same time.
But a virtual microcosm allows us to change the rules of the game to
see how
it affects the "criminal element", in an effort to lessen their
impact on
the better behaved players. I've learned a lot, and wonder if game
designers
could create better laws than we currently have in the real world.
Probably (I'll admit I like RPGs too but that MUDs and MMORPGs are a
waste of time, pen and paper being my thing). Problem is this: since
power tends to corrupt, those who choose to have power over one's
fellow man are usually the people you don't want in charge.
Interestingly, the three branches of government are a very game-like
method
of checks and balances, and they work pretty well. The founding
fathers were
no dummies. But I see other laws on the books that just feed
corruption and
beg for exploitation even though I can clearly see the good
intentions
behind them.
The checks and balances don't work so well anymore. For one thing, the
executive branch is allowed to ignore anything the judicial branch says
and furthermore is able to shield itself from legislative inquiry by
invoking "executive privelage." We live in times where the government
controls things which the founding fathers never thought we'd go.
Remember, they lived under the principle that the best government was
the one who governed least.
Trying to steer human behavior is far more difficult than people
realize.
Not really. The current paradigm sold to us is that our government is
good (a pure lie) and that war is "honorable" and that it's OK to screw
over one's fellow man to get ahead. Those in charge know this which is
why they constantly put such messages in their corporate run media and
grade school cirriculum. Humans are social animals and adopt the
beliefs of the people around them. If the paradigm was to shift,
people's behaviors would change.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
04 Feb 2005 12:50:12 AM |
|
|
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107429270.502933.138110@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
<Clayton Villanes> wrote in message
news:3l2tv0du57b6647magog9lh6hn40ld9fom@4ax.com...
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:15:39 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Trimmed
I don't see how your solution maintains our society. Without a
policing
force, I see no reason that society won't break up into armed
camps. City
States, if you will, and the constant conflict that seems part and
parcel
of
such a condition.
Denis,
There are already armed camps, places where the law abiding can not
go
about in a safe manner. These areas are often called ghettos,
barrios,
etc. The reasons they don't cause more widespread social disorder
is
due to the presence of law enforcement on the perimeters. The
reasons
for those areas' continued existence is the lack of public support
to
move in and take control with the ever watchful eye of the civil
rights groups who unfortunately tend to represent the victims while
at
the same time taking up the legal sword for the perpetrators.
I'll grant this.
It is a
legal-poltical schizophrenics that muddies the water of any
possible
answer(s).
Or it could be the inevitable result of a complex, non black and
white
problem that's not solvable by simple answers.
Further few answers are ever provided as to why anyone
would try to raise a family in these condition.
I've wondered about that myself. I don't know the factors that
prevent
someone in those conditions from simply moving somewhere else. Then
again,
human behavior is often counterituitive.
Never lived in a black "ghetto", did you?
No.
If you did, you'd realize
that about a third of the adult males at any given time are in lockdown
and that the poverty there is self-sustaining. How else do you expect
them to go upward economically when most families are destroyed by
ridiculous "laws" and an inherently racist system (and the Criminal
"Justice" System is inherently racist because a black man is far more
likely to go to prison for the same crime than a white person who would
get probation). Then again, the black "leaders" don't get off scot
free either. They've betrayed their people by telling them that since
they're screwed, they might as well not do anything for themselves.
These "coalitions" are based on eternal victimhood and thrive on making
people not take responsibility for themselves. If the people actually
took action, most would be out of a job. Lastly, look at how welfare
works. For decades the system rewarded people who never worked or had
multiple children out of wedlock (I don't oppose children out of
wedlock for religious reasons but that two parents always do a better
job at raising the kids than one by themselves). Since there's little
to no investment going on in those neighborhoods, there's little chance
for them to gain a job which pays a livable wage.
That's a pretty fucked up situation. Do you have a solution?
They're not poor
because they want to be no matter how much that fantasy comforts you.
Hello, I never said that. You're talking to your imaginary opponent again.
Those answers seem
related to political benign neglect with little economic
opportunities
to move out and on. Time immemorial has not provided solutions,
only
tolerance and avoidance. Believe it or not, there are some people
who
can not live peaceably in any community.
I agree with this.
Is there a solution?
I run a massively multiplayer computer role playing game. It has had
thousands of players on it. A large percentage of the players are
concerned
primarily with playing the system and finding exploitable situations
to
their advantage. They will also go to extraordinary lengths to make
other
players miserable. Their inventiveness and cunning is as astounding
as their
utter lack of remorse is scary.
This inadvertently acts as sort of a window on human nature. An
experimental
platform, if you will, for testing how rules affect human behavior.
It's
illuminating and depressing at the same time.
But a virtual microcosm allows us to change the rules of the game to
see how
it affects the "criminal element", in an effort to lessen their
impact on
the better behaved players. I've learned a lot, and wonder if game
designers
could create better laws than we currently have in the real world.
Probably (I'll admit I like RPGs too but that MUDs and MMORPGs are a
waste of time, pen and paper being my thing). Problem is this: since
power tends to corrupt, those who choose to have power over one's
fellow man are usually the people you don't want in charge.
Granted!
Interestingly, the three branches of government are a very game-like
method
of checks and balances, and they work pretty well. The founding
fathers were
no dummies. But I see other laws on the books that just feed
corruption and
beg for exploitation even though I can clearly see the good
intentions
behind them.
The checks and balances don't work so well anymore. For one thing, the
executive branch is allowed to ignore anything the judicial branch says
and furthermore is able to shield itself from legislative inquiry by
invoking "executive privelage." We live in times where the government
controls things which the founding fathers never thought we'd go.
Remember, they lived under the principle that the best government was
the one who governed least.
Granted.
Trying to steer human behavior is far more difficult than people
realize.
Not really. The current paradigm sold to us is that our government is | | | | | | | | | | |
