POLICE are SCUM!

[dballer]

Posse Comatitus

Somthing that the liberals, COMMIES, pinkos, faggots.. and the police want to take away.

Somthing that unless we remember will be washed and that is when all of us will fall victim the the US 6 point master plan.

 

[huntmaster]

i must agree---must police push the limits

for the most part--i dont like 'em

 

[cockdezl]

I'd love to hear what all of these anti-police people suggestions are as to what should be done about this problem. From what I heard so far eliminating the police force would be the ideal answer. Or am I looking too far into what everyone is saying. I suppose everyone would like to go back to the days of the wild wild west(showdowns at sunset and vigilante justice).

Complaining about speed limits and traffic tickets is silly. It's not like you didn't have fair warning what the speed limit is. Big signs that say "SPEED LIMIT 45" are fairly hard to miss in my opinion. Have I been ticketed before? Sure. Did I complain and say all cops are shit heads. Nope. Because I can read and I knew I was breaking the law.

Sure there are some laws I don't agree with. But you'd be better off pounding your head into the wall than trying to blame people who's job it is to uphold the law...

You read way too much into the arguments. You have used the counter attack of, "if you don't agree with it, then you must be totally against it". This is incorrect.

I do not have any problem with a police department, they are the extension of the executive branch of government and are constitutionally required. What most have argued against is the abuse of power and authority that occurs within this field. Pro-police advocates use the poor argument of job stress, which is and never should be a valid argument. You know what the duties are, and if you do not like them, then you have the right to leave and pursue another career, you are not allowed to abuse the law. This occurs daily, probably hourly, and is re-enforced by such ideas as "brotherhood" and "unstated codes of conduct", where the fellow officers cover for the unethical activities of officers.

I have a problem with the demand for more police due to things such as the War on Drugs, which only enforces the idea of a police state and has no grounds in Constitutionality. The police are there to enforce laws which prevent the infringement of others on my rights and me from infringing theirs, not the idea of protecting me from MYSELF.

As for traffic laws, such as speeding, tags, car maintenance problems, etc., these are primarily for revenue. How does my tag registration prevent me from infringing on the rights of others? What major harm to society have I done if I do not have the right shade of tint? a crack in my windshield??

 

[Daeo]

You read way too much into the arguments. You have used the counter attack of, "if you don't agree with it, then you must be totally against it". This is incorrect.

I do not have any problem with a police department, they are the extension of the executive branch of government and are constitutionally required. What most have argued against is the abuse of power and authority that occurs within this field. Pro-police advocates use the poor argument of job stress, which is and never should be a valid argument. You know what the duties are, and if you do not like them, then you have the right to leave and pursue another career, you are not allowed to abuse the law. This occurs daily, probably hourly, and is re-enforced by such ideas as "brotherhood" and "unstated codes of conduct", where the fellow officers cover for the unethical activities of officers.

I have a problem with the demand for more police due to things such as the War on Drugs, which only enforces the idea of a police state and has no grounds in Constitutionality. The police are there to enforce laws which prevent the infringement of others on my rights and me from infringing theirs, not the idea of protecting me from MYSELF.

As for traffic laws, such as speeding, tags, car maintenance problems, etc., these are primarily for revenue. How does my tag registration prevent me from infringing on the rights of others? What major harm to society have I done if I do not have the right shade of tint? a crack in my windshield??

"Police are scum". That was the overriding theme of this post. Which is clearly not the case in the majority of police. "Abuse of power" is blown out of proportion in my opinion. This is only because of the media. Rodney King gets beaten. Everyone sees that. All of a sudden everyone and their dogs is crying police brutality everytime a cop arrests them. Every cop is the enemy all of a sudden. Thus it sets a theme. For every bad cop there's thousands of good cops. I'm not denying the presence of bad cops. That would be foolish of me to deny.

The war on drugs. That's a tough one. On one hand you have people like me and others who don't use drugs to extremes and hurt no one in the process. On the other hand you have people who will kill and steal to get their drugs. So what should the government do to combat this? Making no effort at all to slow down the drug trade would be neglectful on the governments part don't you think? It's not all about protecting yourself from yourself. Crackheads don't rob themselves, they rob others. Which includes you. So saying that all drug users aren't hurting others in the process is very naive.

Traffic laws. Revenue is a part of it granted. But here's some examples why they're around.

Speeding: If I need to explain this you really shouldn't be driving. There's alot more room for error while your car is doing 100mph than 50mph wouldn't you say?

Car maintenance: If you can't see the danger in a car blowing out a tire, losing control because of faulty steering, loosing pressure in the master cylinder thus causing brake failure, among numerous other mechanical problems that can cause you to crash, you shouldn't be driving.

Tag registration: Without insurance your car cannot be registered. I sure as hell don't want uninsured drivers on the road. Do you???

 

[Code]

All the power of the blanket statement.

All pot-heads are losers too.

 

[cockdezl]

"Police are scum". That was the overriding theme of this post. Which is clearly not the case in the majority of police. "Abuse of power" is blown out of proportion in my opinion. This is only because of the media. Rodney King gets beaten. Everyone sees that. All of a sudden everyone and their dogs is crying police brutality everytime a cop arrests them. Every cop is the enemy all of a sudden. Thus it sets a theme. For every bad cop there's thousands of good cops. I'm not denying the presence of bad cops. That would be foolish of me to deny.

That is a nice attempt, but I am not even talking about police beatings. I have no experience with a police beating, nor do I know anyone who has. This does not mean it does not occur, but this is far from the only abuses of power.

As for your idea that "for every bad cop there's thousands of good cops", you have no way of proving this, nor do I have any way of disproving it, but I disagree from my experiences.

The war on drugs. That's a tough one. On one hand you have people like me and others who don't use drugs to extremes and hurt no one in the process. On the other hand you have people who will kill and steal to get their drugs. So what should the government do to combat this? Making no effort at all to slow down the drug trade would be neglectful on the governments part don't you think? It's not all about protecting yourself from yourself. Crackheads don't rob themselves, they rob others. Which includes you. So saying that all drug users aren't hurting others in the process is very naive.

You would do well as a politician, especially a Democrat. You might want to read some books on the Constitution and the writings of the men who created our country.

Doing drugs DOES NOT mean committing crimes of violence nor theft. This concept of "crimes of correlation" is not Constitutional. Simply because crimes are committed with greater frequency among drug users does not mean that the use of drugs is the problem. Your assertion allows for easy arguments against guns, knives, cars, anything that can be associated with a crime. PEOPLE commit crimes, not the drugs, not the guns, not the getaway cars, PEOPLE.

If a person is on drugs and kills another for ten bucks, what should the police do? -How about arrest the person for murder? If a person kills another and is not on drugs, what should the police do? -How about arrest the person for murder? We execute the law for actions not for behaviours. We are supposed to arrest for crimes against others rights, not potential crimes. Not long we will have a "pre-crimes" division.

Traffic laws. Revenue is a part of it granted. But here's some examples why they're around.

Speeding: If I need to explain this you really shouldn't be driving. There's alot more room for error while your car is doing 100mph than 50mph wouldn't you say?

Car maintenance: If you can't see the danger in a car blowing out a tire, losing control because of faulty steering, loosing pressure in the master cylinder thus causing brake failure, among numerous other mechanical problems that can cause you to crash, you shouldn't be driving.

Tag registration: Without insurance your car cannot be registered. I sure as hell don't want uninsured drivers on the road. Do you???

Everyone can stretch logic to produce a reason for things, I still hold that revenue is the primary reason. You have only shown evidence for "potential crimes".

 

[Lao Tzu]

Don't you agree though that without police the chance of crime occuring would be higher. After all with no means of punishment what is to deter anyone from commiting crimes???

i'm sure it plays a part, but i don't think the freudian 'we are all evil once the laws are removed' idealogy is true. Most people aren't willing/able to commit heinous crimes, with or without the law. Those that are, to a large extent, are too mentally gone (live in a subculture or dropped out of society) to care. Crime would go up alot w/o police though, but i doubt serious crime would due to shame, personal distaste & vigilante groups.

And, as i keep saying, if someone wants to earn money by upholding the law (which requires stalking, harassing, psychologically torturing & bullying people) be prepare to be resented for it. If people kissed ass on someone who was stalking & bullying them that would be worse than hating them.

 

[Daeo]

That is a nice attempt, but I am not even talking about police beatings. I have no experience with a police beating, nor do I know anyone who has. This does not mean it does not occur, but this is far from the only abuses of power.

As for your idea that "for every bad cop there's thousands of good cops", you have no way of proving this, nor do I have any way of disproving it, but I disagree from my experiences.



You would do well as a politician, especially a Democrat. You might want to read some books on the Constitution and the writings of the men who created our country.

Doing drugs DOES NOT mean committing crimes of violence nor theft. This concept of "crimes of correlation" is not Constitutional. Simply because crimes are committed with greater frequency among drug users does not mean that the use of drugs is the problem. Your assertion allows for easy arguments against guns, knives, cars, anything that can be associated with a crime. PEOPLE commit crimes, not the drugs, not the guns, not the getaway cars, PEOPLE.

If a person is on drugs and kills another for ten bucks, what should the police do? -How about arrest the person for murder? If a person kills another and is not on drugs, what should the police do? -How about arrest the person for murder? We execute the law for actions not for behaviours. We are supposed to arrest for crimes against others rights, not potential crimes. Not long we will have a "pre-crimes" division.



Everyone can stretch logic to produce a reason for things, I still hold that revenue is the primary reason. You have only shown evidence for "potential crimes".

All of the items that you claim that can be used in crimes are for the most part every day items. Drugs on the other hand have really no productive qualities. So comparing a car to a crackpipe is silly. Because driving a car isn't addictive, but drugs are. You won't go out and rob a liquor store and shoot the clerk to be able to be able to afford a gun would you? If you can't see that the rate of crime in America would go down without drugs you're fooling yourself. Once again I will state that I have used recreational drugs in the past, but do not resent the Gov for trying to keep America a little safer.


I guess everything I say will be some attempt to "stretch logic". I find nothing I say to be totally outrageous to the point where I'm grasping for straws. Do you really want me to believe that you want unsafe cars on the road with uninsured drivers? I know there is already alot of the aforementioned on the road, but with no laws who the fuck would have insurance or cars that ran correctly?!?

 

[Daeo]

I have the perfect place for everyone in favor of slack police forces and loosened drug laws(or most laws in general for that fact). It's called Thailand. Have a safe trip...

 

[cockdezl]

All of the items that you claim that can be used in crimes are for the most part every day items. Drugs on the other hand have really no productive qualities. So comparing a car to a crackpipe is silly. Because driving a car isn't addictive, but drugs are. You won't go out and rob a liquor store and shoot the clerk to be able to be able to afford a gun would you? If you can't see that the rate of crime in America would go down without drugs you're fooling yourself. Once again I will state that I have used recreational drugs in the past, but do not resent the Gov for trying to keep America a little safer.

My God, that was the worst attempt at demonizing drugs. Tell me what was here first, hallucinogens or cars? Please tell me how drugs will be removed from society? This is the pathetic logic that drives the war on drugs. Lets not penalize people for criminal activities, i.e. violent crimes, theft, etc., lets make up new crimes that we can penalize that are associated with some crimes. If you cannot see the expansion of government power and police forces that have occured since the inception of this War on Drugs, then I don't know what will. You are not making anybody safer by putting away 21 year old hippies, for a bag of weed, but you are increasing the demand for prisons, police, judges, lawyers, laws, etc.

If you can't understand that the legalization of drugs will enormously remove the incentive for true crimes due to the tremendous markup on cheap items, then you are living in dreamland. This would remove the mob, crack pushers, the Columbian cartels, etc.

After legalization, you then penalize only for real crimes. If you kill someone, you go to jail, whether on drugs or not. If you steal from someone, you go to jail, whether on drugs or not. The War on Drugs has not made anyone safer from crime, but it has made a huge industry associated with it.

I guess everything I say will be some attempt to "stretch logic". I find nothing I say to be totally outrageous to the point where I'm grasping for straws. Do you really want me to believe that you want unsafe cars on the road with uninsured drivers? I know there is already alot of the aforementioned on the road, but with no laws who the fuck would have insurance or cars that ran correctly?!?

You have grasped for straws, because in your earlier post you stated that car registration was to insure vehicles, which is ridiculous, since registration laws were devised long before insurance laws. So what was the rationale prior to mandatory insurance laws? Is gun registration for the purpose of instituting gun insurance?

Also, here in Georgia, there is no vehicle inspection, only emissions inspections. So Georgia must not care for the people on the roads, only the environment.