[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50397#msg50397 date=1298764552]If your principles aren't worth the 180 FRNs, then you can't really continue to argue for your position.[/quote]
Not supporting you with those FRNs is the principle.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50412#msg50412 date=1298811877]… you will find that the number of accidental or unjustified shootings by cops is extremely, EXTREMELY low.
[/quote]
Yes. Reading Will Grigg, one notices the ability of the cop system to justify anything.
Get over your superstitious belief that rituals and incantations and costumes can absolve you of the evil that you do.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50403#msg50403 date=1298768026]I'm from NJ, Joe.[/quote]
So, have you ever arrested anyone for carrying a gun?
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50403#msg50403 date=1298768026]If you don't comply, you don't die. You will be taken into custody though, and based upon your physical resistance, the cops will use the amount of force appropriate to do their job. You are exaggerating the idea of violence. If you don't act like a crazed lunatic, you will be treated (or should be treated) with some respect.[/quote]
How will they take me into custody? Unless I comply, by failing to defend myself from an armed attacker, one or the other of us is getting a significant case of lead poisoning. Only if I comply, can that situation be avoided.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50403#msg50403 date=1298768026]Are you arguing physics of a crash? What happens when a 100lb person is unrestrained in the back seat and you (the driver) hit a brick wall? The unrestrained 100lb missile winds up crushing whatever is in front of it. This is a common occurrence.[/quote]
And isn't what you said. If I, as the driver, want to risk getting crushed from behind, that's my business. If I don't, I won't allow passengers in my vehicle to ride without wearing a seatbelt. It's my choice, morally, and (here in NH) legally as well.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50403#msg50403 date=1298768026]If you don't think that a driver can become ejected and turn into a missile for another driver, or a hazard for other motorists, then we can't go on from here. I'm sure you can find some pretty interesting crashes on youtube.[/quote]
I actually spoke to a cop I know. He retired about ten years ago, after half a century in law enforcement. Much of the first decade of that, he worked as an accident investigator. And, if you'll note the timeframe, seatbelts not only were not required at the time, but were actually unavailable in many cars. He couldn't think of a single instance of someone being ejected through their windshield, then in through the other windshield, to injure the other driver in the head-on crash. And windshield glass was nowhere near as good, at that time, either.
Of course, basic physics and biology say that, once you travel through a windshield, there ain't much left of you to penetrate a second windshield. Guess they don't teach such things at the police academy, though, do they?
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50403#msg50403 date=1298768026]And I haven't arrested another cop. There has never been a need. What had been done was the result of a lack of training and misguided policy. It has since been addressed.[/quote]
It was still illegal. I thought that ignorance of the law is no excuse?
Of course, being in NJ, I doubt there's a single cop you know who isn't guilty of major violations of human rights. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty explicit, for one.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50412#msg50412 date=1298811877]There are how many cops in the US? There are how many incidents of crime that require use of force? If you take the amount of incidents of crime and police use of force vs your few examples, you will find that the number of accidental or unjustified shootings by cops is extremely, EXTREMELY low.[/quote]
Actually, last I heard, the statistics were extremely high. The average homeowner who has to shoot an aggressive intruder, or woman defending herself from a rapist, or whatever, is far less likely to be found to have shot the wrong person, than a "trained" cop.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50412#msg50412 date=1298811877]In the real world, we are given a fraction of a second to make a decision, that you without such responsibility believe is enough time to be accurate 100% of the time. Well it doesn't work like that. We are human, and sometimes mistakes are made. I'd love for civilians to get a taste of what we go through in a high stress situation like the examples you already provided and see for yourself exactly what happens with your body. Until it is you being the enforcer and holding a gun, you really don't have a right to justify a shooting based solely upon MSM propaganda. You should not be so simple as to take MSM 'news' and equate it to truth.[/quote]
A) Many of us do carry guns, often or even all the time. We live in a civilized place, here, where that's possible. Some of us, like myself, are even certified instructors. The most basic course I teach, includes more training than you got at the police academy.
B) Many have also studied the stress effects that result from a violent confrontation; I have to be able to describe, in detail, what my students should expect both during an attack, and in the aftermath.
C) Some of us, like myself, have actually been forced to use a firearm in self-defense. So I know exactly what it feels like to make those kind of decisions.
D) The incidents that mackler linked were cold-blooded murder, not self-defense. Shooting someone in the back while he's lying face-down with his hands behind his back? That's not a "mistake" or a "fraction of a second" decision. That's murder.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50412#msg50412 date=1298811877]I enjoyed your little twist on the driving privilege, but at no point did I say that all laws were in place for 'safety reasons' only. But I can make the argument that an expired license IS cause for safety. When it's time for a renewal, a certain number of people will be retested. What happens if one of those people developed a brain injury and now has random seizures? What if this person refuses to get retested for his DL because of this condition, and drives on his expired license? What happens when this guy drives one day, has a seizure, drives into oncoming traffic, crashes through trees, and drops 15 feet off a retaining wall into a crowded parking lot?[/quote]
I've never heard of someone being re-tested upon renewal. Is that a NJ thing? We certainly don't have that, up here. Only test they do is the eye test, and that's rather pointless for those of us who already have the "requires corrective lenses" restriction - if my eyes magically improved to the point that I no longer needed glasses, something tells me that it would be in my own interest to report such a thing and get the restriction lifted.
You know, it's rather sad, how you think all these things are necessary. NH doesn't require adults to wear seat belts, or to have liability insurance to drive, or prevent them from carrying guns. Yet I'll put good money down on us having a better rate of seatbelt use, lower rate of uninsured motorists, and lower rate of negligent or intentional shootings than you do, in NJ.
Joe
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50379#msg50379 date=1298753645]
[quote author=free libertarian link=topic=4846.msg50375#msg50375 date=1298752990]
If you do immoral things and attempt to rationalize them, you can't expect everybody to like you. It just doesn't work that way.
With that said, I'm glad this thread was started and look forward to the interaction. I wish more cops would take personal responsibility, listen to FTL and disavow initiating aggression under the guise of "protecting society". I'd also like a pony for my birthday. ;D
[/quote]
No one likes the cops. I should have been a fireman.
But my goal isn't to be liked. It won't happen simply because I still think police are a necessary evil, and most of you think it's possible to have a successful community without any. OR is that an incorrect statement?
[/quote]
That is an incorrect statement. Most of us oppose the monopoly on 'justice' and 'peace-keeping'. Most of us would support 'cops and laws' were there some competition and one racket wasn't protected by 'legitimized' violence.
PS look at my signature. You cannot abdicate moral responsibility for your actions.
Where to begin with you, Joe?
It is your argument that a person, after hitting a windshield and getting ejected from a car somehow vaporizes or is cut into parts and is therefore not a hazard to other motorists? PLEASE give me a copy of your physics and anatomy handbook on that. I'd love to see it.
If you make people wear seat belts in the back of your car, you are enforcing a self-made law (you are now a legislator) on your sovereign property, and threaten them with potential violence (you are now an enforcer - kicking them out of your car- by force if necessary.) You have already determined their guilt and their punishment (you are now the man in a robe making sweeping decrees based upon what you think is right.) What about THEIR right to not wear a seat belt?
What's good for the goose, my friend.
I'd enjoy hearing the details of your self defense situation.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50412#msg50412 date=1298811877]
There are how many cops in the US? There are how many incidents of crime that require use of force? If you take the amount of incidents of crime and police use of force vs your few examples, you will find that the number of accidental or unjustified shootings by cops is extremely, EXTREMELY low.
[/quote]
So it's the few number of examples that I gave that justifies the deaths of those innocents at the hands of police? How many examples would I need to post to change your mind? Can you put a number on it?
Do you know how many drunk drivers there are in the US? How many accidents do they cause? If you take the amount of incidents of driving vs the small portion who get into accidents, you will find the number of alcohol-caused accidents is extremely, EXTREMELY low. Now that I've adopted your logic, can we agree that drunk driving is acceptable behavior?
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50412#msg50412 date=1298811877]
In the real world, we are given a fraction of a second to make a decision…
[/quote]
Actually you've had plenty of time to make a decision. And you've decided that you are willing to accept money that was taken by force or threat of force in exchange for your acts of threatening and using force against innocents on the orders of politicians and their appointees who confiscated the money to pay you. Is that not an accurate statement? You've had many fractions of many seconds to think about that decision, and you could change your mind anytime. Just because some undesirable consequences of your conscious decision may appear with little warning doesn't change the fact that you voluntarily put yourself in the position that you seem to be complaining about.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50412#msg50412 date=1298811877]
I enjoyed your little twist on the driving privilege, but at no point did I say that all laws were in place for 'safety reasons' only.
[/quote]
I'm glad we can agree that driving privileges are not awarded according to safety alone. But I'm still interested in whether you think you're the "good guy" when you participate in the theft of the liberty and property of a person who is driving to work to pay his arrearage of child support. You do agree that it's wrong to steal and to imprison innocent people, don't you? Or do you?
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50412#msg50412 date=1298811877]
But I can make the argument that an expired license IS cause for safety. When it's time for a renewal, a certain number of people will be retested. What happens if one of those people developed a brain injury and now has random seizures? What if this person refuses to get retested for his DL because of this condition, and drives on his expired license?
[/quote]
NJ must be more safety conscious than anywhere I've lived. I had a Massachusetts license for ten years without ever going into a registry office. I could have been a blind and deaf paraplegic and I still would have had a valid license to drive. There was no test besides the one I took at age 16, and moving to NH there was no test. I just paid the permission money and now I'm legal here, and in fact legal to drive in NJ even.
But let me ask you this, since safety testing is so important, would you support annual driving tests as a requirement for being licensed to drive? Actually brain injuries can be developed at any time; would you support mandatory driving tests every six months? Every month? How about random driving test check points? Do these sound like good ideas to you? Think of how many people with brain injuries are driving around right now. In fact a person with a brain injury walking down the street could wander off a sidewalk into traffic and cause an accident. Should we require licenses for walking down the street? According to your logic the answer would appear to be "yes." Is that a fair assessment of your position?
And on the flip side, would you support the elimination of all non-safety-based requirements for maintaining driving privileges in good standing?
[quote author=MaineShark link=topic=4846.msg50414#msg50414 date=1298816543]
Actually, last I heard, the statistics were extremely high.
[/quote]
Actually, last I heard, the statistics were extremely impossible to come by, since police departments intentionally fail to keep track of unjustified (i.e., criminal) killings committed by their agents. And to the extent that such records are kept, they are kept in a way that makes it impossible to distinguish between killings that are arguably justified and those that are not, for example by defining all shootings by police agents as "justified."
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50417#msg50417 date=1298820710]It is your argument that a person, after hitting a windshield and getting ejected from a car somehow vaporizes or is cut into parts and is therefore not a hazard to other motorists? PLEASE give me a copy of your physics and anatomy handbook on that. I'd love to see it.[/quote]
I take it you have no comprehension of the amount of energy it takes to pierce an automotive windshield? They're quite strong. They'll even deflect a variety of bullets. Once a body pierces one, most of the energy is absorbed by that.
Like I said, feel free to provide even one example where someone was ejected through his windshield, then pierced the windshield of the car that struck him head-on, injuring the other driver. Even one example.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50417#msg50417 date=1298820710]If you make people wear seat belts in the back of your car, you are enforcing a self-made law (you are now a legislator) on your sovereign property, and threaten them with potential violence (you are now an enforcer - kicking them out of your car- by force if necessary.) You have already determined their guilt and their punishment (you are now the man in a robe making sweeping decrees based upon what you think is right.) What about THEIR right to not wear a seat belt?
What's good for the goose, my friend.[/quote]
Hardly. If someone doesn't want to wear his seatbelt, he's welcome not to ride in my car. If he chooses not to, I won't wave a gun in his face. If he is told to leave my car, and does not, that's trespassing, and the reason why I chose to tell him to leave is irrelevant.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50417#msg50417 date=1298820710]I'd enjoy hearing the details of your self defense situation.[/quote]
I'd enjoy seeing you address the rest of my post, first.
Oh, and by the way, I just asked my neighbor (who moved from NJ, last year) about the license renewal thing, and he said they do not re-test in order to renew your DL. So, I'd like to see some support for your claim that they do.
For more amusement, how about the law prohibiting people from putting fuel in their own cars? Who, exactly, are they harming?
Joe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx-obOv8170
How about you give that a watch. As you can see, MY physics says you get ejected from the car in one piece instead of vaporized like you suggest. And you can also see that NOT wearing his seat belt caused MORE crashes, thereby violating other people's rights to a safe highway drive. Please note that had the bad guy been a split second later in getting ejected, he would have landed on the hood of that oncoming car, possibly through the windshield.
Now that my theory has been proven as entirely possible, let's examine yours shall we?
So you are saying that by infringing upon another's rights within your car, you are just. How is that any different than the state doing the same to you in regard to wearing your seat belt? You are using the state's property to drive and need to abide by their rules the same way you expect your passengers to abide by yours.
Ask your friend from NJ if he's ever read the NJ driver's manual. Then tell him to find the page where they will sometimes randomly recall people for vision checks. Ask him if the DMV also questions whether or not there have been any other changes to his health/suitability to drive. Then get back to me.
As for mackler- if you think a split second is enough time to make a decision to draw and fire your weapon, you need to write a book. You will make millions. Perhaps call it "I have ESP and know it all."
And the difference between drunk driving and a police shooting is the fact that you voluntarily and recklessly choose to become drunk. Using force on a resiting person is not voluntary but the direct result of a suspect's actions.
The rest of your post is argumentative.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50428#msg50428 date=1298850046]
Using force on a resiting person is not voluntary but the direct result of a suspect's actions.
[/quote]
I'm done. Anyone who can say this with a straight face has voluntarily relinquished his humanity.
[quote author=mackler link=topic=4846.msg50431#msg50431 date=1298854353]
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50428#msg50428 date=1298850046]
Using force on a resiting person is not voluntary but the direct result of a suspect's actions.
[/quote]
I'm done. Anyone who can say this with a straight face has voluntarily relinquished his humanity.
[/quote]
My humanity is fine and intact. You make a silly argument that I put myself in the position to arrest someone, when I can't arrest someone unless they actually DID something they shouldn't have. I am not going to hurt someone physically unless THEY force me into the position to do so. The 'bad guy' certainly has the option to willingly submit, and I won't lose any sleep at night if the guy chooses not to, and I need to do what I have to in order to put him into handcuffs. Your best option if you are in this situation is to listen to the cop, go along willingly, and if you are so inclined to believe your rights were violated, sue the PD. You will certainly lose points in the 'stacked against you' court system if you choose to fight the cops.
At what point does it become okay in your mind for a cop to do his job?
[size=14pt]HIS JOB, MY DUTY[/size]
[size=5pt]COPYRIGHT 2009 by Sam A. Robrin or whoever the hell it is who writes these things. Go ahead and use it, but if you make a little money on it, I want some![/size]
He's the system's pitbull, he'll enforce their every whim.
Right or wrong, or good or bad, it's all the same to him.
Call him on his conduct, and, on histrionic sob,
He'll say he doesn't like it, but he's only doing his job.
When catching criminals, I can acknowledge his expedience
Yet more and more, his function is compelling our obedience.
That does more harm than good, and begs a pretty big B - U - T:
If that's the case, I must resist–I have to do my duty.
Thanks to the legal sleight-of-hand of "sovereign immunity,"
Police are cleared to wreak all kinds of mayhem with impunity.
With such "protection," I'll just take my chances with the mob.
Being what he's there to stop is "only doing his job."
Such is his "job": affecting a display of savage might
Beneath the guise of helping–he can't even do that right!
With all the damage that he does, I can't support the brute he
Is all too proud of being, so I have to do my duty.
I've called him when I've needed him, he shows up hours after,
And might conduct some less-than-adequate investigation
Between accusatory questions and derisive laughter.
You're better off without him meddling in the situation.
Stopping real wrongdoers makes for irksome altercations–
It's safer to chase those who transgress petty regulations.
Nab peaceful sorts, ignoring those who murder, rape, and rob!
Harassing decent citizens is "only doing his job."
The anthem's fabled "patriot dream" that undergirds our nation
Provided, and provides me still, more solemn inspiration
Than amber waves and spacious skies and purple mountain beauty.
I benefit so from it, to preserve it is my duty.
A job suffices to provide your life's most basic needs.
Necessary, to be sure, but lives and whole communities
Are ruined by his actions. That's when duty supersedes,
Demanding he seek alternate employment opportunities.
The out-of-favor Nuremburg defense is all he's got.
Publicity and lies back his legitimacy, not
The patriotic fervor that of old made hearts to throb.
That's been reduced to dust because he's "only doing his job."
From ashes, like a phoenix, those ideals can still ascend.
If people see the truth and grow inspired to defend
Each other and themselves from being rendered his jackboot-ee.
If he keeps right on doing his job, then I must do my duty.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50432#msg50432 date=1298855258]
At what point does it become okay in your mind for a cop to do his job?
[/quote]
At the point when "his job" consists entirely of conduct that is permissible for someone who is not a cop.
Okay, here's a cop doing something good, just for perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rcg-xrYoVRs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rcg-xrYoVRs
Now, the test for that cop is: if, on a really crappy day, he'd rolled up behind some ordinary motorist doing the same thing, someone who responded with a "bad attitude" when he rebuked them for blocking the lane, would he have issued a citation, or helped?
Dear NJ Police guy,
Have you ever considered that some elements of "just doing your job" aren't really protecting anyone, but fall more into forcing peaceful people into doing things they'd prefer not to do ? Or do you feel that if it's "the law" you must ALWAYS enforce it?
[quote author=free libertarian link=topic=4846.msg50440#msg50440 date=1298894454]
Dear NJ Police guy,
Have you ever considered that some elements of "just doing your job" aren't really protecting anyone, but fall more into forcing peaceful people into doing things they'd prefer not to do ? Or do you feel that if it's "the law" you must ALWAYS enforce it?
[/quote]
'Law' is a broad statement. Give me an example.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50441#msg50441 date=1298897717]
[quote author=free libertarian link=topic=4846.msg50440#msg50440 date=1298894454]
Dear NJ Police guy,
Have you ever considered that some elements of "just doing your job" aren't really protecting anyone, but fall more into forcing peaceful people into doing things they'd prefer not to do ? Or do you feel that if it's "the law" you must ALWAYS enforce it?
[/quote]
'Law' is a broad statement. Give me an example.
[/quote]
The second question was sort of part of the first. When I stated "the law" I meant a law that was on the books where you are a cop. If you'd like a for instance, how about if a person was traveling a bit over the speed limit but not creating a hazard to anybody else?
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50428#msg50428 date=1298850046]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx-obOv8170
How about you give that a watch. As you can see, MY physics says you get ejected from the car in one piece instead of vaporized like you suggest. And you can also see that NOT wearing his seat belt caused MORE crashes, thereby violating other people's rights to a safe highway drive. Please note that had the bad guy been a split second later in getting ejected, he would have landed on the hood of that oncoming car, possibly through the windshield.
Now that my theory has been proven as entirely possible, let's examine yours shall we?[/quote]
I didn't say anyone gets "vaporized" - straw men won't get you anywhere.
Going through a windshield absorbs a lot of energy, and breaks a lot of bones. At anything approaching reasonable speeds on the lousy government roads, y'all ain't going through two windshields in a row. As I said, though, feel free to provide even one example of that ever happening. No one I've talked to, including police accident investigators, even thinks it's possible, let alone that it has actually happened.
For that matter, how many accidents are caused by cops pulling folks over, impeding the safe flow of traffic? Probably far more than even the most wild theories about the "dangers" of the lack of seatbelt use can muster.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50428#msg50428 date=1298850046]So you are saying that by infringing upon another's rights within your car, you are just. How is that any different than the state doing the same to you in regard to wearing your seat belt? You are using the state's property to drive and need to abide by their rules the same way you expect your passengers to abide by yours.[/quote]
I get to make the rules on my property. Someone being present within my car is a voluntary choice.
The roads, as I already demonstrated, are not the State's property. They belong to the people.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50428#msg50428 date=1298850046]Ask your friend from NJ if he's ever read the NJ driver's manual. Then tell him to find the page where they will sometimes randomly recall people for vision checks. Ask him if the DMV also questions whether or not there have been any other changes to his health/suitability to drive. Then get back to me.[/quote]
I already stated that they re-check vision. I've no doubt that they ask all sorts of other things. That's not the same as re-taking the driving test, which is what you claimed.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50428#msg50428 date=1298850046]As for mackler- if you think a split second is enough time to make a decision to draw and fire your weapon, you need to write a book. You will make millions. Perhaps call it "I have ESP and know it all."[/quote]
Actually, as a certified firearms instructor, I can say that it rarely takes more than a second to make that final decision, draw, and fire. If you're spending any meaningful fraction of a minute on things, you probably could have defused things rather than escalated them by introducing a firearm, and I would say that the shooting is likely unjustified.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50428#msg50428 date=1298850046]And the difference between drunk driving and a police shooting is the fact that you voluntarily and recklessly choose to become drunk. Using force on a resiting person is not voluntary but the direct result of a suspect's actions.[/quote]
Is that sort of like, "she was dressed sexy, so she got raped as a direct result of her actions?"
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg50432#msg50432 date=1298855258]My humanity is fine and intact. You make a silly argument that I put myself in the position to arrest someone, when I can't arrest someone unless they actually DID something they shouldn't have.[/quote]
Yup, just like the rape victim put herself in the position to get raped, right? The victim of abuse chose to marry someone with a violent temper, so it's not his fault, is it? They "shouldn't have" done those things, right, so they cease to be victims?
Now, are you actually going to respond to my earlier questions? Or don't you have the integrity to face up to your own choices?
Joe
I'd like to address something that was said. It was said that the 'state' or some government owns the roads. I say that they don't.
Factually, that is not what you think but what you can prove, what is the 'state'? The 'state' is a piece of paper. It exists no more in reality then my plans for world freedom. Because it doesn't exist in reality, it can't own anything in reality either. You can say that 'governments' exist by the governed, but you can't prove that anyone chooses to be governed. You can say that they choose to be governed by living within a certain area of land. I don't know about you, but that sounds like slavery to me. There exists no area of land not claimed by some crazy people who believe they own you, or own part of you and claim to have authority to whatever words they put to paper and call 'the law'.
One can say 'roads belong to the people' but that too is a false statement. It can't be proven. Sure, you can say that you pay taxes, but in reality you are just giving money to someone with only an expectation of them doing something with it and without a contract with them to provide anything for the money. I'm sure you will agree that if you gave me money and didn't give me any written instructions on what to do with it, you have no right to tell me that I can't spend it on chocolate. Same thing when you goto the store, but at least there you are actually getting something from the transaction for what you paid for, but in the same manner you can't tell Piggly-Wiggly what they can or can't spend the money you gave them to buy your stuff either.
There exists only one 'law', everything else are rules. Rules can not violate the 'law' or else they are unlawful. Lawfully, I can't decide to shoot you the day after a majority of people pass a rule saying I can shoot you. I can't violate the law, and the rules can't violate the law. Anyone who enforces a rule that violates the law is acting unlawfully immediately has any authority taken away from them, as if they were acting on their own. If you choose to enforce a rule that violates the law then you are a criminal and a 'bad guy', and ought to be subject to being put down like any other criminal regardless of the costume you wear or not. I personally don't suggest going around shooting men in costumes, they tend to not like that and will decide that you are a 'criminal' for shooting one of their co-workers, even if you were only protecting yourself.
Where to start…
For one, to cite that youtube video as an argument for seat belts is pretty ridiculous. The guy clearly exited out the driver's side door window, not through the windshield. Plus, to say that his not wearing a seat belt made that accident more dangerous is laughable. He was clearly a threat to other drivers regardless of whether or not he had it on. Also notice that the camera is zoomed in on the SUV. I would bet that if the camera panned out, 10 revenue collectors would have been in hot pursuit foaming at the mouth. I'm sure an argument on the amount of influence the enforcers had on that accident would go nowhere with "OhCrap". I have no idea what that situation was about, but I can't tell you how many times I've seen collectors damn near cause an accident in the act of pulling someone over for minor traffic infringements.
As far as the real world split second decisions, I agree that some of those situations may be tough… but aren't you trained to treat every traffic stop as a possible threat? This would mean that your hand is half way on the trigger or pepper spray as you walk up to the vehicle (I've seen this first hand). Your already "ready for action". To add to this, I've been seeing for some time now adds for police recruitment on FACEBOOK. This pretty much shows me that it's not the "cream of the crop" they are looking for. They want people who follow orders. I've been told by numerous enforcers that the "police are just like the military"… and they were proud of it. This reminds me of a recent article from Wisconsin:
Despite the fact that the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Association (WLEA) has vocally condemned Walker’s move to raise the level of pension and health contributions public workers would be forced to pay, WLEA executive board president Tracy Fuller said that troopers would still obey orders, don riot gear and “absolutely” use force against protesters to crush dissent if they were told to do so.
“I have worked with the University of Wisconsin police officers that are there, along with the capitol police officers, and certainly I’ve worked with the state patrol officers because I’m a state patrol inspector. I’m not able to even fathom that any of those police officers would not carry out whatever orders were given to do their job,” Fuller told Raw Story.
“I guess that’s the one ironic thing about this,” he continued. “Last night my wife asked me to make a sign for her to take down there to protest. On that day, I thought to myself I could be making a protest sign for my wife to take down there … Then I could be down there confronting my wife with the protest sign that I made. God, you see … That’s … That’s my job.”
So think about it: 1000's of new cadets, fresh out of the Facebook Police Academy, armed to the teeth with .357 Sig Saurs, pepper spray, 50000 volt "tasers", and batons, shields, etc. "following orders" against citizens… or making "split second decisions" with our lives. Sure doesn't make me feel any safer… Will you make similar decisions? Remember the Nuremburg Trials after WWII.
I guess I should apologize "OhCrap"… this has sort of been therapy for me. You are correct: not ALL of you guys are bad, but MOST of you seem to be. In my experience, though, the "good" cops always seem to make too many lame excuses for why they act the way they act. But I'll work on it… "copism" is similar to racism, or sexism or any "ism" I guess. Over the years I've had to learn to treat everyone as an INDIVIDUAL and not lump everyone together. That's what this movement is all about… I welcome a civil discourse between the two "sides".
Debating maineshark is like clapping with one hand- it just looks funny and get you nowhere. It's a shame really. It appears you can put a sentence together reasonably well, but the whole idea that you can't understand simple physics and you think a human body vaporizes or gets ripped to pieces when contacting a windshield just ruins it for me. To boot, you are entirely hypocritical when you espouse freedom and liberty, but use some kind of justification to take away that liberty from someone else when it suits you, especially if they were to be a passenger in your car. I guess you can't understand the concept of your car = the state's road…Meh, why bother?
Integrals- You truly give us FAR too much credit. Especially when you think that we have some kind of magic or telepathy and that we can make fraction of second judgments with 100% accuracy. Training is sometimes enough to keep us alive if the SHTF, but it doesn't give us some godlike 6th sense. If you have a better solution for the training we get and can come up with some way to make it better or adaptable to the real world, then write it up and submit it. I never understood the guys holding onto their guns when they approached the 70 yr old lady either, but it all depends on how you were trained. I didn't have that type of training.
As for that youtube vid, do you think that with that impact, the windshield would have kept in a 150lb body moving at 70+ mph? Tell you what, propel 150 lbs of flesh and bone at some glass at 70mph, and tell me what happens. I will guarantee the mass will not vaporize or shred into ribbons like maineshark believes, nor will it stop. It will bust out the glass and continue moving, albeit slower, but it will continue to move.
You are right about the mentality of person they want. They don't want thinkers. Just like the military, they want someone tractable and able to be molded. Your superior doesn't want you questioning orders in the middle of a crisis. They usually hire people that are A-type personalities, but young enough to not know any better. Or a bigger score is a former military person, who's already been brainwashed to follow direction. The problem arises when they hire guys with authority problems that question everything, want to know 'why', or guys that realize that a monkey can do this job 99% of the time. That other 1% though, that's where the special part comes in. That's where we have to deal with knucklehead, know-it-all, jailhouse lawyer types, or we have to shoot someone. It's where the monkey would fail, and what we get paid for.
That WI statement is pretty disgusting. You're about a week late using it as an example though. On a cop board I frequent, I posted the whole article and mentioned my disgust with it. To my surprise, only ONE cop (or maybe he was a troll, who knows?) wrote a comment that it was media sensationalism, and gave them impression he would do the same thing this police inspector said. The others realized it was wrong, not only because it was unconstitutional, but just because it was WRONG.
Maybe that board is full of thinkers.