# Stuff and Things > Guns and Self Defense >  Nonaggression Principle Yields The Best Law Enforcement

## Maximatic

There are two unachievable goals when trying to enforce law. They are noble, virtuous ideals to strive for that cannot, given the imperfect nature of the world, and their conflicting priorities, be achieved to perfection. One is ensuring that no guilty party ever escapes justice. The other is ensuring that no innocent person is ever damaged in the effort to take the guilty to task. An assumption I make for that first one is that the law, itself, is just. Enforcement of a law that is, itself, unjust necessarily violates both principles, and results in a 100% failure rate at serving justice.


 The best we can do to enforce law, in a way that justice is maximized, is to strive for an optimal balance between taking guilty parties to task and not injuring innocent parties.


 If the nonaggression principle, that no one may initiate force against against any other person or against the property of any other person, is the law of a society, and the people of that society expect it to be enforced, the tendency of agents and institutions enforcing law in that society will be toward achieving that optimal balance. Agencies, which employ force in an effort to enforce the law, that achieve a superior balance between those two objectives, according to the law and the prevailing sense of justice of the people, at large, of that society, will dominate the market for security.  



 Here is why:


 To initiate force is to introduce force into a situation where, otherwise, force had not been a factor. The result is a conflict involving force. This forcible conflict exists until it is resolved.


 Imagine an agency, we'll say it's my agency, providing security in such a society, that looks pretty much like a police department. It differs in that it has no monopoly on the initiation of force, which requires that its services are not forcefully imposed and it cannot, lawfully, restrict competition by force. So anyone else in the society is free to compete against it to provide the service it offers.


 Part of the service I offer involves apprehending people suspected of having committed a crime. They are suspected of having broken that law and cause some kind of damage to someone else. I am not expected, or qualified, to convict the suspected person. That is the job of other professionals, arbitration agents, courts. My job is to see that suspected criminals answer to the injured party, through arbitration.


 When my agency damages an innocent party, I become liable to that party for damages. That costs me money. If I do it too much, I can't stay in business. So, I want to make sure that the information, on which I act, is as accurate as possible.


 If I am so cautious, in my decisions to apply force, that I never apprehend a suspected guilty party for lack of absolute certainty, other providers, who are better at apprehending suspected guilty parties and, thereby, providing the service for which we are paid, will crowd me out of the market, I lose my customers and go out of business.


 The three variables to consider, in the decision to apprehend a suspected person, are


 severity of the crime,
certainty of a crime having been committed, 
certainty that I have identified the guilty party.


 The variables that matter most, to me, given my predicament, and are also most pertinent to achieving those two primary, noble goals, are the two involving certainty.


 Since I lose more money the more I err in favor of apprehending suspects, and I lose more customers the more I err in favor of caution, and the same is true for my competition, if I achieve a balance, between those two primary, noble goals, that is better than that of all of my competition, I dominate the market for security.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (04-10-2014),Longshot (04-15-2014)

----------


## 007

Interesting.
Less agression from police begets less agression toward police.
Antonio Buehlers peacefully streets movement has been credited with having such an effect in Austen.
JPT says that makes him a worthless piece of shit.
JPT dosent like heroic veterans.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (04-01-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> So, you really have no idea if your ideas will work in the real world or not.
> 
> If the market determines everything, why don't we have a free market now? 
> 
> So, after all the dancing around, you would still be using force against  criminals. So, you would be accused of using excessive force by the  same people whining now. 
> 
> Who is doing this judgement? Who would have authority over the people and who would enforce the judgements?
> 
> 
> I can see now why you were so reluctant to answer my questions. You  really have no answer to dealing with criminals. You just have criticism  for the people who do the dirty job.


No. We can be very certain about some of it. This,

"If the law mandates that no one may initiate force against anyone else,  security providers which are better at achieving that balance would  dominate the market."

for example, is something I know with near  absolute certainty. There is no dancing around. I've never rejected the  idea of using force. The initiation of force is what must be unlawful.

Dispute resolution is not the job of law enforcement agents. They are different professions with different specializations and different priorities. Both being provided by the same party entails conflicts of interests. Arbitrators, judges, perhaps juries, should render opinions, also known as judgements. Law enforcement agents should not presume to do that.

EDIT:
Read Magna Carta. The purpose of the jury was to help compensate for the conflicts of interests inherent in the situation where the legislator, enforcement agents, and judges all represent the same party.

----------


## michaelr

I truly believe that a non-aggressive police force would yield large dividends for both the police and the public. As it is, the best policy is to not interact with the police except for extreme emergencies. Hell, I made a 911 because some guy was laying in front of a bus. After shopping, they were there, I thought I would ask them what happened. When I did, they treated me like shit. At the time my hair was real short, and I never wear ghetto or crapy clothes. I told them I was the guy that called, and it didn't matter. I don't need that, I'm no criminal. 

Hell one day I'll tell y'all the story where I had a burgler at gun point for 40 before I let him go, the cops showed up 5 minutes latter, and that's after calling them three times.

----------


## Maximatic

> I truly believe that a non-aggressive police force would yield large dividends for both the police and the public. As it is, the best policy is to not interact with the police except for extreme emergencies. Hell, I made a 911 because some guy was laying in front of a bus. After shopping, they were there, I thought I would ask them what happened. When I did, they treated me like shit. At the time my hair was real short, and I never wear ghetto or crapy clothes. I told them I was the guy that called, and it didn't matter. I don't need that, I'm no criminal. 
> 
> Hell one day I'll tell y'all the story where I had a burgler at gun point for 40 before I let him go, the cops showed up 5 minutes latter, and that's after calling them three times.


Yeah, they have no incentive to provide service in a way that benefits the people who they are presumed to serve because their employer monopolizes everything that their job entails and contributes to.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (04-01-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

Private security in Detroit...

----------

BleedingHeadKen (04-01-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

So, security forces would not be allowed to use force by law?

----------


## 007

> So, security forces would not be allowed to use force by law?


Where exactly was that stated?

Force used must be MINIMUM REASONABLE FORCE.
Minimum reasonable force would not include smashing a 14 year old special needs student into a wall then punching him in the face, then banging his face into the floor for not following school uniform rules.
Asking him to tuck his shirt tails in would be reasonable.
Do you understand the concept of Reason?
A black guy had a gun, therefore we must shoot all black guys assuming they have guns, that's your reasonable thinking?
Police need to remember that they work for the people and are answerable to the people.
They have no lawful right to beat a person for not Groveling, meet the public as your equal or find another job.
Tell me how that is anti cop?

----------

BleedingHeadKen (04-01-2014)

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Riiiiiight, maybe you want to see how far 'non-aggressive' policing will get you with THIS lot, m'kay?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

...or these...

----------


## DonGlock26

> Where exactly was that stated?


I wasn't talking to you and I want to hear his answer. If you want to address his answer with him, knock yourself out.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

...or this bunch...

----------


## DonGlock26

> Riiiiiight, maybe you want to see how far 'non-aggressive' policing will get you with THIS lot, m'kay?



Oh my, they don't look like Eloi Volunteerists.

----------



----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Oh my, they don't look like Eloi Volunteerists.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

DonGlock26 (03-28-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> Riiiiiight, maybe you want to see how far 'non-aggressive' policing will get you with THIS lot, m'kay?


How far have the government forces gotten with them? Cops dress up and act like soldiers and those groups not only continue to exist, they expand their territories. 

Now cops have machine guns and armored vehicles... but they don't confront those armed as they are... pussies.

----------


## DonGlock26

> How far have the government forces gotten with them? Cops dress up and act like soldiers and those groups not only continue to exist, they expand their territories. 
> 
> Now cops have machine guns and armored vehicles... but they don't confront those armed as they are... pussies.


You'd allow the police to raze those territories?

----------


## michaelr

> How far have the government forces gotten with them? Cops dress up and act like soldiers and those groups not only continue to exist, they expand their territories. 
> 
> Now cops have machine guns and armored vehicles... but they don't confront those armed as they are... pussies.





> You'd allow the police to raze those territories?


You got that from his comment? How'd that take shape?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Let's face it: michaelr, hoyt, axiomatic and the other board anarchists don't give a good god-damn if the most vicious gangs ravage entire regions. That's consistent with anarchism, so they don't care: why oppose gangs that spread anarchy? It's the POLICE who are the REAL enemy, 'cause they're the _GUMMINT_. And gummint bad. Gangs ok.

----------

DonGlock26 (03-28-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

To initiate force is to introduce force into a situation where,  otherwise, force had not been a factor. The result is a conflict  involving force. This forcible conflict exists until it is resolved.

If agents of a security service apprehend someone, even without physically injuring him, and an arbitration agency, a court, decides that the person had not committed a crime, the arbitrators will also decide that the security agency has initiated force against that person, and will award him a remedy, for which the security agency is liable.

In a case where an arbitration agency decides that the person apprehended by the security agency had initiated force, ie, committed a crime, that court would also find that that criminal, in addition to being liable to the injured party, is also liable to the security agency for the expense of having apprehended him.

The question,

"So, security forces would not be allowed to use force by law?" 						

is malformed. Whether the use of force, by anyone, is justified depends on whether or not the person, to whom the force is applied, has already initiated force, or not. The initiation of force is unlawful, for everyone. The use of force, when necessary, to resolve a conflict into which the other party has already introduced force, is not unlawful for anyone.

----------


## 007

> Riiiiiight, maybe you want to see how far 'non-aggressive' policing will get you with THIS lot, m'kay?


The "non agressive model" is not applied to gangs and their territories, police turn a blind eye, show up collect the bodies.

They save the hyper agression for little girls helping their mothers or children with their shirts hanging out, or deaf people who won't listen or the mentally handicapped who do not understand or the decent citizens who see the extreme violence and challenge/document it.

----------


## michaelr

> Let's face it: michaelr, hoyt, axiomatic and the other board anarchists don't give a good god-damn if the most vicious gangs ravage entire regions. That's consistent with anarchism, so they don't care: why oppose gangs that spread anarchy? It's the POLICE who are the REAL enemy, 'cause they're the _GUMMINT_. And gummint bad. Gangs ok.


I'll take you off ignor for this post only. Stop bringing me up in your stupid rants! You know you're on ignor, and it's cowardly to talk ill of someone behind their back!

You're back on ignor.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> I'll take you off ignor for this post only. Stop bringing me up in your stupid rants! You know you're on ignor, and it's cowardly to talk ill of someone behind their back!
> 
> You're back on ignor.


Why should I care if you have me on ignore or not? If you say something stupid--an hourly occurrence--why should I overlook it just because michaelr happens to be so cowardly as to put me on ignore? :Thinking:

----------


## Maximatic

> Riiiiiight, maybe you want to see how far 'non-aggressive' policing will get you with THIS lot, m'kay?


Last time I checked, those exist under at least three layers of government monopoly, federal, state, local, where the nonaggression principle is NOT the law. They are another example of government failure.

----------

hoytmonger (03-29-2014),michaelr (03-28-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> Last time I checked, those exist under at least three layers of government monopoly, federal, state, local, where the nonaggression principle is NOT the law. They are another example of government failure.


Yes they are!

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Last time I checked, those exist under at least three layers of government monopoly, federal, state, local, where the nonaggression principle is NOT the law. They are another example of government failure.


So--trying not to have my typing hands shake with laughter here--you're telling us that the police suddenly turning into a bunch of Gandhis is going to work with these psychos? 

Is that what we're to believe, Mr. Axiomatic?

----------


## 007

> Do you know ANYTHING about policing at all?
> 
> What kind of retard are you, Paul?
> 
> There are police and border patrol agents risking their lives--and often losing them--EVERY DAY fighting this scum.


How many cops die each year in the USA as a direct result of criminal violence?
Nb dying in a car accident on duty is not a result of criminal violence.

----------


## 007

So according to the national law enforcement memorial center, 120 law enforcement officers were killed in 2012.
No info is available as to how many were murdered in violent incidents.
Killed. That includes accidents, suicides, crashes and murders.
 120.
At least one UNION labourers dies each day in the USA.
Their job is in fact more dangerous!!!
How many roofers?
Electricians?
Bricklayers ?
Police have a relatively safe job.

----------


## DonGlock26

> You got that from his comment? How'd that take shape?


I believe he called the cops pussies for not stopping the gangs. I'm asking him, if he really wants them crushed. I doubt it.

----------


## 007

> I believe he called the cops pussies for not stopping the gangs. I'm asking him, if he really wants them crushed. I doubt it.


The cops have a nice safe job.
I've never seen any other group react in such terror when they see a camera!!!

----------


## DonGlock26

> To initiate force is to introduce force into a situation where,  otherwise, force had not been a factor. The result is a conflict  involving force. This forcible conflict exists until it is resolved.
> 
> If agents of a security service apprehend someone, even without physically injuring him, and an arbitration agency, a court, decides that the person had not committed a crime, the arbitrators will also decide that the security agency has initiated force against that person, and will award him a remedy, for which the security agency is liable.
> 
> In a case where an arbitration agency decides that the person apprehended by the security agency had initiated force, ie, committed a crime, that court would also find that that criminal, in addition to being liable to the injured party, is also liable to the security agency for the expense of having apprehended him.
> 
> The question,
> 
> "So, security forces would not be allowed to use force by law?"                         
> ...


How do you define force in your system? Is stealing property using force? 


Are you trying to make most criminal and civil laws unenforceable except for those banning physical violence?

What would happen to a security agency and agent who was found to have used excessive force? What would the remedy be?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> How many cops die each year in the USA as a direct result of criminal violence?
> Nb dying in a car accident on duty is not a result of criminal violence.


You really, really need to apologize here for that...if I were admin, I would insist on it. You are a low, malignant, abysmally stupid man, but I am about to enlighten you. Thank me later. On the other hand, don't. It wouldn't be sincere anyway. Cause of death is listed by each name.

So far in 2014:

https://www.odmp.org/search/year/2014

In 2013:

https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2013

In 2012:

https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2012


Now go hang your head in shame, 007.....

----------


## DonGlock26

> Last time I checked, those exist under at least three layers of government monopoly, federal, state, local, where the nonaggression principle is NOT the law. They are another example of government failure.


They live because our system prevents them from just being exterminated. Our system actually allows membership to criminal gangs.

Blaming the police for that is absurd. 

That's one thing about the cop haters here- they blame the police officer for all kinds of wrongs committed by the criminal justice system or the gov't lawmaking system as a whole.

----------



----------


## DonGlock26

> How many cops die each year in the USA as a direct result of criminal violence?
> Nb dying in a car accident on duty is not a result of criminal violence.





> According to statistics collected by the FBI, *95 law enforcement  officers were killed in line-of-duty incidents in 2012.* Of these, 48 law  enforcement officers died as a result of felonious acts, and 47  officers died in accidents. *In addition, 52,901 officers were victims of  line-of-duty assaults*. Comprehensive data tables about these incidents  and brief narratives describing the fatal attacks are included in the  2012 edition of _Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted_, released today.
> 
> http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pre...-and-assaulted


Cops wear body armor. They get rushed to trauma centers. They are trained to survive in close range combat. They are better armed with AR-15's now. Those are some of the reasons that the number of line of duty deaths isn't higher. But, plenty get injured and disabled doing the job of policing and protecting America.

----------



----------


## DonGlock26

> The cops have a nice safe job.
> I've never seen any other group react in such terror when they see a camera!!!


Sure, they wear body armor to work because they may get a paper cut.

----------



----------


## patrickt

I'm a retired police officer with 30 years on the job. Here are my thoughts.
A. The last thing in the world people want is justice. They want safety, they want predictability in their lives.
B. Police departments spend a lot of time an money teaching police officers to be violent. They spend very little, if any, on teaching police officers to avoid and defuse violence.

----------


## 007

> You really, really need to apologize here for that...if I were admin, I would insist on it. You are a low, malignant, abysmally stupid man, but I am about to enlighten you. Thank me later. On the other hand, don't. It wouldn't be sincere anyway. Cause of death is listed by each name.
> 
> So far in 2014:
> 
> https://www.odmp.org/search/year/2014
> 
> In 2013:
> 
> https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2013
> ...


Ok the source you found shows a smaller number total than the one I quoted.
23 on your source 120 on mine .
Fine, police have a safer job than I thought, thanks for pointing that out!!

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Ok the source you found shows a smaller number total than the one I quoted.
> 23 on your source 120 on mine .
> Fine, police have a safer job than I thought, thanks for pointing that out!!


What are you looking at, exactly?!?! :Thinking:

----------


## 007

Your source for law enforcement fatalities shows;-
Total:	23	-8%	
Am I correct ?

----------


## 007

> What are you looking at, exactly?!?!


The link you posted.

----------


## DonGlock26

There were 15 non-car accident death in the first three months of 2014. Several K-9's have also been killed. Ghost posted the link.

----------


## 007

2012 
2012 Fatality Statistics
Total:	23	-8%	
Gunfire:	9	-31%	
Auto:	11	+22%	
Other:	3	0%	
Copied and pasted from your link.
Note the TOTAL?

----------


## Matalese

> I'm a retired police officer with 30 years on the job. Here are my thoughts.
> A. The last thing in the world people want is justice. They want safety, they want predictability in their lives.
> B. Police departments spend a lot of time an money teaching police officers to be violent. They spend very little, if any, on teaching police officers to avoid and defuse violence.


They have to be meaner than the bad guys! I wish they'd all go on a diet!

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

For 2012 I counted over 80 killed by gunfire, stabbings, vehicular assault, automobile pursuits ALONE.

Have I driven you to drink, 007?!?!?! :Dontknow:

----------


## 007

> There were 15 non-car accident death in the first three months of 2014. Several K-9's have also been killed. Ghost posted the link.


We are discussing 2012, the source I found gave a total of 120 law enforcement fatalities in 2012 .
Ghosts link has a total of 23 .

----------


## DonGlock26

> 2012 
> 2012 Fatality Statistics
> Total:    23    -8%    
> Gunfire:    9    -31%    
> Auto:    11    +22%    
> Other:    3    0%    
> Copied and pasted from your link.
> Note the TOTAL?


The numbers on the far right are for 2014 and not 2012.

----------


## 007

> For 2012 I counted over 80 killed by gunfire, stabbings, vehicular assault, automobile pursuits ALONE.
> 
> Have I driven you to drink, 007?!?!?!


I copied and pasted the totals page .
Your link, it clearly states total. 23.

----------


## 007

> The numbers on the far right are for 2014 and not 2012.


Says 2012.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> We are discussing 2012, the source I found gave a total of 120 law enforcement fatalities in 2012 .
> Ghosts link has a total of 23 .


*Line of Duty Deaths: 125* 9/11 related illness: 4
Aircraft accident: 3
Assault: 1
Automobile accident: 22
Duty related illness: 3
Fall: 2
Gunfire: 48
Gunfire (Accidental): 2
Heart attack: 6
Heat exhaustion: 1
Motorcycle accident: 5
Stabbed: 5
Struck by vehicle: 6
Training accident: 1
Vehicle pursuit: 5
Vehicular assault: 11

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

007, dude, are you all right? :Sad20:

----------


## 007

Attachment 3226From your link !

----------


## DonGlock26

> Attachment 3226From your link !


Are you doing this on a cell phone? On my laptop, just above the Total 23, is the line "2014 statistics".

https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2012

----------



----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Attachment 3226From your link !


Right.

2014 stats.

It's now the END OF MARCH of 2014.

For 2012:  https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2012

This is too, too funny! I'm having such a good time here!

----------


## 007

> 007, dude, are you all right?


3 times I have copied and pasted the stats in your link , now a screen shot.
it is your link right?

23 total fatalities amongst LE in 2012.
 From a total of  900000......

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> 3 times I have copied and pasted the stats in your link , now a screen shot.
> it is your link right?
> 
> 23 total fatalities amongst LE in 2012.
>  From a total of  900000......


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

Oh, please, PLEASE!!!! Stop it, dude, you are KILLING me!!!!

 :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

DonGlock26 (03-28-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> How do you define force in your system? Is stealing property using force? 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make most criminal and civil laws unenforceable except for those banning physical violence?
> 
> What would happen to a security agency and agent who was found to have used excessive force? What would the remedy be?


What you seem to be missing is that neither I or any other planner defines the law in this society. The courts do that by cases building common law over time, and the people do it in that they select which courts they patronize. The only law decided, at the outset, is a metalaw, as is done with a constitution, of what people absolutely must not ever do to other people.

2. strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence: to use force to open the window; to use force on a person.  


5. Law. violence threatened or committed against persons or property. 



Since aggression is defined, by the nonaggression principle, as the initiation or  threatening of violence against a person *or legitimately owned property*  of another, specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that  physically affect an individual’s property or person, if it is assumed that a person does not invite or agree to being deceived into incurring a loss, fraud can be said to be aggression.

Legitimately owned property is anything acquired in a way that did not violate this same principle.

This gets into the details of in-house disputes among voluntarists and anarchocapitalists. I'm probably in the minority when I say that the law needs to state, explicitly, that fraud is unlawful, instead of assuming it to be implied, because the implication is not obvious, if it's even valid.

People like David Friedman stress that competing agencies in the legal world will smooth these things out, and result in legal systems that the people they serve are happy with, and systematic methods by which the differing agencies interact with one another. He's right, but my problem with just leaving it at that is that there are many ways for monopoly governments to emerge from such a situation, which would result in the same kind of thing we've always had. Since it is possible for people who intend to live in a voluntary society to agree, unanimously, agree on some aspects of the law, and those aspects would help to prevent monopoly governments from forming, they should.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

Mr. Axiomatic, please explain to your cohort and kamerad 007 how many law enforcement officers were killed in 2012... :Smiley20:

----------


## 007

> Right.
> 
> 2014 stats.
> 
> It's now the END OF MARCH of 2014.
> 
> For 2012:  https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2012
> 
> This is too, too funny! I'm having such a good time here!


We were discussing 2012, correct?
you implied my figure was shamefully below the the real numbers and then you present a number  97 shy of the one I noted for 2012, correct?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> We were discussing 2012, correct?
> you implied my figure was shamefully below the the real numbers and then you present a number  97 shy of the one I noted for 2012, correct?


_THIS_ is  a night to remember!

The Fall of the Cop-Haters on tPF!!

 :Headbang:

----------


## DonGlock26

> Oh, please, PLEASE!!!! Stop it, dude, you are KILLING me!!!!


This getting more bizarre by the moment....

----------


## 007

> Mr. Axiomatic, please explain to your cohort and kamerad 007 how many law enforcement officers were killed in 2012...


According to your link 23 total.

----------


## 007

> Are you doing this on a cell phone? On my laptop, just above the Total 23, is the line "2014 statistics".
> 
> https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2012


What does it say on this link provided by ghost?
title;- Officer Down Memorial page.

then a banner in grey 2012 fatality statistics"

then Total 23
gunfire  9
auto 11
other 3

screenshot taken from ghosts link.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

007, ARE you on your cellie? :Thinking:

----------


## 007

> This getting more bizarre by the moment....


Why, I'm reading the link provided, as seen in the screenshot, fatalities for 2012
TOTAL 23.

----------


## DonGlock26

> What you seem to be missing is that neither I or any other planner defines the law in this society. The courts do that by cases building common law over time, and the people do it in that they select which courts they patronize. The only law decided, at the outset, is a metalaw, as is done with a constitution, of what people absolutely must not ever do to other people.
> 
> 2. strength or power exerted upon an object; physical coercion; violence: to use force to open the window; to use force on a person.  
> 
> 
> 5. Law. violence threatened or committed against persons or property. 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, you want to adopt this new system of gov't with no definition of the term force or are you using the ones that you posted?

I asked a few more questions of you. Are you going to answer them? Or, are you just going to answer some of them?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Why, I'm reading the link provided, as seen in the screenshot, fatalities for 2012
> TOTAL 23.


I explained why you are wrong in post #54.

----------


## 007

> _THIS_ is  a night to remember!
> 
> The Fall of the Cop-Haters on tPF!!


Read the screenshot of your link , 2012 total 23.
your link, your figures.

----------


## DonGlock26

> What does it say on this link provided by ghost?
> title;- Officer Down Memorial page.
> 
> then a banner in grey 2012 fatality statistics"
> 
> then Total 23
> gunfire  9
> auto 11
> other 3
> ...


Because the top banner of the webpage says 2012, but the page has a running total for 2014 on the right side of the webpage. Either you can't see it on your cell phone or you are being purposefully obtuse.

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Read the screenshot of your link , 2012 total 23.
> your link, your figures.


What does Axiomatic say, I wonder...

----------


## DonGlock26

https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2012

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

QED, 007.

Axiomatic can explain to you what that means, he's the 'logician', right? :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

DonGlock26 (03-28-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> What does Axiomatic say, I wonder...


I think he would say "owned" at this point.

----------



----------


## Maximatic

> So, you want to adopt this new system of gov't with no definition of the term force or are you using the ones that you posted?
> 
> I asked a few more questions of you. Are you going to answer them? Or, are you just going to answer some of them?


The definition of "aggression", in the Wikipedia entry for the nonaggression principle, is summarized by "the initiation of force". It includes "_specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person"._  I would include it in a definition of “force” if it is used to codify the founding principles.


 I want the founding principles of a voluntary society to be well defined, but I'm not sure where to draw the line on the regress of definitions. At some point, it has to end, and, when that happens, someone can ask how that last definition is defined. Given that, and the fact that these are things that would have to be hammered out by the founders of a voluntary society, it doesn't do any good for me to completely construct a founding document.


 That is, also, not what I'm engaged in, here. I'm only trying to outline what a voluntary society would look like. Given how often we refer to it, I can't imagine how someone who has spent any time listening to a voluntarist can still be ignorant of it. The reason I posted the relevant parts of the first definition to come up in a Google search was to emphasize that "force", in this context, is already well defined.  


 Once you have the definitions I've already given, which include


 “strength or power exerted upon an object”,


 and the fact that much of what I've said implies a definition that should be pretty evident by now, I don't see how there can still be any ambiguity for our purposes, here.


Which questions have not been answered to your satisfaction?

----------


## DonGlock26

> The definition of "aggression", in the Wikipedia entry for the nonaggression principle, is summarized by "the initiation of force". It includes "_specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individuals property or person"._  I would include it in a definition of force if it is used to codify the founding principles.
> 
> 
>  I want the founding principles of a voluntary society to be well defined, but I'm not sure where to draw the line on the regress of definitions. At some point, it has to end, and, when that happens, someone can ask how that last definition is defined. Given that, and the fact that these are things that would have to be hammered out by the founders of a voluntary society, it doesn't do any good for me to completely construct a founding document.
> 
> 
>  That is, also, not what I'm engaged in, here. I'm only trying to outline what a voluntary society would look like. Given how often we refer to it, I can't imagine how someone who has spent any time listening to a voluntarist can still be ignorant of it. The reason I posted the relevant parts of the first definition to come up in a Google search was to emphasize that "force", in this context, is already well defined.  
> 
> 
> ...


So, basically, this is just a fringe philosophical theory and it is difficult to predict how it would even begin to work in the real world. 

You'll forgive for me for expecting something a little more concrete than this. 

These:

_Are you trying to make most criminal and civil laws unenforceable except for those banning physical violence?_

_What would happen to a security agency and agent who was found to have used excessive force? What would the remedy be?_

----------


## Maximatic

> So, basically, this is just a fringe philosophical theory and it is difficult to predict how it would even begin to work in the real world. 
> 
> You'll forgive for me for expecting something a little more concrete than this. 
> 
> These:
> 
> _Are you trying to make most criminal and civil laws unenforceable except for those banning physical violence?_
> 
> _What would happen to a security agency and agent who was found to have used excessive force? What would the remedy be?_


Your questions have all been answered as you've asked them. They make sense in in the context of the system you're familiar with, but not in the context of what you're asking about. Some of them have already been answered more than once.

The direct answers to these questions

"_Are you trying to make most criminal and civil laws unenforceable except for those banning physical violence?_"
"_Is stealing property using force?_"

are "no" and “yes”, respectively. But that's not a useful answer. The answer I gave,

"_Since aggression is defined, by the nonaggression principle, as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person_ _or legitimately owned property__ of another,_ _specifically,__any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property__ or person, if it is assumed that a person does not invite or agree to being deceived into incurring a loss,_ _fraud can be said to be aggression.__

Legitimately owned property is anything acquired in a way that did not violate this same principle.
...__the law needs to state, explicitly, that fraud is unlawful,__ instead of assuming it to be implied, because the implication is not obvious, if it's even valid._"

explains why those are the answers.

The direct answer to these

"_What would happen to a security agency and agent who was found to have used excessive force?_”“_What would the remedy be?_"

is "I don't know". But that's not a useful answer. The answer I gave,

"_What you seem to be missing is that neither I or any other planner defines the law in this society. The courts do that by cases building common law over time, and the people do it in that they select which courts they patronize. The only law decided, at the outset, is a metalaw, as is done with a constitution, of what people absolutely must not ever do to other people._"

explains why the answer is "I don't know".  


 Once you have the explanations, the direct answers should be obvious to you. Your statements, there, are just as malformed and inapplicable as your questions have been and, yes, I forgive you.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Your questions have all been answered as you've asked them. They make sense in in the context of the system you're familiar with, but not in the context of what you're asking about. Some of them have already been answered more than once.
> 
> The direct answers to these questions
> 
> "_Are you trying to make most criminal and civil laws unenforceable except for those banning physical violence?_"
> "_Is stealing property using force?_"
> 
> are "no" and “yes”, respectively. But that's not a useful answer. The answer I gave,
> 
> ...


Listen, your attempt at direct answers make your system look like a childish fantasy. That's why you have to come up with paragraphs of babble to try and justify the failure.  

If you can't even begin to explain how it will work in the real world, then you haven't really picked a political philosophy worthy of hanging your hat on. 

At the end of the day, force will be used on law breakers. Law breakers will feel that it is unjustified, just as they do today. 

So, what was accomplished? Nothing. 

I think the real purpose of this fantasy is to attempt to curtail the power of society upon the individual to only allow society to enforce laws about force and theft. Then, volunteerists would be able to avoid taxes and live as they wish even, if it harms others indirectly.

----------


## Maximatic

> Listen, your attempt at direct answers make your system look like a childish fantasy. That's why you have to come up with paragraphs of babble to try and justify the failure.  
> 
> If you can't even begin to explain how it will work in the real world, then you haven't really picked a political philosophy worthy of hanging your hat on. 
> 
> At the end of the day, force will be used on law breakers. Law breakers will feel that it is unjustified, just as they do today. 
> 
> So, what was accomplished? Nothing. 
> 
> I think the real purpose of this fantasy is to attempt to curtail the power of society upon the individual to only allow society to enforce laws about force and theft. Then, volunteerists would be able to avoid taxes and live as they wish even, if it harms others indirectly.


The thing is, I've gone far beyond beginning to explain how it would work in the real world, even in this little thread. Tomes, none of which you are likely to ever begin to read, have been written on the matter. It is a very well developed philosophy of which you've barely begun to scratch the surface. Understanding of why it can work requires a deep understanding of free market economics that nobody ever comes to easily, which, if you had, you wouldn't be the progressive that you are. Your opinion doesn't surprise me. You don't like it, I know, it's not America. Notice that you've stated your opinion even though your understanding of it is still so foggy that you can't even ask a question that makes sense in the context of the philosophy you're criticizing. Also, notice that you haven't even disputed the plausibility of anything I've said, here. Your assumption that, if force must be used, the whole thing is pointless, betrays the fact that you still haven't understood the actual point, even though I've clearly stated the actual point, explicitly, and very clearly, in the OP, and in several other places.

That it would work, and why it would work are well understood and very intelligible. Anyone who want's to understand it can. But nobody who understands why it would work would be so foolish as to presume to tell you exactly how it would come to fruition on a free market. If you don't understand that, study some Austrian Economics, or even MMT (it go David Friedman there) and, eventually, you will.

We have accomplished something here. I've shown why the best balance between apprehending criminals and not harming the innocent can be achieved if the implications of the nonaggression principle are the law of the land. I'm happy with that.

----------


## hoytmonger

> You'd allow the police to raze those territories?


You, and the others of the progressive right, seem to think force is the only answer to a situation... somehow that force embodies strength. Whereas, in fact, force begets force.
I didn't state the police should raze anything, just that police don't engage others similarly armed. They rather use their military weapons and tactics against suspected credit card and student loan fraud and sellers of raw milk.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Let's face it: michaelr, hoyt, axiomatic and the other board anarchists don't give a good god-damn if the most vicious gangs ravage entire regions. That's consistent with anarchism, so they don't care: why oppose gangs that spread anarchy? It's the POLICE who are the REAL enemy, 'cause they're the _GUMMINT_. And gummint bad. Gangs ok.


Government is the epitome of gangs... the epitome of organized crime. Government doesn't do anything about gangs, yet disarms the public and infringes on the civilian's right to defend themselves and their property. 
Government is the enemy... police (and military) are government muscle. They enforce the 'laws' created, interpreted and adjudicated by the state... while infringing on the natural rights endowed to everyone. It's the kind of racket that would make the Godfather jealous.

----------


## patrickt

> They have to be meaner than the bad guys! I wish they'd all go on a diet!


 No, they don't. Corrupt cops say they have to fight fire with fire so they plant evidence and commit perjury. They become what they fight.

A young man was shot and killed one night. The officer had no choice. I was called out and as the sun was coming up I saw a young officer in his patrol car in the parking lot. He tried to hide the fact that he was crying. I sat with him for awhile and said a 20-year old dying was something to cry about. I also told him that if we wanted to hire people with no feelings we had plenty applying. When I left the department 12 years later that officer was still there and doing a good job. 

The "meaner" ones didn't last long.

----------



----------


## Dan40

> What does it say on this link provided by ghost?
> title;- Officer Down Memorial page.
> 
> then a banner in grey 2012 fatality statistics"
> 
> then Total 23
> gunfire  9
> auto 11
> other 3
> ...


https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2008

Officers KILLED in the line of DUTY!

2008--158

2009--140

2010--177

2011--179

*2012--125*
https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2012

2013--105

884 police killed in the line of duty in 6 years.  Killed, not injured, not crippled, killed.

-------------------------------------------------------

Population of the USA,,,,,,,,, 317 million.
Crimes committed last year, 313 million.

Cops should really chill out,,,,,,,,,but HOW?

----------


## patrickt

I forgot to mention but the mean cops were only mean when there were six cops and one crook. They were usually cowardly little shits.

----------


## DonGlock26

> The thing is, I've gone far beyond beginning to explain how it would work in the real world, even in this little thread. Tomes, none of which you are likely to ever begin to read, have been written on the matter. It is a very well developed philosophy of which you've barely begun to scratch the surface. Understanding of why it can work requires a deep understanding of free market economics that nobody ever comes to easily, which, if you had, you wouldn't be the progressive that you are. Your opinion doesn't surprise me. You don't like it, I know, it's not America. Notice that you've stated your opinion even though your understanding of it is still so foggy that you can't even ask a question that makes sense in the context of the philosophy you're criticizing. Also, notice that you haven't even disputed the plausibility of anything I've said, here. Your assumption that, if force must be used, the whole thing is pointless, betrays the fact that you still haven't understood the actual point, even though I've clearly stated the actual point, explicitly, and very clearly, in the OP, and in several other places.
> 
> That it would work, and why it would work are well understood and very intelligible. Anyone who want's to understand it can. But nobody who understands why it would work would be so foolish as to presume to tell you exactly how it would come to fruition on a free market. If you don't understand that, study some Austrian Economics, or even MMT (it go David Friedman there) and, eventually, you will.
> 
> We have accomplished something here. I've shown why the best balance between apprehending criminals and not harming the innocent can be achieved if the implications of the nonaggression principle are the law of the land. I'm happy with that.


Your attempt to conceal your inability to even say how your pet political philosophy would work in actual use with endless references to the "tomes" and ideas of obscure philosophers and general economic free market theories  speaks volumes. Word count and wasted band width mean nothing, if it doesn't make sense. No one is falling for your use of the fallacies of argument from authority, argumentum ad hominem, and argumentum verbosium.

You've accomplished something alright. You've discredited your position by failing to perform in its defense.

----------


## DonGlock26

> You, and the others of the progressive right, seem to think force is the only answer to a situation... somehow that force embodies strength. Whereas, in fact, force begets force.
> I didn't state the police should raze anything, just that police don't engage others similarly armed. They rather use their military weapons and tactics against suspected credit card and student loan fraud and sellers of raw milk.


You accused the officers of being pussies. But, you would be against them destroying the gangs? So, you want them to be pussies. So, what is your bitch with gangs existing?

If the political leadership allowed it, the police could annihilate the gang problem in America as quickly as known gang members could be lined up in AR-15 sights. 

The Somali pirates don't fair well, when the military is allowed to actually engage either.

I bet libertarians, anarchists, and volunteerists would be against the gangs being turned into pig food. So really, who are the pussies?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Government doesn't do anything about gangs,


Ok, what do you want the police to do about gangs?

----------


## DonGlock26

> The "meaner" ones didn't last long.


Doesn't matter, the anarchists hate the good cops too. Sad, isn't it?

----------


## Maximatic

> Your attempt to conceal your inability to even say how your pet political philosophy would work in actual use with endless references to the "tomes" and ideas of obscure philosophers and general economic free market theories  speaks volumes. Word count and wasted band width mean nothing, if it doesn't make sense. No one is falling for your use of the fallacies of argument from authority, argumentum ad hominem, and argumentum verbosium.
> 
> You've accomplished something alright. You've discredited your position by failing to perform in its defense.


I think the actual arguments I've posted, all over this forum, say a lot more than my one reference to the tomes of literature on the matter. All you've done is ask a series of incoherent questions and tell me how you *feel* about my position in general. Until you, at least, provide a single coherent rebuttal, my position is unopposed.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I think the actual arguments I've posted, all over this forum, say a lot more than my one reference to the tomes of literature on the matter. All you've done is ask a series of incoherent questions and tell me how you *feel* about my position in general. Until you, at least, provide a single coherent rebuttal, my position is unopposed.


You seldom post any arguments. You post articles by obscure philosophers and act like you've found some type of holy grail of governance. 

My questions are very coherent. You are just  unable to tell us how your pet theory would work in practice. That should be a wake up call to you.

Your ad hom attacks are laughable. Everyone can see that you can't even attempt to defend your theory, when questioned. 

So, what do you find so appealing about this Utopian fantasy? Is it the state lacking the power of taxation? That's the bottom line, isn't it?

----------


## hoytmonger

> You accused the officers of being pussies. But, you would be against them destroying the gangs? So, you want them to be pussies. So, what is your bitch with gangs existing?
> 
> If the political leadership allowed it, the police could annihilate the gang problem in America as quickly as known gang members could be lined up in AR-15 sights. 
> 
> The Somali pirates don't fair well, when the military is allowed to actually engage either.
> 
> I bet libertarians, anarchists, and volunteerists would be against the gangs being turned into pig food. So really, who are the pussies?


I didn't bitch about gangs and I don't have a problem with their existence, just with the behavioral problems created by gang mentality. 'Destroying' gangs just for the sake of eliminating them isn't a feasible solution, prevention is. Police don't prevent crime, it takes too much effort and time. 

Force begets force. The more force police use, the more resistance they'll face.




> Ok, what do you want the police to do about gangs?


Police are a gang.

----------


## patrickt

> Doesn't matter, the anarchists hate the good cops too. Sad, isn't it?


I don't know about anarchists. Political ideologues are a different species. Crooks didn't hate cops. They hated some cops. I was working in my yard one day and saw that the new neighbor had moved in next door. I was surprised to see it was a man I knew well and hadn't seen in some years. I went to the fence and said, "Hi, Rick."

"Oh, hi, Mr. Kelly. I heard you lived next door."
"If you're my neighbor you can call me Pat unless I have to arrest you again."
He laughed and said, "I don't do that shit any more." Then we talked about the people we both knew and discussed that fact that most were dead.

I asked Rick how he felt living next door to a man who arrested him. He shrugged and said, "You only arrested me when I needed arresting and you never went out of your way to make it worse than it had to be."

When I pointed out his three brothers were either in prison or in and out I asked what changed for him. He thought a bit and said, "First, I quit drinking and doing dope, then I got a job, then I got married, and my life got sort of normal." Bingo. Rick and I were not close friends but we were good neighbors.

A survey done in Washington D.C. with prisoners in the jail asked the prisoners to list people in the system in order of positive feelings. The lowest on the list were public defenders, probation officers, and judges. When asked why the response was that they pretend to be on your side but they aren't. For cops, a shrug and, they're doing their job.

I don't like New Yorkers or Frenchmen but I've had friends from New York and France. Sometimes we dislike the stereotype but not the individual.

----------


## Maximatic

> You seldom post any arguments. You post articles by obscure philosophers and act like you've found some type of holy grail of governance. 
> 
> My questions are very coherent. You are just  unable to tell us how your pet theory would work in practice. That should be a wake up call to you.
> 
> Your ad hom attacks are laughable. Everyone can see that you can't even attempt to defend your theory, when questioned. 
> 
> So, what do you find so appealing about this Utopian fantasy? Is it the state lacking the power of taxation? That's the bottom line, isn't it?


I would expect someone who doesn't know what a sound argument looks like to believe that one hasn't been given. I would not expect someone who understands the rules of inference to declare an argument unsound, or not an argument at all, without being able to explain why, but I would expect that of someone with no idea of what he's talking about.


 What were those devastating questions, again, that I couldn't answer? Oh, right:

“_What would happen to a security agency and agent who was found to have used excessive force? What would the remedy be?_”
 You actually believe that these are paradigm changing questions that demand an answer? lofnl  


 I've counted 9 arguments, only one of which is not deductive and only two of which were written by someone other than me, that lead to the conclusion that stateless societies are possible and viable, 3 examples of stateless societies that have existed, and two ways in which a stateless society can be established.


 A sound, deductive argument is a proof. In order to show that stateless order not possible or viable, you have to show that all eight of my deductive arguments are unsound, and then offer at least one sound argument in defense of your claim. No valid objection, let alone, a refutation, has ever been raised against any of them. That's how far your asinine assertion that I haven't even defended my position is from demonstration.

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...u-need-to-know
http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads/12610-Law
http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...-Is-and-Is-Not
http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...teless-Ireland
http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...teless-Iceland
http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...on-of-Security
http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...at-Light-Speed
http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...y-City-Project
http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...ng-Governments



You don't know what an ad hominem argument is. It is not the same as an insult, or any other kind of statement about a person. It is a mistake in reasoning that results in a non sequitur, and thus, an unsound argument. I've told you this before, but you're very thick headed, and have trouble learning.

This is an ad hominem argument:

Bob is a liar.
Therefore, Bob's claim, that his name is Bob, is false.

The conclusion doesn't follow because it is possible for Bob to be a liar and his claim still be true. The argument against Bob, in lieu of an argument against his claim, is a textbook worthy example of an argumentum ad hominem.

This is a valid argument:

You, the idiot, have access to this web page.
If you, the idiot, do not have access to the internet, then you, the idiot, do not have access to this web page.
Therefore, you, the idiot, have access to the internet.

There is no mistake in reasoning. The conclusion follows from the premises. It is not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Therefore, it does not entail an ad hominem argument or any other kind of logical fallacy. You could substitute “the idiot” for any other label or name, and it would be just as valid as it is.



 You don't know how to identify a logical fallacy because you don't understand the laws of logic or the rules of inference. The extent of your knowledge of them came from a list of logical fallacies. People who make that mistake stick out like a sore thumb, because they mistake things that look like what the name of the fallacy seems to describe for a real logical fallacy. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that a logical fallacy is nothing more than a mistaken inference, and you wouldn't misidentify them so much. You can't learn how to make a valid argument or spot a fallacious one by studying lists of fallacies, you have to study the real thing.


 The accusation of argumentum verbosium is nearly always a pathetic cop out given by an idiot who is not equipped to engage an argument and too lazy to become equipped. It's easy to make bullshit statements without defending them, and ask ignorant questions that lead nowhere. My posts get long because it's a lot harder to refute bullshit than to spread it. I've condensed most of my arguments into syllogisms to make them as straight forward and accessible as any argument can be. Defenses of my premises get long because there is a lot to be said in their favor.


 Another cool thing about my arguments is that they exist, unlike yours.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I didn't bitch about gangs and I don't have a problem with their existence, just with the behavioral problems created by gang mentality. 'Destroying' gangs just for the sake of eliminating them isn't a feasible solution, prevention is. Police don't prevent crime, it takes too much effort and time. 
> 
> Force begets force. The more force police use, the more resistance they'll face.
> 
> 
> 
> Police are a gang.


These are your words, are they not?




> *How far have the government forces gotten* with them? *Cops dress up and act like soldiers and those groups not only continue to exist, they expand their territories.* 
> 
> *Now cops have machine guns and armored vehicles*... *but they don't confront those armed as they are... pussies.*


You were clearly critical of the police for not confronting the gangs. But, you now don't want the gangs to be confronted and destroyed. You are being hypocritical. 

You have no real answers for the gang problem from an anarchist philosophical perspective. The police do what they can within the LIMITS set upon them by society. If society took the gloves off, the gangs would be annihilated.

----------


## hoytmonger

> You seldom post any arguments. You post articles by obscure philosophers and act like you've found some type of holy grail of governance. 
> 
> My questions are very coherent. You are just  unable to tell us how your pet theory would work in practice. That should be a wake up call to you.
> 
> Your ad hom attacks are laughable. Everyone can see that you can't even attempt to defend your theory, when questioned. 
> 
> So, what do you find so appealing about this Utopian fantasy? Is it the state lacking the power of taxation? That's the bottom line, isn't it?


What 'utopian fantasy'? 

Why can't anyone explain the necessity of the state?

How an anarchic society would work has been posted multiple times, you're just too dense to comprehend it... it's quite simple. Society is based on economics, not governance, Government is the parasite that feeds off society until it finally kills it. Anarcho-capitalistic society is regulated by a free market. A free market is regulated by the wants and needs of consumers. When a need arises, an entrepreneur comes up with a solution, the solution is subject to competition. 
You seem to want a specific 'plan' by which an anarchic society would be organized, there can't be one due to the inability to predict innovation. No one can tell what a solution to a specific need would be until it's developed, and market forces are what determines the best possible solution to any specific need.

----------



----------


## DonGlock26

> I don't know about anarchists.


There are several here in this sub-forum. They hate the police as a whole. You only have to read their rhetoric.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I would expect someone who doesn't know what a sound argument looks like to believe that one hasn't been given. I would not expect someone who understands the rules of inference to declare an argument unsound, or not an argument at all, without being able to explain why, but I would expect that of someone with no idea of what he's talking about.
> 
> 
>  What were those devastating questions, again, that I couldn't answer? Oh, right:
> 
> “_What would happen to a security agency and agent who was found to have used excessive force? What would the remedy be?_”
>  You actually believe that these are paradigm changing questions that demand an answer? lofnl  
> 
> 
> ...


So, instead of trying to answer the questions in a meaningful way, you continue to use of the fallacies of argument from authority, argumentum ad hominem, and argumentum verbosium.

I'm just glad to be able to show what an intellectual  fraud these ideas are.

The bottom line is that you don't want the state to be able to tax you.

----------


## DonGlock26

> What 'utopian fantasy'? 
> 
> Why can't anyone explain the necessity of the state?
> 
> How an anarchic society would work has been posted multiple times, you're just too dense to comprehend it... it's quite simple. Society is based on economics, not governance, Government is the parasite that feeds off society until it finally kills it. Anarcho-capitalistic society is regulated by a free market. A free market is regulated by the wants and needs of consumers. When a need arises, an entrepreneur comes up with a solution, the solution is subject to competition. 
> You seem to want a specific 'plan' by which an anarchic society would be organized, there can't be one due to the inability to predict innovation. No one can tell what a solution to a specific need would be until it's developed, and market forces are what determines the best possible solution to any specific need.


You really don't know what the OP is talking about? You've never heard of "volunteerism"?

I can and I have. The main purpose is to defend a society from enemies foreign and domestic and to administer justice rather than allow vigilantism and the blood feud.

These volunteerists are not necessarily anti-state. They love the ideas of laws and courts. They just want to avoid paying taxes.

Please, stop the ad hom attacks. I'm not the one who is unable to answer simple questions about their Utopian fantasy. 

Gov't makes a society stable enough to have a complex economy. Can you show us a complex economy without a state or the protection of a state (direct or indirect)?

There would be no free market without a state to protect it. 

I'm asking how it would work in the real world in specific ways and the OP has no answers. If he can't answer questions involving simple scenarios, then the theory is garbage.

The "theory" is really the dream of tax dodgers. That is really allure.

Honestly, "No one can tell what a solution" would be to crime? Claims of excessive force against private security? The remedy to the claims? You folks can't even manage to think that far ahead? Then, of what value is this fantasy?

I will give you credit. You are willing to stay and answer questions in defense of your beliefs.

----------


## Maximatic

> So, instead of trying to answer the questions in a meaningful way, you continue to use of the fallacies of argument from authority, argumentum ad hominem, and argumentum verbosium.
> 
> I'm just glad to be able to show what an intellectual  fraud these ideas are.
> 
> The bottom line is that you don't want the state to be able to tax you.


Believe whatever makes you feel better, but you should get the idea that I owe an answer to every inane question you ask out of your head. Your coddlers were wrong. There is such thing as a stupid question. You might want to read that post, too. It explains why you should feel embarrassed at your clueless use of the names of those fallacies.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Believe whatever makes you feel better, but you should get the idea that I owe an answer to every inane question you ask out of your head. Your coddlers were wrong. There is such thing as a stupid question. You might want to read that post, too. It explains why you should feel embarrassed at your clueless use of the names of those fallacies.


I've accomplished what I set out to do in this thread. I've asked critical questions of your Utopia fantasy and left you unable to answer. 

I was hoping for a more spirited defense frankly, but the defeat of that direct defense would have been even more devastating and traumatic for you. This explains your willingness to suffer the indignity of being unable to answer questions directly about how your pet theory would work in the real world.

I think these philosophical pimps had you, when they said you didn't have to pay taxes.

----------


## hoytmonger

> These are your words, are they not?
> 
> 
> 
> You were clearly critical of the police for not confronting the gangs. But, you now don't want the gangs to be confronted and destroyed. You are being hypocritical. 
> 
> You have no real answers for the gang problem from an anarchist philosophical perspective. The police do what they can within the LIMITS set upon them by society. If society took the gloves off, the gangs would be annihilated.


Police don't confront those armed as they are because they're pussies. I seem to recall an alleged 'rogue' cop in California a couple of years ago that was accused of shooting some people. Christopher Dorner. After a manhunt, which involved the brave police shooting up a pick-up truck which bore no resemblance to the suspects vehicle, Dorner was cornered in a house. The brave cops bravely used a robot to peer in the house's windows and saw a figure lying on a bed and what looked like blood splatter on the wall. The brave cops then bravely lit the house on fire and burned it to the ground... instead of entering.
Police like to use force against those that aren't likely to fight back... like pussies.

Society isn't the problem, government is. You're blaming society for the inadequacy of government, when it's government that prevents civilians from defending themselves and forces them to rely on cops. Gangs exist because civilians are easy targets, government likes this because it justifies their existence.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Police don't confront those armed as they are because they're pussies. I seem to recall an alleged 'rogue' cop in California a couple of years ago that was accused of shooting some people. Christopher Dorner. After a manhunt, which involved the brave police shooting up a pick-up truck which bore no resemblance to the suspects vehicle, Dorner was cornered in a house. The brave cops bravely used a robot to peer in the house's windows and saw a figure lying on a bed and what looked like blood splatter on the wall. The brave cops then bravely lit the house on fire and burned it to the ground... instead of entering.
> Police like to use force against those that aren't likely to fight back... like pussies.
> 
> Society isn't the problem, government is. You're blaming society for the inadequacy of government, when it's government that prevents civilians from defending themselves and forces them to rely on cops. Gangs exist because civilians are easy targets, government likes this because it justifies their existence.


You are leaving out some of the facts. The pick-up truck was in the area of a house that the police were protecting and it was similar.

A police description of a suspect vehicle is no guarantee of it being exact in the first place. A vehicle described as being black in low light could really be dark blue.



Combat is not a duel. You find the enemy, fix the enemy, and destroy the enemy. You don't duel them. If the police were allowed to destroy gangs, they would use greater force than the gangs had. 

You left out the part that Dorner had engaged the police in a gunfight at the hideout and killed a deputy. Another one was wounded.

You really should familiarize yourself with the case before commenting:




> Officers fired into the cabin to suppress the gunfire from Dorner and attempt to rescue 
> the downed and trapped officers. Numerous additional officers arrived to provide 
> assistance. At this time, Deputy 10 took cover next to a lodge to the east of the cabin 
> occupied by Dorner. Rounds continued to hit the car in front of the cabin. Officers then 
> continued to fire on the cabin as smoke was deployed in an attempt to rescue the 
> downed officers. The first volley of smoke failed and a second deployment of smoke 
> was utilized. Detective 11 and Deputy 13 went to the car in front of the cabin in an 
> attempt to rescue the downed deputies. Deputy 4 assisted Detective 11 in dragging 
> Detective 1 behind nearby vehicles, while Deputy 13 pulled Deputy 2 to safety. 
> ...


Did you get your info from some anarchist kook blog?



Have you engaged in a gunfight and ensured that everything was fair? If you had cover and your opponent had none, then of course you would stand up and leave cover so as not to be a "pussy", right?


I was in the US Army, and we were taught to win and stay alive. It was nothing like your anarchist fantasy.

----------


## Dan40

> You are leaving out some of the facts. The pick-up truck was in the area of a house that the police were protecting and it was similar.
> 
> A police description of a suspect vehicle is no guarantee of it being exact in the first place. A vehicle described as being black in low light could really be dark blue.
> 
> 
> 
> Combat is not a duel. You find the enemy, fix the enemy, and destroy the enemy. You don't duel them. If the police were allowed to destroy gangs, they would use greater force than the gangs had. 
> 
> You left out the part that Dorner had engaged the police in a gunfight at the hideout and killed a deputy. Another one was wounded.
> ...



In 2011 police shot 1146 people.  Killing 607 and wounding the rest.

The vast majority of them were armed with handguns or knives and had criminal histories.

I'd guess those 1100 don't consider the police "pussies."  The criminal for the most part carries a cheap ass Saturday Night Special.  The criminal seldom if ever practices with his junk gun.  The police carry ever more effective weapons.  They clean them, insure the functionality of their weapons and are required to practice and qualify as competent shooters.

The master criminal is a myth.  They are dumb.  To pull a gun on a well armed, well trained officer wearing a resistant vest, shows how idiotic the criminal is.

The police have no responsibility to demonstrate the same level of idiocy.  They should, and rightly do, shoot the dumb sumbitch.

----------


## Roadmaster

If it is morally wrong and you wouldn't do something without a badge, what makes it right with one. Men have used the phase well I was just following orders but it doesn't make it right.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (04-01-2014),hoytmonger (03-31-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> If it is morally wrong and you wouldn't do something without a badge, what makes it right with one. Men have used the phase well I was just following orders but it doesn't make it right.


Damn straight.

----------


## hoytmonger

> You are leaving out some of the facts. The pick-up truck was in the area of a house that the police were protecting and it was similar.
> 
> A police description of a suspect vehicle is no guarantee of it being exact in the first place. A vehicle described as being black in low light could really be dark blue.
> 
> 
> 
> Combat is not a duel. You find the enemy, fix the enemy, and destroy the enemy. You don't duel them. If the police were allowed to destroy gangs, they would use greater force than the gangs had. 
> 
> You left out the part that Dorner had engaged the police in a gunfight at the hideout and killed a deputy. Another one was wounded.
> ...


The police fired on the vehicle, which was occupied by a white guy, without even making sure it was the right person they were looking for... pussies.

Police aren't in combat, although they're creating an enemy by treating civilians as enemies.

You're calling for wholesale murder of gangs... because they're gangs. You have no concept of liberty. What is the underlying cause of gang activity?

In the Dorner case, the cops deliberately set fire to the house instead of entering... like they would with a no-knock warrant. They had overwhelming numbers... yet they acted like cowards and destroyed private property to avoid potential conflict... even though their robot saw a figure lying in the basement with blood splatter on the wall... pussies.




> But as events were unfolding, journalist Max Blumenthal live tweeted a different narrative reportedly lifted from San Bernadino Sheriff Scanner Channel 7/8 via the 5-0 iPhone app.
> 
> The live feed Blumenthal catalogued appears to indicate officers had no intention of encouraging Dorners surrender. He wrote, While media acceded to police demands not to provide direct details of stand-off w/Christopher Dorner, I used PD scanner transmissions to expose orders to burn his cabin hideout w/him inside. TL begins at bottom [sic].
> If the audio recording captured by Blumenthal is indeed from the incident, officers are overheard apparently discussing a pre-arranged arson attack. Per the audio, at around the one-minute mark, a male voice says:
> All right, Steve (?), were gonna go, er, were gonna go forward with the plan, with, er, with the burn. We want it, er, like we talked about.
> He then adds shortly afterwards:
> Seven burners deployed and we have a fire.
> A female voice responds:
> Copy. Seven burners deployed and we have a fire.
> ...






My info is undeniable... yours is bullshit... as usual.

----------


## hoytmonger

> In 2011 police shot 1146 people.  Killing 607 and wounding the rest.
> 
> The vast majority of them were armed with handguns or knives and had criminal histories.
> 
> I'd guess those 1100 don't consider the police "pussies."  The criminal for the most part carries a cheap ass Saturday Night Special.  The criminal seldom if ever practices with his junk gun.  The police carry ever more effective weapons.  They clean them, insure the functionality of their weapons and are required to practice and qualify as competent shooters.
> 
> The master criminal is a myth.  They are dumb.  To pull a gun on a well armed, well trained officer wearing a resistant vest, shows how idiotic the criminal is.
> 
> The police have no responsibility to demonstrate the same level of idiocy.  They should, and rightly do, shoot the dumb sumbitch.


Cops can't shoot worth a shit... the evidence is all over the news.

----------


## Dan40

> Cops can't shoot worth a shit... the evidence is all over the news.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

2011, cops shot 1147, killing 607.  The criminals shot 146 cops.  

They only have to shoot better than the criminals.

If a bear is chasing you and your buddy.  How long do you have to outrun the bear?

You don't, you only have to outrun your buddy.

----------


## 007

> 2011, cops shot 1147, killing 607.  The criminals shot 146 cops.  
> 
> They only have to shoot better than the criminals.
> 
> If a bear is chasing you and your buddy.  How long do you have to outrun the bear?
> 
> You don't, you only have to outrun your buddy.


How many armed people were killed by police in " justified" shootings where no weapon was found?
Tell me more about that gun fairy that flies away with the guns that the cops never find on their victims?

----------


## 007

Criminal=no badge!

----------



----------


## Maximatic

> Criminal=no badge!


I disagree.

It's good to have you back, though. Let the fun resume.

----------


## 007

I'm sure the Obamacult will ban me soon!

----------


## hoytmonger

> 2011, cops shot 1147, killing 607.  The criminals shot 146 cops.  
> 
> They only have to shoot better than the criminals.
> 
> If a bear is chasing you and your buddy.  How long do you have to outrun the bear?
> 
> You don't, you only have to outrun your buddy.


Your statistics are meaningless without context... how many in your statistics are unarmed or not criminals?




> Police officers arrived and tried to corral Mr. Broadnax, a 250-pound man. When he reached into his pants pocket, two officers, who, the police said, thought he was pulling a gun, opened fire, missing Mr. Broadnax, but hitting two nearby women.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/ny...uare.html?_r=0




> On a busy Friday morning in Manhattan, nine pedestrians suffered bullet or fragment wounds after police unleashed a hail of gunfire at a man wielding a .45 caliber pistol who had just killed a former co-worker.The officers unloaded 16 rounds in the shadow of the Empire State Building at a disgruntled former apparel designer, killing him after he engaged in a gunbattle with police, authorities said.
> Three passersby sustained direct gunshot wounds, while the remaining six were hit by fragments, according to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. All injuries were caused by police, he said Saturday.


http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justic...tate-shooting/




> According to KCBS and Bay City News Service, two bystanders were hit by gunfire after an officer-involved shooting in San Francisco’s North Beach neighborhood early this morning.
> 
> According to police, at 2:06 a.m., officers located a wanted person in the 400 block of Broadway. The suspect ran away from police and produced a weapon, they said.
> 
> 
> Officers then fired at the suspect, who was not hit. However, two bystanders were hit by the gunfire. They were taken to a hospital to be treated for their injuries that are not believed to be life-threatening, according to police.


http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2011/09...lice-shooting/




> -- Police fired nearly 300 rounds of ammunition within five to 10 minutes as they confronted the suspects -- 100 more than initially reported. And that included one round that nearly killed Massachusetts Transit Police Officer Richard Donohue.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/15/us/bos...town-shootout/




> That was one finding of a study in the journal Law Enforcement Executive Forum in June. Researcher Gregory Morrison, himself a former officer and firearms instructor, surveyed more than 300 police departments. In more than half of them, if officers failed their shooting tests, they were allowed do-overs—they could just retake the tests with minimal or no remedial instruction. Less than two-thirds required that firearms instructors themselves take refresher trainings. Nearly two-thirds denied their firearms instructors access to the outcomes of investigations of officer-involved shootings—information the instructors could use to improve their training curriculums. The wide latitude in approaches, Morrison’s study concluded, “raises real concerns about how prepared many police officers are for encounters that reasonably could involve the use or threatened use of deadly force.”


http://prospect.org/article/why-are-...innocents-rise

Cops can't shoot worth a shit.

----------


## Old Navy

> So, security forces would not be allowed to use force by law?


The soothsayer said, *"Violence begets violence."*   Hagar replied, *"Sounds reasonable to me."*

----------


## Dan40

> Your statistics are meaningless without context... how many in your statistics are unarmed or not criminals?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/ny...uare.html?_r=0
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justic...tate-shooting/
> ...


They only have to shoot better than the perps.  And they do.

----------


## Dan40

> The soothsayer said, *"Violence begets violence."*   Hagar replied, *"Sounds reasonable to me."*


So the meltbrain druggie is pointing a gun at the convenience store clerk.

Is that violence, or is the arrival of the police the start of the violence, when they say, "Drop your weapon?"  Does meltbrain have a "right" to keep holding his weapon?
And when he stops pointing the gun at the clerk and turns to point the gun at the cop, is that violence?  Or does the violence start when the cop shoots his meltbrain ass?

----------


## 007

> So the meltbrain druggie is pointing a gun at the convenience store clerk.
> 
> Is that violence, or is the arrival of the police the start of the violence, when they say, "Drop your weapon?"  Does meltbrain have a "right" to keep holding his weapon?
> And when he stops pointing the gun at the clerk and turns to point the gun at the cop, is that violence?  Or does the violence start when the cop shoots his meltbrain ass?


the druggie initiated the violence.

Few incidences of police violence follow such a pattern, many involve the gun fairy flying away with the "criminals" weapon after the cop unloads a few dozen rounds into him.

----------


## 007

Now in this case, an unarmed man shot to death.
Cop cleared of wrongdoing( as always, cops can do no wrong).
There must have been a knife!!!!
The cop said so!
http://youtu.be/pHnjT2qqUEw

----------


## 007

And!
Unarmed non agressive man justifiably shot by above the law police!!

----------


## DonGlock26

> And!
> *Unarmed* non agressive man justifiably shot by *above the law police*!!



Let's correct your inaccuracies for the record. The man had a knife, but he did not lunge at the officer.

The officer was not above the law.




> *Dallas Police Officer Fired, Charged With Shooting Mentally Ill Man*
> 
> 
> October 24, 2013 11:16 AM
> 
> 
> 
> http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/10/24/d...tally-ill-man/



Police officers make mistakes, lie, and break the law. But, spreading lies and falsehoods only makes cop haters appear irrational and filled with hate.

----------


## 007

Mmm, did Remarley graham also have a gun?
oscar grant?

when a cop executes an innocent man it's called justifiable, cleared of wrong doing or a mistake.
If anyone else had the same "accident" it would still be murder.
The guy shot 11 times by cops was also unarmed.......
in this video witnesses have said he was unarmed/non threatening/non violent.
when police approach a situation with a desire to commit violence, THEN WE HAVE A MAJOR PROBLEM!!
agressive approach at speed , causing hands to be raised defensively , assault!!!!!!
then the inevitable beat down!
Getting so close to the target and demanding ID, they turn to reach into pocket, unable to avoid their shoulder touching the cop because he DELIBERATLY got that close to ESCALATE a benign situation into a trumped up charge of assault, resisting etc.
Another favorite is put your hands up on......
so the target puts hands up on his head( anticipating that is what would follow "on").
But the cop didn't actually day head, just put your hands up on.
 That's non compliance, resisting and a good excuse to launch into a beat down.
When was the last time a police officer executed a person and didn't get away with it?

----------


## 007

> They only have to shoot better than the perps.  And they do.


Easy to shoot better than an unarmed SUSPECT, who is innocent until proven guilty.

Remarley graham, his home invaded without a warrent, executed for urinating in his own bathroom.
justified said the judge.
cop got a round of applause from his union brothers .
murder an innocent kid in his own home.
cops give you a standing ovation, in front of the innocent kids mother?
killing the enemy is a cops goal.
all non cops are the enemy.

----------


## Dan40

> Let's correct your inaccuracies for the record. The man had a knife, but he did not lunge at the officer.
> 
> The officer was not above the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police officers make mistakes, lie, and break the law. But, spreading lies and falsehoods only makes cop haters appear irrational and filled with hate.


Liberals and wacko cop haters are all only to happy to lie.

----------


## 007

> Liberals and wacko cop haters are all only to happy to lie.


Have you noticed, all the tyranny you support happens in liberal cities, where cops are hired by liberals where cops are members of liberal unions.
The liberal cop who MURDERED the unarmed REMARLEY GRAHAM, was a UNIONISED cop.
when the LIBERAL judge declared it a good kill, the Cops attending in court rose in applause of their liberal brother, gloating at the family of this innocent kid their liberal Union brother murdered.

you sir are a big government police state liberal.

----------


## Dan40

> Have you noticed, all the tyranny you support happens in liberal cities, where cops are hired by liberals where cops are members of liberal unions.
> The liberal cop who MURDERED the unarmed REMARLEY GRAHAM, was a UNIONISED cop.
> when the LIBERAL judge declared it a good kill, the Cops attending in court rose in applause of their liberal brother, gloating at the family of this innocent kid their liberal Union brother murdered.
> 
> you sir are a big government police state liberal.


Lane attempts to label me with names I know I'm not, just equal more lies.  And show you to be ridiculous.

If your cause is dependent on lies, YOU HAVE NO CAUSE.  And your cause is 100% completely dependent of lie after lie.

I'm a very conservative independent, dedicated to smaller govt and lower taxes, on EVERY level.  From federal down to neighborhood.

But I'm also aware that freedom is not free, it is the hardest job any nation takes on.

It demands personal responsibility, and that IS NOT a consistent trait in the human being.  So within reason, we have to have laws and enforcement of those laws.

And our law enforcement operates well within reason.  Not perfect, well within reason.

To point out the small number of incidents compared to the huge number of interactions with police, is being intentionally unreasonable, shirks your own personal responsibility, and is lying.  And paranoid.

----------


## 007

Oh diddums , you don't like being labelled.
You were of course the first to start hurling such.
One rule for you, different rules for others?
Eric Holder feels that way too.
A belief in the constitution does not make one liberal, quite the opposite.
Therefore I am the polar opposite of a liberal.
Your belief in an authoritarian unnessesarily violent police state has far more in common with liberalism than conservatism.
Hurling unfounded accusations that people are lying is also more in common with a particular group, including one Eric Holder, one Hilliary Clinton...........
Where did I Lie?
Nowhere.

----------


## 007

http://youtu.be/tNOk4_QH21g
Aggressive police terrorise law abiding citizen.

----------


## 007

Another law abiding citizen terrorized by liberals stormtroops.

----------


## 007

Terrorized by brutal police for following the law.

----------


## 007

More brutal and threatening behaviour from stormtroops because law was followed!

----------


## Dan40

> Oh diddums , you don't like being labelled.
> You were of course the first to start hurling such.
> One rule for you, different rules for others?
> Eric Holder feels that way too.
> A belief in the constitution does not make one liberal, quite the opposite.
> Therefore I am the polar opposite of a liberal.
> Your belief in an authoritarian unnessesarily violent police state has far more in common with liberalism than conservatism.
> Hurling unfounded accusations that people are lying is also more in common with a particular group, including one Eric Holder, one Hilliary Clinton...........
> Where did I Lie?
> Nowhere.


Lies of omission are lies just like lies of commission.

But liars ALWAYS lie about lying.  So you doing so was guaranteed.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-10-2014)

----------


## 007

> Lies of omission are lies just like lies of commission.
> 
> But liars ALWAYS lie about lying.  So you doing so was guaranteed.


Really, show the lie?
I can show where your uncivil posts are not in keeping with the rules of the forum.........
but when all you have is Ad Hominem attacks, it shows thT your point is wrong.

When police initiate agressive behaviour, which they do in the vast majority of interactions that turn violent there is a problem.
you constantly justify and support all acts of violence by police.
what would you do if a 260lb man was aggressively charging at you with a look of hate and rage in his eyes?
stand still and be murdered?

----------


## 007

what crime did this man commit that justified such agressive violence?

Is this how you want police to approach everyone?

----------


## 007

No lie if omission, this cop was over the top .
these videos show the very tip of the iceberg.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Liberals and wacko cop haters are all only to happy to lie.


That much is clear.

----------


## Dan40

> No lie if omission, this cop was over the top .
> these videos show the very tip of the iceberg.


I'm not the one to deal with your obsessive paranoia.  See a medical professional about your unreasonable and unfounded fears.

I have dealt with police for more than 7 decades without a single problem.  I have seen people have problems.  EACH and every time I personally observed anyone have a problem with police, that person displayed an attitude and non-cooperation.

Cops deal with people more than 8 billion times per year.  313 MILLION crimes are committed each year.  A few thousand of you idiots act out your idiocy and the cops deal with it.  They deal with life and dearth situations all day every day.  They DO NOT know where your idiotic attitudes are heading but they MUST react as if their life was threatened, because if it is they get dead, they don't get a "do over" like a child.  So give them a hard time and learn was a real hard time is.

Or treat them with respect and they return the same.  That has worked fine for me for more than 70 years.

Too hard for the paranoid to understand?

As said at the top, I'm not the one to deal with your unreasonable fear of authority and your paranoia.  See a professional, or not.  I don't give a shit.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-10-2014)

----------


## 007

Back to the vitriolic abuse and ad hominems.
In the several hundred interactions I have had with police in my many years on earth I can say the only times the police showed respect were the 2 occasions where I was actually speeding.
One in Lexington MA in 1992 another in Lewiston ME in 2006.
My demeanor has always been the same, respectfull and treating the officer as 
whilst having a cigarette outside the cask and flagon in Boston one night , I recall a crazed guy in a uniform storming up to me and shouting " let me see some fucking ID"!!
Suffice to say, he saw no ID that night and left with his crazed Roid rage to agressivly intimidate some other member of the public who was simply minding their own Buisness.
Perhaps if you left your small town trailor park and interacted with police who were beyond your second cousins gene pool your experiences might be different.
Generally speaking since age 15 , on 3 continents I have had 2 fully positive encounters with police.
Both for speeding, when I was speeding.
I can recall, some 30+ years ago, playing in an orchestra in the UK, I was walking into the city carrying my uniform and B. flat bass( tuba in the USA) in order to perform a concert at the town hall.

A cop jumped out of his panda car( cruiser ) and accosted me ( I was a diminutive ( undersized/underweight mid teen ) with moderate violence and extremely agressive language laced with profanity.
He threw me against a wall and began to throw my uniform( white and gold tunic, blue trews) around and about( pouring rain leaf mould/ mulch everywhere), slammed the bell of my 1855 Higham bass into the ground causing irreparable damage to this antique instrument( belonged to the orchestra, was worth more than our family home).
Then he gave me a decent sized beating, stomped my uniform into the slop( leaf mould/ mulch) until it was destroyed, then he drove away.
I collected my uniform and bass, walked to town and presented myself to the musical director.
The police were called and I was arrested for criminal damage to the bass and the uniform!!!
When interviewed by the police, I explained how the damage came about, even gave the constables name, however I didn't have his PC NUMBER.
So clearly I made the story up, everyone apparently knows to get a police officers PC number if they plan on making a complaint!!( how many PC martins worked in that village?
When police decide their power is unlimited, they begin to abuse that power.

The "call me sir or I will taze you cops are the funniest"!

I spent a couple of thousand dollars installing a simple audio visual recording system with cloud capabilities In both my cars.
Gotta stay safe, the police are the most dangerous threat to my family on earth.
Ask that seven year old in Detroit, oh you can't!!!!
Dead kids tell no truth, right!!
Ask Oscar Grant, oh forgot!!!
He is a bit too dead to speak at the moment.
No cop has ever been fully punished for murdering a member of the public.
That in itself is an absolute disgrace.

As for police being afraid because a person refused to answer a question or does not consent to an illegal search, if they are so chicken they need to find a safer job.
However few jobs are as safe as that of a police officer.
School teacher is about the only one.

----------



----------


## 007

My mother, divorced, single income had to remortgage our home to pay the orchestra for the malicious damage caused by the cop.
I paid it off with my sign up bounty when I completed my phase 2 infantry training 3 years later.
A lot of unfortunate monkeys( MPs/cunts) paid in blood for that cops abuse of power.
It became our official platoon sport, cunt slapping we used to call it!!
Simple enough game, new lad in platoon, get him Drunk, have him march up and down a residential st near Aldershot or camberly centers , shouting drill commands and profanity.
Never too long before the Redcaps showed up.
Pick axe handles at the ready they would approach our redarse( new lad ) ready to surround and beat him.
Then out of nowhere ( under cars , hidden in gardens etc, 30 paras would jump out and it was Green on!!!!!
All well deserved !!
All the respect they deserved!!

Few if any cops I have encountered have truly been professional public servants.
The majority are self serving power tripping psychopaths with a desire to feel superior than their fellow man.
Violent agressive psychopaths need to be taken out of uniform before they kill again with impunity.

----------


## 007

The time I called police ( a decade ago now) to remove trespassers from my parking space when I lived in  Chelsea ma.
Some chimp parked in my spot so I asked him to move , he flew into a screeching jabbering rage about how he owned the city, my parking spot and me because he was MS13.
I advised him that it was my considered opinion that he was a primate and nothing more, parked my car, blocking him in place and called the police.
Before the police arrived 15 yammering chimps were bouncing around my driveway, standing on the wall, postulating aggressively, as they tend to.
The police arrived and began chatting with the trespassers.
The cops were Latin types or 75%ers as minority cops are known( pass grade for minorities on the police test in MA(99% required for Asian or whites).
I went downstairs, out my back door and was accosted by these two cops, thrown without warning to the ground, head stomped , cuffed, given a low grade beating.
You know, open the door Hal step out and jumped, nothing said , just boom.
They patted me down, then cut all my clothing off and left me naked face down on the hot top for 2 hours as they searched my car and ransacked my home. 
Looking for the gun I threatened the trespassers with!!!

I had no gun, I made no threat, but these cops had to show off in front of their hombres!

The only thing I did wrong there was assume the cops would do the right thing.

The original concept of policing was that police would uphold the constitution, enforce the law, keep the peace and serve the public.
Today's police build a blue wall of silence, assume a position of superiority, treat everyone as the enemy and cover up for each others crimes.
Those cops who do the right thing are hounded off the force.

We are a nation of equals are we not?
Allowing police to behave in a manner others may not is hardly conducive to equality.

If I slapped my kid for biting me a cop would arrest me.
If the cop got bitten by my kid and slapped him, it would be justified!!
Why is a cop worth more?

----------



----------


## Dan40

> Back to the vitriolic abuse and ad hominems.
> In the several hundred interactions I have had with police in my many years on earth I can say the only times the police showed respect were the 2 occasions where I was actually speeding.
> One in Lexington MA in 1992 another in Lewiston ME in 2006.
> My demeanor has always been the same, respectfull and treating the officer as 
> whilst having a cigarette outside the cask and flagon in Boston one night , I recall a crazed guy in a uniform storming up to me and shouting " let me see some fucking ID"!!
> Suffice to say, he saw no ID that night and left with his crazed Roid rage to agressivly intimidate some other member of the public who was simply minding their own Buisness.
> Perhaps if you left your small town trailor park and interacted with police who were beyond your second cousins gene pool your experiences might be different.
> Generally speaking since age 15 , on 3 continents I have had 2 fully positive encounters with police.
> Both for speeding, when I was speeding.
> ...


SEVERAL HUNDRED interactions with the police and the police were wrong all but 2.

The problem could not possibly be MORE obvious.

 :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

While I've had at most 2 dozen interactions with the police and not once were they in any way threatening or WRONG.

If you have a mirror, look at the problem.

----------


## Rudy2D

> Or treat them with respect and they return the same.  That has worked fine for me for more than 70 years.


Works for me.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Or treat them with respect and they return the same.  That has worked fine for me for more than 70 years.


Some of us don't have your subjugated, enslaved mindset, believing that the people you perceive as your overseers must first be shown respect in order to return it you. If they choose.

----------



----------


## Dan40

> Some of us don't have your subjugated, enslaved mindset, believing that the people you perceive as your overseers must first be shown respect in order to return it you. If they choose.



What you mean to say is that I do not have any fear of authority, realize how difficult a job police have dealing with authority hating idiots, and so I do not contribute to the police woes.  I treat them with respect as an equal authority figure.  They don't scare me.  But they evidently DO scare the piss out of you authority paranoids, causing YOU to do really stupid ass things and the cops react as they MUST, with overwhelming force.

By necessity, police have but 2 speeds.

1. respecting the upstanding citizen,

OR

2. taking control of the situation with overwhelming force.

They would be insane to allow a middle ground where the idiots could cause them harm.

So 1. You listen,

OR 

2. You LEARN.

----------


## Network

Funded by the state to enforce the whack laws of the state with golden parachute retirement plans, all funded by forceful expropriation of funds from an arbitrary boundary of slaves.

Quotas to fill, for state funds and private prison profits.  No respect for private property, a threat to private property, which is what any sort of _law_ enforcement should actually be hired to protect.

So many cases of aggression instigated by the men in black where no lives or property was in danger before they arrived with their badges.

----------


## 007

> SEVERAL HUNDRED interactions with the police and the police were wrong all but 2.
> 
> The problem could not possibly be MORE obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> While I've had at most 2 dozen interactions with the police and not once were they in any way threatening or WRONG.
> 
> If you have a mirror, look at the problem.


Yup several hundred.
Over a hundred times my home was burgled in the UK.

But let's isolate one incident.
After work, a Friday night, a couple of beers at the cask and flagon, step outside to the smoking area and light up a cigarette, smoking quietly.
Halfway through the cigarette a very angry cop charges me, stops within an inch and screams "let me see some fucking ID"!!!
Explain how or why a police officer is justified in using that language or that method of approach?

I asked why he needed my ID, his answer was basically that he was a cop and could do what he wants.

I explained that he could not , that there was this piece of paper, a few pieces of paper actually, called the Constitution.
He left about the time I finished my smoke( he tried to order me to put it out at one point), I returned to the bar , had a few more beers , ordered a cab, paid my check and went home.
He voiced no reason for demanding ID.
I'm sure you would have groveled an apology and begged forgiveness for being there.....
That's not respect.

Respect begins with the approach the officer makes.

Hey asshole, show me some ID is disrespectfull.

Excuse me sir, whatever just happened and you are wearing a shirt matching the doodly watsit the suspect was described as wearing, can I ask you a few questions?
Now in that case, no problem,  you right with me, me right with you.
You get gobby , it's coming right back at you.

Now how many cops have been convicted of the murders they commit?

----------


## 007

Again, if you moved out of your trailor park where the local sheriffs are second cousins to you, things might be a little different.

Paris, I was detained by police for not tipping at a restaurant.
Got the issue sorted but it took 2 hours and £500 for a translator service.
I gave no tip, because the service did not warrent a tip. The restaurant reported that I had not paid the check.
My receipt proved otherwise.
As I left the police station , the gendarme told me it was a pity that he was unable to arrest me for having no manners ( not tipping a bad mannered staff is considered bad manners in France).

----------


## 007

Why are you opposed to a professional respectful police service?

----------


## Network

Me and my cousins could totally run this town, bo/bro.

----------


## Dan40

> Yup several hundred.
> Over a hundred times my home was burgled in the UK.
> 
> But let's isolate one incident.
> After work, a Friday night, a couple of beers at the cask and flagon, step outside to the smoking area and light up a cigarette, smoking quietly.
> Halfway through the cigarette a very angry cop charges me, stops within an inch and screams "let me see some fucking ID"!!!
> Explain how or why a police officer is justified in using that language or that method of approach?
> 
> I asked why he needed my ID, his answer was basically that he was a cop and could do what he wants.
> ...


The United Kingdom?

Crazy Brits?  Can't solve that problem for you.

Had a German cop in Hidleburg.  Asked him for directions.  He had a machine pistol hanging under his arm, a 9mm on his hip, a club and perhaps more weaponry.  He started to give me directions across town, then siad, you'll never find it, too comp[licated.  Looked in the car and said, make room, I'll show you.  Got in and got us across town.  Said Wiedersein and got himself back to his post.

Also German cops, Stayed in a small village at the end of the train route.  Got off the train from Oktoberfest, drunk as a skunk.  Hotel about 2 miles away.  Sat down on the curb.  Cops came along asked me what was up.  Told them to drunk to walk to hotel.  They said, "get in."  Figured we were going to lock up.  They dropped us at the hotel.  Cheeky Bastards!

Maybe you're ugly.  I'm a handsome fellow. :Smile:

----------


## 007

My sister on Cape cod encountered a coyote attempting to get into her home.
Unafraid of the 2 dogs, 3 kids and the 2 adults in the home.
It sat there on the porch for several hours.
The police response to the 911 call was " why you calling us, improper use of 911 is a crime"
Call animal control.
The one animal control officer was on vacation, she called the police non emergency line. Was told to stop harassing the police!!!!
I had to Drive from Boston to kill the animal for her.
3 little girls, an elderly woman and my sister terrified.
I'm looking in the mirror, can't see how the police cowardice was my fault.

----------


## Dan40

> My sister on Cape cod encountered a coyote attempting to get into her home.
> Unafraid of the 2 dogs, 3 kids and the 2 adults in the home.
> It sat there on the porch for several hours.
> The police response to the 911 call was " why you calling us, improper use of 911 is a crime"
> Call animal control.
> The one animal control officer was on vacation, she called the police non emergency line. Was told to stop harassing the police!!!!
> I had to Drive from Boston to kill the animal for her.
> 3 little girls, an elderly woman and my sister terrified.
> I'm looking in the mirror, can't see how the police cowardice was my fault.


Keep looking.

----------


## 007

> The United Kingdom?
> 
> Crazy Brits?  Can't solve that problem for you.
> 
> Had a German cop in Hidleburg.  Asked him for directions.  He had a machine pistol hanging under his arm, a 9mm on his hip, a club and perhaps more weaponry.  He started to give me directions across town, then siad, you'll never find it, too comp[licated.  Looked in the car and said, make room, I'll show you.  Got in and got us across town.  Said Wiedersein and got himself back to his post.
> 
> Also German cops, Stayed in a small village at the end of the train route.  Got off the train from Oktoberfest, drunk as a skunk.  Hotel about 2 miles away.  Sat down on the curb.  Cops came along asked me what was up.  Told them to drunk to walk to hotel.  They said, "get in."  Figured we were going to lock up.  They dropped us at the hotel.  Cheeky Bastards!
> 
> Maybe you're ugly.  I'm a handsome fellow.


The cop was in Boston MA, outside Fenway park.
Shouldn't be in a bar in work clothes ?
The bar didn't mind.

One night, hooked up with a live one at JJ Foleys.
Cop approached and insisted she was with him, I left him to her, hooked up with her chubby sidekick.
We all headed, in the cops cruiser at 0300( 3am) to Daisy Buchanens on Newbury st.
Stayed there drinking with 20+ BPD officers in uniform, wearing weapons until 0830 the next morning.
How was I the cause of that?

----------


## 007

Police details.
A requirement in Boston if any construction work interferes with traffic or even sidewalks.
Charged at an hourly rate, 4 hour time blocks.

My company at one point was paying for forty hours of police detail.
One cop attended for 2 hours as we poured concrete.

Other companies often complained that state troopers on detail would park their cruiser and fall asleep, details are overtime for cops, and no show details are the norm.
Tell me , how I am responsible for this corruption?

----------


## 007

> Keep looking.


A Detroit cop murdered a 7 year old, got away with it twice, his peers cheered and gloated at the parents.
How is that my fault?

----------


## Dan40

> Police details.
> A requirement in Boston if any construction work interferes with traffic or even sidewalks.
> Charged at an hourly rate, 4 hour time blocks.
> 
> My company at one point was paying for forty hours of police detail.
> One cop attended for 2 hours as we poured concrete.
> 
> Other companies often complained that state troopers on detail would park their cruiser and fall asleep, details are overtime for cops, and no show details are the norm.
> Tell me , how I am responsible for this corruption?


Experienced cops can spot an asshole from 10 blocks away?

----------


## 007

> Experienced cops can spot an asshole from 10 blocks away?


So you support cops getting paid for shifts they no show for, but file the paperwork for?
That called corruption.

----------


## 007

> Experienced cops can spot an asshole from 10 blocks away?


But I'm paying them to ensure public safety?
In a police detail I'm paying directly.

----------


## Maximatic

> If I slapped my kid for biting me a cop would arrest me.
> If the cop got bitten by my kid and slapped him, it would be justified!!
> _Why is a cop worth more?_


Semi-Permeable Aristocracy

----------


## 007

Life for stealing a donut in California.

One year for the cold blooded execution of an innocent, compliant citizen laid face down in handcuffs.
A badge puts you above the law?

----------


## 007

Seems reasonable, hospitalized for Grief?
They ought to head down the funeral home, lots of upset people to beat at the funeral home!

----------


## 007

The first cop was professional.
What was with the guy ranting and cursing?
Didn't know the law either and attempted to steal private property!!

----------


## 007

She called the police to help, the cop body slammed her, beat her( oops tge camera just happened to be off at that point, but magically turned back on later) arrested for RESISTING ARREST?
Wait!!
What crime was she being arrested for?

Beaten some more and subjected to a gang sexual assault.
Cops hid the evidence for months.
Is this how we are to be policed?

----------


## DonGlock26

> In the several hundred interactions I have had with police in my many years on earth .


Sooner or later, the truth slips out. LOL!!!

----------


## Max Rockatansky

In a world composed of human beings, there are victims and victors.  People who believe in voluntaryism, no matter how noble the idea, will be victims.  This is why anarchist or voluntaryist societies don't last very long. 

http://voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduction.html



> It is a fact of human nature that the only person who can think with your brain is you. Neither can a person be compelled to do anything against his or her will, for each person is ultimately responsible for his or her own actions. Governments try to terrorize individuals into submitting to tyranny by grabbing their bodies as hostages and trying to destroy their spirits. This strategy is not successful against the person who harbors the Stoic attitude toward life, and who refuses to allow pain to disturb the equanimity of his or her mind, and the exercise of reason. A government might destroy one's body or property, but it cannot injure one's philosophy of life. - Furthermore, the voluntaryist rejects the use of political power because it can only be exercised by implicitly endorsing or using violence to accomplish one's ends. The power to do good to others is also the power to do them harm. Power to compel people, to control other people's lives, is what political power is all about. It violates all the basic principles of voluntaryism: might does not make right; the end never justifies the means; nor may one person coercively interfere in the life of another. Even the smallest amount of political power is dangerous. First, it reduces the capacity of at least some people to lead their own lives in their own way. Second, and more important from the voluntaryist point of view, is what it does to the person wielding the power: it corrupts that person's character.


Until humanity evolves to a point where the vast majority believe in the above, then they'll continue to do what our ancestors have done for millions of years; compete for limited resources even if it means wiping out opposing groups of fellow humans.

----------


## 007

> Sooner or later, the truth slips out. LOL!!!


What truth?
I've stated repeatedly that police are agressive, unprofessional and violent towards people for no reason.
You interact with police on a daily basis if you live in a city.
Stop and search for example, are you of the mind that all stop and searches are justified?
That clearly the target did something wrong, otherwise the police wouldn't have made the stop!!
Stop and search is basically a fishing expedition.
It assumes guilt, is therefore unconstitutional.

----------


## 007

Police violence toward a toddler.
The cops are repeatedly telling the guy he is under arrest, but not saying why.
Given the huge numbers of sex crimes committed by police, there is no way in hell I would hand my child over to a cop in a NAMBLA controlled city like New York.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> What truth?
> I've stated repeatedly that police are agressive, unprofessional and violent towards people for no reason.
> You interact with police on a daily basis if you live in a city.


Truth is the reality of a situation, event or thing.   Your "reality" of a police that are "agressive, unprofessional and violent towards people for no reason" isn't the truth.  In fact your own bias on the situation blinds you a bit to truth.

Yes, _some_ police are exactly as you say.  Yes, _some_ incidents happen exactly as you describe.  To assume *all* police are as you describe or that all incidents are as nefarious are you purport is wrong.

If a policeman is abusive and criminal, justice should be demanded.  If a police force is corrupt, as the LAPD has been in the past, then they too should be met with justice.  However, to use those as examples to totally disband police forces and let anarchy reign through vigilantism, either individually or in groups, is misguided at best.

It would be the equivalent of burning down an entire house because the front porch is rotted.

----------


## 007

> Truth is the reality of a situation, event or thing.   Your "reality" of a police that are "agressive, unprofessional and violent towards people for no reason" isn't the truth.  In fact your own bias on the situation blinds you a bit to truth.
> 
> Yes, _some_ police are exactly as you say.  Yes, _some_ incidents happen exactly as you describe.  To assume *all* police are as you describe or that all incidents are as nefarious are you purport is wrong.
> 
> If a policeman is abusive and criminal, justice should be demanded.  If a police force is corrupt, as the LAPD has been in the past, then they too should be met with justice.  However, to use those as examples to totally disband police forces and let anarchy reign through vigilantism, either individually or in groups, is misguided at best.
> 
> It would be the equivalent of burning down an entire house because the front porch is rotted.


Where have I said that the entire police structure needs to be torn down ever?
Police need to be accountable, that is all.
Holster sniffers insist that police can do no wrong, even when they do it's acceptable because firing a criminal cop, in their minds is the same as dismantling all law enforcement.
When I see a cop arrest another cop for initiating violence against a member of the public, I will feel that the tide of totalitarian authoritarianism is being reversed.
If I handcuffed a black man and executed him at a train station in sure that at the very least I would be violently body slammed to the ground, severely beaten, cuffed and arrested for cold blooded murder.
Why didn't that happen to The cop who executed oscar grant in cold blood?
His union is fighting to have him re instated!!

----------


## 007

Law abiding citizen terrorized by police.
Assaulted, lied to.
Listen to how many times they said "show your ID, prove your age and you can be on your way ".
He gave up his constitutional rights and they established his age in a second, then ran him through the system without suspicion.
That is criminal behaviour by the police.
If you are walking down the st with a bottle or a can, unopened in a bag, the reasonable assumption would be that it was legally purchased and proof of age had been established at point of sale.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Where have I said that the entire police structure needs to be torn down ever?
> Police need to be accountable, that is all.


I completely agree that all criminals, regardless of occupation, need to be held accountable.

Your obsessive hate for police is extreme.  You frequently disrupt and derail threads with this obsession such as you are doing here.  This thread is about the Libertarian principle of non-aggression yet you've posted *six* videos and other posts about incidents of police brutality.

Now, while you are free to do so, don't run and hide behind a sophomoric and pussified statement like "_Where have I said that the entire police structure needs to be torn down ever?  Police need to be accountable, that is all._"

----------


## DonGlock26

> What truth?
> I've stated repeatedly that police are agressive, unprofessional and violent towards people for no reason.
> You interact with police on a daily basis if you live in a city.
> Stop and search for example, are you of the mind that all stop and searches are justified?
> That clearly the target did something wrong, otherwise the police wouldn't have made the stop!!
> Stop and search is basically a fishing expedition.
> It assumes guilt, is therefore unconstitutional.


Sorry pal, normal sober adults don't have "hundreds" of negative encounters with law enforcement. 

100 break-ins? Did you live in a privy?

----------


## 007

> Sorry pal, normal sober adults don't have "hundreds" of negative encounters with law enforcement. 
> 
> 100 break-ins? Did you live in a privy?


They don't?
When you cross the St, cops direct you.
When driving, when going about your daily activities.
If a crime is committed, you call police, if you are the victim of a crime you call police.
All are interactions.
Most are negative.

I lived in a pleasant suburb, why would a criminal target a privy?
Their intent is to grab goods for profit.

But I guess it's always the victims fault.......

----------


## 007

Cops jump in without looking, go off at half cock and beat the wrong guy to death!!!
He wasn't even involved in the domestic!!

----------


## 007

> I completely agree that all criminals, regardless of occupation, need to be held accountable.
> 
> Your obsessive hate for police is extreme.  You frequently disrupt and derail threads with this obsession such as you are doing here.  This thread is about the Libertarian principle of non-aggression yet you've posted *six* videos and other posts about incidents of police brutality.
> 
> Now, while you are free to do so, don't run and hide behind a sophomoric and pussified statement like "_Where have I said that the entire police structure needs to be torn down ever?  Police need to be accountable, that is all._"


There is no hate for police.
In fact most of my social group are cops or firefighters.
I hold that cops should be held to a higher standard.
That's not hate.
Groveling to police and justifying "accidents " or " mistakes" only encourages more of the same.
A cop who has an  "accident" or makes a. "Mistake" should not be a cop.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> They don't?
> When you cross the St, cops direct you.


Not where I live.  The only cops I see are in cars and motorcycles.  The only time I've interacted with them in the past 21 years is 4 times when I was speeding (only ticketed once) and once when a Florida oak tree jumped out in front of my car.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> There is no hate for police.
> In fact most of my social group are cops or firefighters.


So all of your cop "friends" would have no problem with the dozens of posts you post depicting police as criminals.  

Dude, if all I did was post pictures of ugly, toothless British women, wouldn't you start to think I had a problem with British women and considered them all to be ugly?

----------


## 007

> Not where I live.  The only cops I see are in cars and motorcycles.  The only time I've interacted with them in the past 21 years is 4 times when I was speeding (only ticketed once) and once when a Florida oak tree jumped out in front of my car.


I walk through the city every day.
There's a 5'3" MBTA cop on Charles st most afternoons directing traffic/pedestrians.
He uses the usual hand signals at vehicles, but becomes laughable when he starts directing pedestrians.
He is like a drill sgt!!
Shouting;- "ADVANCE to the center of the street and HALT, await further instructions"!
If a pedestrian continues walking beyond the center he charges up, hand in the halt position, right in the face of a pedestrian shouting "CEASE AND DESIST FROM DISOBAYING LAWFULL ORDERS "!!!
The guy is a clown.
I walk 20 yards up the street and cross there, the temptation to mock him is too great!!
Haven't seen him this winter!!

----------


## 007

> So all of your cop "friends" would have no problem with the dozens of posts you post depicting police as criminals.  
> 
> Dude, if all I did was post pictures of ugly, toothless British women, wouldn't you start to think I had a problem with British women and considered them all to be ugly?


If they had a problem. They would be part of the problem.
It's often a subject of discussion.
Amongst other things.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> If they had a problem. They would be part of the problem.
> It's often a subject of discussion.
> Amongst other things.


I'm sure you tell them that every day, right?

----------


## 007

> I'm sure you tell them that every day, right?


Not every day, when it comes up.
I have a cousin with NYPD, he tells me about the quotas they have to fill, and the tricks they are taught to escalate a situation to enable an arrest.
local cops can't believe the stuff he tells them.

----------


## 007

As shown.
agressive approach, close to within inches to escalate the situation, the journalist is an expert in avoiding this escalation tactic.
end of the vid, the officer admits his intent is to intimidate.
are we policed by consent or by fear?

----------


## Dan40

> So you support cops getting paid for shifts they no show for, but file the paperwork for?
> That called corruption.


If it was my job site, they would not get paid.  Their conduct would be documented and an official report would be filed by my lawyers.

However, at the beginning of the job, the police would be made aware of the "rules."  The 'rules' simply being they would do their jobs as those jobs are required to be done, or there would be hell to pay.  The rules would be explained with witnesses.  Just as any paid worker is told what the job entails and what is acceptable and what is not.  It is called managing the job.  It is called managing your life.

AND,

Write this down so you remember it.

In every, no exceptions, every story of conflict.

There is the story told by the "victim."

And there is the story told by the "aggressor."

And there is the real, actual, story of what happened.

The real story CAN fall somewhere between the victim and aggressor's stories, but the real story can be outside the boundaries of either.

And the real story,,,,,,,,IS THE ONLY ONE THAT IS TRUE.

NO EXCEPTIONS.

----------


## 007

> If it was my job site, they would not get paid.  Their conduct would be documented and an official report would be filed by my lawyers.
> 
> However, at the beginning of the job, the police would be made aware of the "rules."  The 'rules' simply being they would do their jobs as those jobs are required to be done, or there would be hell to pay.  The rules would be explained with witnesses.  Just as any paid worker is told what the job entails and what is acceptable and what is not.  It is called managing the job.  It is called managing your life.
> 
> AND,
> 
> Write this down so you remember it.
> 
> In every, no exceptions, every story of conflict.
> ...


You would make DEMANDS of the police?
Yeah right!!
MR any critisism of the police is police hate!!

The method of policing needs to be changed.
Excessively violent policing causes a violent backlash against police.
The next video should clarify.

----------


## 007

Would overtly aggressive and oppressive policing have caused sufficient resentment among members of the public to allow them to record an assault on a police officer with a phone but not use that phone to call for help?
The chief is worried for his cops safety, but no mention of the publics safety from cops.
It's a two way street.

----------


## 007

Video didn't load on initial post!!

----------


## Dan40

> You would make DEMANDS of the police?
> Yeah right!!
> MR any critisism of the police is police hate!!
> 
> The method of policing needs to be changed.
> Excessively violent policing causes a violent backlash against police.
> The next video should clarify.


Show some of the billions per year of excellent police results and satisfied citizenry, instead of the SCANT few problems.

And see the Chaplin to help you with your whining.

----------

DonGlock26 (04-13-2014)

----------


## 007

http://www.bnd.com/2014/02/06/304305...es-latest.html
An absolute joy, this irresponsible scumbag should never get behind the wheel again !!
He murdered two kids, showed no remorse and after his third hearing made a half hearted apology( for his own gain, not out of real remorse)!!
He wants to drive his kids to school?
The uhls would love to drive their kids to school!!!

If a member of the public killed 2 kids whilst speeding and text driving, jail time would have been a given, and the Licence would never be reinstated.
Screw this guy and his scummy family.

----------


## Dan40

> http://www.bnd.com/2014/02/06/304305...es-latest.html
> An absolute joy, this irresponsible scumbag should never get behind the wheel again !!
> He murdered two kids, showed no remorse and after his third hearing made a half hearted apology( for his own gain, not out of real remorse)!!
> He wants to drive his kids to school?
> The uhls would love to drive their kids to school!!!
> 
> If a member of the public killed 2 kids whilst speeding and text driving, jail time would have been a given, and the Licence would never be reinstated.
> Screw this guy and his scummy family.


What I got from your link is that Mitchell's attorney was shocked that Mitchell did not get his license back.  "I've seen people with 3 or 4 DUI convictions get their license back."

WHERE IS YOUR RAGE ABOUT THAT?

That one cop shouldn't get his license back.

But how many drunks with 3 or 4 or more DUI's get their license back.

I was in traffic court for a speeding ticket , and a man was called up that had a more than 20 year history of DUI's, speeding, Stop signs, red lights, accident with bodily injury, with property damage. Driving with suspended license, leaving the scene multiple times.  The clerk must have read off 70 or 80 violations.  And the man had never spent a day in jail.

At least the judge that day had heard enough and sentenced the guy [he plead guilty] to 10 years in the State Pen.  When he heard the sentence, the man wanted to change his plea.  The judge said, "Take him away!"

That was good, but more than a little scary when my case had yet to be called.

----------


## 007

Are those DUI offenders sworn to protect?
If a DUI driver killed two kids whilst driving drunk, he would do time.
If a text driver killed 2 kids whilst text driving he too would do time and never drive again.
This guy abused his position. Broke laws he was sworn to uphold, showed arrogant disregard for the people's life's he was sworn to protect and got off lightly because he had a badge.
It happens all the time when cops murder innocents.
Remarley Graham.
Oscar Grant.
No one even cares that police can execute you and walk away to applause!!!

----------


## 007

> Show some of the billions per year of excellent police results and satisfied citizenry, instead of the SCANT few problems.
> 
> And see the Chaplin to help you with your whining.


Too many problems.
People grovel to police every day, cops now demand that the public grovel to them, kind of a perk of the job.
We have all met the cop who yells through your car window on a traffic stop;- "Call me Sir"!!

Best answer- " You first".

----------


## 007

Extreme agression, dishonesty and criminality by police.

----------


## Dan40

> Too many problems.
> People grovel to police every day, cops now demand that the public grovel to them, kind of a perk of the job.
> We have all met the cop who yells through your car window on a traffic stop;- "Call me Sir"!!
> 
> Best answer- " You first".


You exposed yourself again.
*"We have all met the cop who yells through your car window on a traffic stop;- "Call me Sir"!!
*

I've had many stops, NONE anything resembling that.

And "You first" is, pun intended, A COP OUT!

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Show some of the billions per year of excellent police results and satisfied citizenry, instead of the SCANT few problems.


There really aren't that many "excellent police results."  And there are myriad problems.

You are welcome to post your own examples of what you believe are excellent results. We'll continue to show the rise of the police state, which goes hand in hand with the rise of big government. It's hilarious to watch you incessantly rant and rave about big government, yet be worshipful as you subjugate yourself to it's enforcement arm

----------


## 007

Let's discuss this case.
forget that the victim was a sufferer of Downs syndrome.
A cop says stop, for whatever reason you dont( didn't hear, assumed he was talking to someone else), how in holy hell is it justified to use pepper spray and a baton to beat an innocent person to the ground?
the cops admit fault in this case because the kid had Downs( which does make me more upset ).
shouldnt the use of such brutal and potentially deadly methods against NON VIOLENT members of the public be a crime?
If you feel such extreme and unwarranted violence is acceptable then you have something seriously wrong with you.
imagine walking down the st and you see a blur of dark blue approaching from the side, you speed up to get away, look, see a huge raging cop charging at you, you stop, he violently smashes your head into a wall, puts you in a coma.
now think on, you committed no crime, yet such extreme and potentially deadly violence is ok?

your assertion that it never happened to you has no bearing, it implies that the victims of these extremely violent and potentially murderous attacks deserve it.

----------


## 007

Just because it never happened to you does not mean it never happens.
I have had state troopers in MA scream through my window during a car stop.
"Do you know why i stopped you"?

No.

"CAll ME SIR"!

you first!!

"CALL ME SIR OR I WILL BLAST YOU"!!
That one will be a laugh for many years.
He nearly had an apoplectic seizure!!

----------


## Dan40

> Just because it never happened to you does not mean it never happens.
> I have had state troopers in MA scream through my window during a car stop.
> "Do you know why i stopped you"?
> 
> No.
> 
> "CAll ME SIR"!
> 
> you first!!
> ...


Bullshit.  Childish, imaginary bullshit!

----------


## 007

> Bullshit.  Childish, imaginary bullshit!


Really, you need to brush up on the rules here you offensive little man.
All the evidence showing immense and potentially deadly violence deployed as a matter of routine by cops against non violent members of the public.
But you only respond to the anecdote.
You have seen hundreds of well evidenced posts showing these things happen hundreds of times every day
But it's bullshit?
Isn't it awfully dry with your head buried in the sand?
You approve of extreme and potentially deadly violence being deployed without good reason by police against innocents?

----------


## Dan40

> Really, you need to brush up on the rules here you offensive little man.
> All the evidence showing immense and potentially deadly violence deployed as a matter of routine by cops against non violent members of the public.
> But you only respond to the anecdote.
> You have seen hundreds of well evidenced posts showing these things happen hundreds of times every day
> But it's bullshit?
> Isn't it awfully dry with your head buried in the sand?
> You approve of extreme and potentially deadly violence being deployed without good reason by police against innocents?


I have extensive life experience.  I can detect a bullshitter when one is not so obvious as you.

----------


## 007

You answer to me!!!

Why will you not address any of these cases Dan?
You just prefer to hurl profanity laden abuse ?
Cops never demand "CALL ME SIR" or "you answer to me " 
Or spout "I am the law"
You like your head in the sand?

----------


## Trinnity

Stop making this so personal, 007. 
You don't need to insult and attack the other people you're debating.

----------


## 007

> Stop making this so personal, 007. 
> You don't need to insult and attack the other people you're debating.


Attack?
I'm subjected to profanity laced assault and abuse, respond with minor, I mean minor minuscule snark IN RESPONSE TO THE HORRIFIC ABUSE LADEN WITH PROFANITY, that he has piled upon me, yet somehow it is I who is ABUSIVE?

Wow!!

----------


## 007

> I have extensive life experience.  I can detect a bullshitter when one is not so obvious as you.


This horrendous attack ?
Fine by you?

----------


## 007

> Bullshit.  Childish, imaginary bullshit!


This too?

----------


## Dan40

> This too?


Well let me make it clear.  I do not believe a word of your claim that cops were SCREAMING through your window to call them SIR.

I am certain that is a complete figment of your imagination.

An intentionally made up story.

I believe that you have serious issues with truthfulness.

Those are my opinions based on extensive experience with people worldwide.  Experience far beyond yours.

Earlier, I summed up all of the above in a word.

Bullshit.

But since that bothered you, replace it with the new post.

----------


## Dan40

> This horrendous attack ?
> Fine by you?


Horrendous attack?

 :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## 007

> Show some of the billions per year of excellent police results and satisfied citizenrmy, instead of the SCANT few problems.
> 
> And see the Chaplin to help you with your whining.


Nothing personal in this either.....

----------


## Maximatic

> Liberals and wacko cop haters are all only to happy to lie.





> Lies of omission are lies just like lies of commission.
> But liars ALWAYS lie about lying.  So you doing so was guaranteed.





> Well let me make it clear.  I do not believe a word of your claim that cops were SCREAMING through your window to call them SIR.
> I am certain that is a complete figment of your imagination.
> An intentionally made up story.
> I believe that you have serious issues with truthfulness.
> Those are my opinions based on extensive experience with people worldwide.  Experience far beyond yours.
> Earlier, I summed up all of the above in a word.
> Bullshit.
> But since that bothered you, replace it with the new post.


I was told, recently, that I should post evidence before calling someone a liar. I don't agree that it's necessary to post the evidence first, but HAVING the evidence before leveling the accusation is definitely a good idea. And, here, you admit that you started calling someone a wacko liar based on no evidence, whatsoever, which seems to be in keeping with the trend of you being the first one to make it personal.




> I believe that you have serious issues with truthfulness.
> Those are my opinions based on extensive experience with people worldwide.





> I can detect a bullshitter when one is not so obvious as you.


This is your problem. You base your beliefs on feelings and intuition, which are also the result of opinions based on prior feelings and intuition. The result is a clusterfuck of a worldview based, not on reason and evidence, but feelings which are the result of other feelings.

----------

007 (04-14-2014)

----------


## Longshot

Good thread, @Axiomatic. 

I agree with you that, were the law to forbid the initiation of aggression, security agencies would be much more careful and circumspect, since they would be subject to the law themselves and legally liable for any harm they do to innocents.

----------



----------


## Maximatic

> Good thread, @Axiomatic. 
> 
> I agree with you that, were the law to forbid the initiation of aggression, security agencies would be much more careful and circumspect, since they would be subject to the law themselves and legally liable for any harm they do to innocents.


Hey thanks, @Longshot, maybe we can get the thread back on track now.

----------


## Longshot

> Hey thanks, @Longshot, maybe we can get the thread back on track now.


Well it just makes sense. If you hold someone accountable for the harms he causes to others, he will tend to restrain his behavior. A simple matter of incentives.

----------


## 007

The term reasonable force today means something completely different than 30 years ago.
Then it was the minimum force required to meet the force offered.
Today it meens getting the cuffs on, even if the force is deadly.
Like the old joke about the cop charged with assault, claimed he broke an arrestees skull whilst using reasonable force.
The judge clarified this by checking the details thus;-
"You broke his skull, how can you call that reasonable"?

Cop responds;-

"It takes a reasonable amount of force to break a skull your Grace"!

----------


## 007

Charging across a street and smashing a person bodily into a wall causing him to suffer injuries that leave him comatose would be excessive force, more so when it's the wrong person!!
Why people are angered when I suggest cops do strange and crazy things like THINK, COMMUNICATE and BE RESPECTFUL is very confusing.

----------


## 007

A cop who uses this level of force against a terrified member of the public should NOT be in uniform.
Probable cause to arrest should never involve the use of MURDEROUS force.
Shouting STOP at a person you are charging at will have the opposite effect.

How about, excuse me sir, we have a witness who has identified you as being involved in a crime, could you stop here whilst we investigate further.
Think, communicate, respect.

He accidentally charged with the full force of his huge 265 lb frame at this innocent man and smashed his terrified body into a wall?
It was nothing more than a deliberate and murderous assault.
If I was approached by a charging, raging cop in that manner, I would run too, it's a crime to defend yourself against such violence , when the crazed individual has a badge.
I'm a lot bigger than the victim here, not much smaller than the cop.
He should be out of a job.

----------


## Calypso Jones

How's the guy now?

----------


## 007

Apparently she initiated the attack, the dashcam just happened to miss that bit.

I've been in a few brawls in my time, younger days of course.
To cause those types of injury takes some effort.
Not exactly a measured response.

----------


## 007

> How's the guy now?


Life completely destroyed.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...harris17m.html

The cop is a thug and a criminal.
He should not be in uniform.

----------

Longshot (04-15-2014)

----------


## 007

I can only assume that the holster sniffers approve of such extreme violent policing methods and desire to be policed by crazed, raging violent psychopaths.

----------


## Dan40

> I was told, recently, that I should post evidence before calling someone a liar. I don't agree that it's necessary to post the evidence first, but HAVING the evidence before leveling the accusation is definitely a good idea. And, here, you admit that you started calling someone a wacko liar based on no evidence, whatsoever, which seems to be in keeping with the trend of you being the first one to make it personal.
> 
> 
> 
> This is your problem. You base your beliefs on feelings and intuition, which are also the result of opinions based on prior feelings and intuition. The result is a clusterfuck of a worldview based, not on reason and evidence, but feelings which are the result of other feelings.


The evidence, the proof, of my statements, can be readily found in the posts of  you raging idiots.  Idiots that childishly whine and rage about how they wish their fantasies were true.  Immature idiots that will not and cannot deal with the world as it is..  And dealing with the world as it is, is the only way any reforms will be accomplished.  Your fantasies are a waste of time, energy, and bandwidth.

But it is clear that you worship no accomplishment.  You are only interested in your constant useless whines.  Whining makes you feel good.  Doing the hard WORK to bring about change scares the shit out of you.

Is my well founded opinion clear now?

----------


## 007

Continue to hurl insults and abuse rather than discuss the topic?

AS for achievements, I achieved more before age 21 than you ever will.
Now off you go and whine to admin .

----------


## 007

Bag of groceries!!
The cop was clearly in fear for his life.
A potentially murderous assault, for what?

THIS IS THE NORM.

----------


## Dan40

> Continue to hurl insults and abuse rather than discuss the topic?
> 
> AS for achievements, I achieved more before age 21 than you ever will.
> Now off you go and whine to admin .


You couldn't wash my sweat socks.  Why would I whine to admin about a crying child?

It is too simple for your juvenile dysfunctional mind.

Yes there are some police abuses.  Thousands of them per years.  None are acceptable, but most are caused by authority paranoids like you.  But that does not make police abuse acceptable.  That their LIFE in on the line every minute they are on duty, makes it understandable, not acceptable, but understandable.

But you refuse to admit or acknowledge that compared to the thousands of abuses, there are BILLIONS of satisfactory, even pleasant encounters with police every year.

1 Billion, divided by 1000 = 1 Million.  For every abuse, there are a million good interactions.  But your FEAR of authority won't allow you to accept that.

I tell you of some stops by police that were trouble free.  You say MY experience does not count.  Then you claim that in your EVERY experience, the cops could not wait to begin beating on you.

I don't believe a word you post.

Here is an experience, you can discount it, I'll let other readers decide.

I was driving at midnight, out of state.  A PA DL and an OH plate on the car.  No registration, no insurance card. [I have been a scofflaw like you]  Driving in a hilly, curvy area @ 60mph.  A car in front of me doing the same, and a car behind doing the same.  We went that way with safe distance between the 3 cars for some miles.
Then we came out of the hills onto the flat.  A 4th, following car came around the 3rd car and turned on its police lights.  As he came around me, I slowed to let him get the leader.  But he waved me over to the side too.  And the 3rd car too.  So there are 3 cars on the shoulder and the cop was well down the road by the time he got stopped.  He gets out and starts walking our way.  The guy in front of me gets out .  I know that's wrong.  but the guy behind gets out and starts walking forward too.  So I get out too.  I'm between these 2 guys and I feel like a midget.  I'm 6'1" and these 2 tower over me. Each of them had cars full of family, little kids.  I'm alone.  As the cop approaches one of them opens with something like, "Hey you ignorant cocksucking son of a bitch, What the fuck are you stopping us for you dumb fuck?"  The other guy joins in in a like manner.

The cop says he clocked all 3 of us doing 60 in a 50 zone.  The 2 idiots go into a vile tirade about the impossibility of clocking 3 cars at once.  So far I haven't said a word.  The 2 go on and on, dredging up every curse they've ever heard.  Finally the cop, also a giant. [Like we were a basketball team with me as the point guard] looks at me and says, "what do you have to say?"  I said, "I thought the speed limit was 60."  He said, "Get in your car and leave."

As I pulled away, he had his book out and was writing as the other 2 were shaking their fists at him.

Throughout the encounter, his lips got a bit thin, but the cop never was anything but cordial.

----------


## 007

This woman was attacked, called police to her home, she was violently arrested( cops charge in), beaten at the jail, stripped and raped by police( the cop the her left, towards the end of the video, when both female rapists left, can clearly be seen with his hand inserted between the woman's buttocks , you can see it even though it is blurred out).
The police are currently suing the new station!!

----------


## 007

> You couldn't wash my sweat socks.  Why would I whine to admin about a crying child?
> 
> It is too simple for your juvenile dysfunctional mind.
> 
> Yes there are some police abuses.  Thousands of them per years.  None are acceptable, but most are caused by authority paranoids like you.  But that does not make police abuse acceptable.  That their LIFE in on the line every minute they are on duty, makes it understandable, not acceptable, but understandable.
> 
> But you refuse to admit or acknowledge that compared to the thousands of abuses, there are BILLIONS of satisfactory, even pleasant encounters with police every year.
> 
> 1 Billion, divided by 1000 = 1 Million.  For every abuse, there are a million good interactions.  But your FEAR of authority won't allow you to accept that.
> ...


Still with the vile abuse?
Where have I ever been a scofflaw?
You are lying through your teeth.
Everything you post is lies or attack, nothing cited, no link , no supporting evidence.
 95% of my posts have supporting evidence.
You never left your trailer park.

I achieved more before my 21st birthday than you did in your entire wasted , pointless life.
Go wash your own socks.

----------


## Dan40

> Still with the vile abuse?
> Where have I ever been a scofflaw?
> You are lying through your teeth.
> Everything you post is lies or attack, nothing cited, no link , no supporting evidence.
>  95% of my posts have supporting evidence.
> You never left your trailer park.
> 
> I achieved more before my 21st birthday than you did in your entire wasted , pointless life.
> Go wash your own socks.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

WOW are you screwed up!

Supporting PROOF, not evidence, YOUR quoted post.

Because you have posted many silly and obvious lies, you think you can cover your dishonesty by accusing me of lying.

 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

You've accomplished so very much???  More dishonesty.  Your attitude is clear to everyone on this forum.  And that attitude is the attitude of the pure life long loser.

But I will acknowledge your superior expertise in Trailer Park lore.  Since I have never lived a day in a tornado target, you know much more about trailer parks than I.  But that is about the full extent of your knowledge.  Except, evidently you know much more than ANYONE on how to piss cops off.  I'll let you assess the value of that "talent."

----------


## Maximatic

> The evidence, the proof, of my statements, can be readily found in the posts of  you raging idiots.  Idiots that childishly whine and rage about how they wish their fantasies were true.  Immature idiots that will not and cannot deal with the world as it is..  And dealing with the world as it is, is the only way any reforms will be accomplished.  Your fantasies are a waste of time, energy, and bandwidth.
> 
> But it is clear that you worship no accomplishment.  You are only interested in your constant useless whines.  Whining makes you feel good.  Doing the hard WORK to bring about change scares the shit out of you.
> 
> Is my well founded opinion clear now?


Your worthless opinion has always been clear, and based on nothing but faith and ignorance. I spend a lot more time talking about what is possible, *how* it is possible and _why_ it is possible and preferable than complaining about what is, which is a lot more than can be said in favor of the average forum poster, including you who spends most of his time ranting and raving at people who want to affect things for the better. Wroking to promote understanding and reason is not a waste of anything. Your idiotic, ignorant screeds _are_ a waste of time, energy and bandwidth.

----------


## Calypso Jones

Gentlemen...THE TOPIC, not the poster!!   THANK YOU.

----------


## 007

> WOW are you screwed up!
> 
> Supporting PROOF, not evidence, YOUR quoted post.
> 
> Because you have posted many silly and obvious lies, you think you can cover your dishonesty by accusing me of lying.
> 
> 
> 
> You've accomplished so very much???  More dishonesty.  Your attitude is clear to everyone on this forum.  And that attitude is the attitude of the pure life long loser.
> ...


So you can offer nothing to support your vile allegations?
I note you defend blindly and excuse all violent criminal behaviour by police.
You have no desire to see such abusive behavior and agression curbed.
Even when innocent people are put into a coma by your hero thugs!

----------


## 007

Oh and I indeed achieved more before age 21 than you ever will.

Retired at age 43!!!

Drives you nuts don't it!!!
Come on, give us some more of your infantile, childish loser smiley face baloney.
Throw some more profanity laden abuse too it's all you have.

Such a bitter angry posting style.

----------


## 007

> Gentlemen...THE TOPIC, not the poster!!   THANK YOU.

----------


## Dan40

> Oh and I indeed achieved more before age 21 than you ever will.
> 
> Retired at age 43!!!
> 
> Drives you nuts don't it!!!
> Come on, give us some more of your infantile, childish loser smiley face baloney.
> Throw some more profanity laden abuse too it's all you have.
> 
> Such a bitter angry posting style.


Tell all the lies you like.  They crack me up.  Everybody has met 100 like you.  All fantasy, not a word of reality.

Was that profane enough for you?

I remember the first one.  In the service this guy had 8 hours of karate each day, 6 hours of boxing, and 7 or 8 hours of some other martial arts each day since he was 8 years old.  And he had, [at home, surprise, surprise] a big engine Chevy with 2 4 barrels AND fuel injection.  Perhaps he is a relative of yours.

In any case, the military sent him home to stay with mommy.

----------


## Trinnity

> Oh and I indeed achieved more before age 21 than you ever will.
> 
> Retired at age 43!!!
> 
> Drives you nuts don't it!!!
> Come on, give us some more of your infantile, childish loser smiley face baloney.
> Throw some more profanity laden abuse too it's all you have.
> 
> *Such a bitter angry posting style.*


*Hypocrite.* 

We all get that you have a chip on your shoulder about bad cops. There are good cops, bad cops, and the majority - in between. What is your point? You've been on this rant for months. At this point you're just harassing the forum. 

*What is your objective here?*

----------

Max Rockatansky (04-15-2014)

----------


## 007

> *Hypocrite.* 
> 
> We all get that you have a chip on your shoulder about bad cops. There are good cops, bad cops, and the majority - in between. What is your point? You've been on this rant for months. At this point you're just harassing the forum. 
> 
> *What is your objective here?*


No, the holster sniffers insist( in between their angry vicious abuse ) that all cops are perfect , and that wavering from that idolization is cop hate or anarchistic.
Strange how you take one side and encourage the vile attacks of Dan and Don.
If I said the things they said, I would have been banned a long time ago.
Threatening sex crimes against my kids for example?

Wonder why the server is tied up at the moment.........

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> No, the holster sniffers insist( in between their angry vicious abuse ) that all cops are perfect , and that wavering from that idolization is cop hate or anarchistic.


Please provide evidence that anyone here thinks cops are perfect or that they idolize the police.  

OTOH, I can provide ready evidence that at least one member here has a strong obsession against police.  I know there has to be a background story to that hate but I do not know what it is.

----------


## Dan40

> Please provide evidence that anyone here thinks cops are perfect or that they idolize the police.  
> 
> OTOH, I can provide ready evidence that at least one member here has a strong obsession against police.  I know there has to be a background story to that hate but I do not know what it is.


I believe he has suffered VILE attacks by the police,,,,,,,,,EXACTLY like the VILE attacks he has suffered on this forum.  A reasonable question of his veracity, he considered to be a VILE attack.

A demented imagination and a desperate desire to be someone he will never be.  A seriously troubled young person.

That's my assessment, right or wrong.  A shame.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I believe he has suffered VILE attacks by the police,,,,,,,,,EXACTLY like the VILE attacks he has suffered on this forum.  A reasonable question of his veracity, he considered to be a VILE attack.
> 
> A demented imagination and a desperate desire to be someone he will never be.  A seriously troubled young person.
> 
> That's my assessment, right or wrong.  A shame.


It is a shame.  Agreed he's troubled and it has something to do with the police.  Maybe he'll tell one day when he moves past it.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Please provide evidence that anyone here thinks cops are perfect or that they idolize the police.  
> 
> OTOH, I can provide ready evidence that at least one member here has a strong obsession against police.  I know there has to be a background story to that hate but I do not know what it is.


He's claimed to have had hundreds of negative encounters with police officers and he appears to have abused alcohol according to his posts. The two probably go hand in hand. 

Regardless, he appears to have gone up to that troll bridge in the sky never to trouble us again.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> He's claimed to have had hundreds of negative encounters with police officers and he appears to have abused alcohol according to his posts. *The two probably go hand in hand.* 
> 
> Regardless, he appears to have gone up to that troll bridge in the sky never to trouble us again.


Agreed alcohol abuse, specifically public drunkenness, and "hundreds" of police encounters would certainly go hand in hand.

----------


## Maximatic

> He's claimed to have had hundreds of negative encounters with police officers and he appears to have abused alcohol according to his posts. The two probably go hand in hand. 
> 
> Regardless, he appears to have gone up to that troll bridge in the sky never to trouble us again.


I don't see the part where he said he had hundreds of encounters with cops. Where is it?

----------

