INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: sg1008 on June 04, 2013, 03:23:25 PM
-
(I bet RageBoulevard will like this one)
Indiana legalizes shooting cops
(http://rt.com/files/usa/news/indiana-shooting-law-state-591/reutersvincent-west.si.jpg)
Hold onto your holsters, folks: shooting a cop dead is now legal in the state of Indiana.
Governor Mitch Daniels, a Republican, has authorized changes to a 2006 legislation that legalizes the use of deadly force on a public servant — including an officer of the law — in cases of “unlawful intrusion.” Proponents of both the Second and Fourth Amendments — those that allow for the ownership of firearms and the security against unlawful searches, respectively — are celebrating the update by saying it ensures that residents are protected from authorities that abuse the powers of the badge.
Others, however, fear that the alleged threat of a police state emergence will be replaced by an all-out warzone in Indiana.
Under the latest changes of the so-called Castle Doctrine, state lawmakers agree “people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime.” Rather than excluding officers of the law, however, any public servant is now subject to be met with deadly force if they unlawfully enter private property without clear justification.
“In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant,” reads the legislation.
Although critics have been quick to condemn the law for opening the door for assaults on police officers, supporters say that it is necessary to implement the ideals brought by America’s forefathers. Especially, argue some, since the Indiana Supreme Court almost eliminated the Fourth Amendment entirely last year. During the 2011 case of Barnes v. State of Indiana, the court ruled that a man who assaulted an officer dispatched to his house had broken the law before there was “no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” In turn, the National Rifle Association lobbied for an amendment to the Castle Doctrine to ensure that residents were protected from officers that abuse the law to grant themselves entry into private space.
“There are bad legislators,” the law’s author, State Senator R. Michael Young (R) tells Bloomberg News. “There are bad clergy, bad doctors, bad teachers, and it’s these officers that we’re concerned about that when they act outside their scope and duty that the individual ought to have a right to protect themselves.”
Governor Daniels agrees with the senator in a statement offered through his office, and notes that the law is only being established to cover rare incidents of police abuse that can escape the system without reprimand for officers or other persons that break the law to gain entry.
“In the real world, there will almost never be a situation in which these extremely narrow conditions are met,” Daniels says. “This law is not an invitation to use violence or force against law enforcement officers.”
Officers in Indiana aren’t necessarily on the same page, though. “If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he’s going to say, ‘Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,’” Sergeant Joseph Hubbard tells Bloomberg. “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.”
“It’s just a recipe for disaster,” Indiana State Fraternal Order of Police President Tim Downs adds. “It just puts a bounty on our heads.”
http://rt.com/usa/indiana-shooting-law-state-591/ (http://rt.com/usa/indiana-shooting-law-state-591/)
-
Police have bought this on themselves.
-
*bumpity-bump-bump*
-
Police have bought this on themselves.
Yes they have and the fact that they don't see how shows just how out of touch they are
-
Three reasons people become cops:
1. They want to serve their fellow man. Altruistic reasons
2. They have control issues
3. They want easy access to corruption.
Less and less it is for altruistic reasons.
-
Three reasons people become cops:
1. They want to serve their fellow man. Altruistic reasons
2. They have control issues
3. They want easy access to corruption.
Less and less it is for altruistic reasons.
Alturistic people tend to lean towards doctors and nurses and such occupations. Reading for old people :I
-
Land of the free and home of the brave is now becoming the excuse of the stupid.
-
Land of the free and home of the brave is now becoming the excuse of the stupid.
Why? Cops are not God. They deserve to be shot if they abuse their power. Here we have this blind belief in authority again.
-
Three reasons people become cops:
1. They want to serve their fellow man. Altruistic reasons
2. They have control issues
3. They want easy access to corruption.
Less and less it is for altruistic reasons.
I guess that 5% are altruistic to begin with but most of those are forced away by their "colleagues" or leave voluntarily when they see how much shit other cops do.
-
Just look at Dorner.
-
Just look at Dorner.
Dorner was a hero, at least for shooting his "colleagues" :viking:
-
Land of the free and home of the brave is now becoming the excuse of the stupid.
Why? Cops are not God. They deserve to be shot if they abuse their power. Here we have this blind belief in authority again.
It's interesting how you always start from the assumption that cops will abuse their power.
/shrugs
-
Land of the free and home of the brave is now becoming the excuse of the stupid.
Why? Cops are not God. They deserve to be shot if they abuse their power. Here we have this blind belief in authority again.
It's interesting how you always start from the assumption that cops will abuse their power.
/shrugs
Except for the 5% or so idealists they become cops to be able to do such things and get away with it.
Some Swedish cop spoke out in radio or TV some years ago how cops here always protect each other even if it means to lie in court etc.
But of course that's unpleasant facts.
-
Which of course means that they must all be shot. ::)
So many things wrong with your last few replies that I really can't be bothered to continue this little exchange. We've done it a couple of times and it never leads anywhere. I am extremely unlikely to agree with you because you live in the land of anarchistic make-believe, with about as much substance as a Steven Seagal movie but with a far smaller budget. And I never enjoyed the movies in the first place.
-
Which of course means that they must all be shot. ::)
So it's OK that they lie, most of them, after committing crimes themselves, sometimes killing unarmed people or putting innocent people to jail? They shouldn't be punished for it?
So many things wrong with your last few replies that I really can't be bothered to continue this little exchange. We've done it a couple of times and it never leads anywhere. I am extremely unlikely to agree with you because you live in the land of anarchistic make-believe, with about as much substance as a Steven Seagal movie but with a far smaller budget. And I never enjoyed the movies in the first place.
Oh, you resort to ad hominem again. How unusual. That just shows how much facts are unpleasant.
-
:LMAO:
-
:LMAO:
Really, really lame.
I ask again: what should be done to cops killing unarmed people or testifying falsely in court to put innocent people in jail? Should they get a medal?
It is a surprisingly sound law that you may defend yourself immediately against the power-abuse of the cops.
-
Just my opinion here, but this doesn't sound like bad legislation at all. While I do think there are a lot of very good police out there
There are just as many bad ones. people need the right to be able to do as they please to protect themselves from everybody. including themselves. :laugh:
I don't really like the notion of just because a guy or girl is a cop I must atomatically give them respect, or think they mean well.
That to me is flawed logic
-
Just my opinion here, but this doesn't sound like bad legislation at all. While I do think there are a lot of very good police out there
There are just as many bad ones. people need the right to be able to do as they please to protect themselves from everybody. including themselves. :laugh:
:agreed:
I don't really like the notion of just because a guy or girl is a cop I must atomatically give them respect, or think they mean well.
That to me is flawed logic
It is absolutely sick that they should have "respect" just because they are cops.
-
Which of course means that they must all be shot. ::)
So many things wrong with your last few replies that I really can't be bothered to continue this little exchange. We've done it a couple of times and it never leads anywhere. I am extremely unlikely to agree with you because you live in the land of anarchistic make-believe, with about as much substance as a Steven Seagal movie but with a far smaller budget. And I never enjoyed the movies in the first place.
pow!
Straight to the Kuiper Belt.
-
Well, maybe flaming but not good arguing.
He can never be "bothered to argue" when one questions status quo. Has he ever defended the state with an argument other than "there is no other way"?
But there is no proof for that, other than that states have existed for 6000 years and anarchies have never been able to co-exist with states for a longer period. That doesn't prove a thing.
-
Do you seriously expect me to have this discussion with you, considering the numerous times we've had similar discussions without ever being even close to agreeing on anything? Really?
You advocate a world where anyone in authority is fair game to any nutter under the pretence of anything from self-defence to personal freedoms, perceived slights and general paranoia, simply because they are in that position. It is far removed from everything I believe in. In fact, it is far removed from anything I consider sane, reasonable or even human.
I presume you are familiar with the Swedish term "rättshaverist". It's the most charitable light I can view your comments in but nowhere near enough to warrant any kind of discussion, especially when all of our previous attempts have been less than satisfactory.
-
Explain why there should be authorities in the first place. Why should anyone obey anyone else, as long as they are minding their own business?
-
What part of my post did you not understand?
-
:popcorn:
-
What part of my post did you not understand?
You never explained anything, because your only argument is that "this is the way it has been the last 6000 years". That's all. You could "argue" for slavery, rape within the marriage, racism, homophobia, pennalism etc with that "argument" too.
-
Explain why there should be authorities in the first place. Why should anyone obey anyone else, as long as they are minding their own business?
On second thought, I'll bite: if you really mean what you are saying, then really start minding your own business. Refuse the dole and be your own man. Tell them you are no longer part of the system. Stop using the roads and cancel any doctor's appointments. Bid farewell to the nerdy girl and take your caffeine withdrawal like a man. Throw away the mobile and the computer, get rid of the internet and if you still have a TV set, get rid of it, too. Cut the power lines and get your water from the lake. Hell, move out from your home and live under the stars.
Yes, you can stop being part of the oppressive society, you can do it now!
-
On second thought, I'll bite: if you really mean what you are saying, then really start minding your own business. Refuse the dole and be your own man. Tell them you are no longer part of the system. Stop using the roads and cancel any doctor's appointments. Bid farewell to the nerdy girl and take your caffeine withdrawal like a man. Throw away the mobile and the computer, get rid of the internet and if you still have a TV set, get rid of it, too. Cut the power lines and get your water from the lake. Hell, move out from your home and live under the stars.
Yes, you can stop being part of the oppressive society, you can do it now!
Dis Reply. :plus: :laugh:
-
Explain why there should be authorities in the first place. Why should anyone obey anyone else, as long as they are minding their own business?
On second thought, I'll bite: if you really mean what you are saying, then really start minding your own business. Refuse the dole and be your own man. Tell them you are no longer part of the system. Stop using the roads and cancel any doctor's appointments. Bid farewell to the nerdy girl and take your caffeine withdrawal like a man. Throw away the mobile and the computer, get rid of the internet and if you still have a TV set, get rid of it, too. Cut the power lines and get your water from the lake. Hell, move out from your home and live under the stars.
Yes, you can stop being part of the oppressive society, you can do it now!
In fact, I can't. Even if I get rid of all those things, and even if I somehow manage to get me my own farm where I can grow my own food, I will not be left alone, which you perfectly well know.
-
Well, start small. Refuse the money from your oppressors. That you can do.
-
I have read about people who have tried living outside sociatys rules. they were quite miserable, in the process.
I'd rather play da game. and have all options available to me, like shooting cops and even myself if need be, :laugh:
-
The money is not from the oppressor, the money is from honest, working Swedes like my parents and my brother. In fact, the oppressors also get their money from the people.
The State versus the Highwayman - Lysander Spooner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewtA3qcm3fo#ws)
-
So the check's got your parents' name on? Right.
-
You're so lame. You must resort to ad hominem because you have no real arguments.
Some months ago I met a guy from a Swedish board. He is an ex military guy and has been to war, a tough guy in real life and not someone being the king of his own internet board. I told him that I have AS and live on disability. He didn't find anything wrong with that. The opinion of someone like that is worth 1000 times more than yours.
-
Every generation the hands of the cop are tied even more with the the potential of lawsuits and accusations of police brutality. It never fails that one cop that oversteps his bounds ruins it for everybody and causes public backlash. Over time this has lead to many citizens hating cops and consequently cops start viewing the public as their enemy after a few years on the job. Not all cops are evil corruption mongers, but good cops are ignored because of the actions of the few bad links in the chain that are the reason laws like this are praised by certain elements of the general public. In the 1960's, it was perfectly acceptable to beat the shit out of a guy with your baton if he hit his wife, now you have to put him in the prison system where he meets real criminals and becomes one himself. Which is better, teaching a wife beater a lesson with the business end of your baton and never having a problem with him again or putting him in prison where he is trained in the ways of the common criminal and consequently becomes a chronic problem?
-
Neither. The wife should leave him, or better: not being together with an abusive man in the first place.
-
Neither. The wife should leave him, or better: not being together with an abusive man in the first place.
What if it was a first offense and he had never shown any signs of being abusive before?
-
To me, in England it is a totally bizarre concept to shoot people legally anyway. Of all the people to shoot, then shooting cops seems a worthy passtime. Correction - shooting corrupt cops.
Cops who flout the law are lower than a snakes belly. :police:
-
Neither. The wife should leave him, or better: not being together with an abusive man in the first place.
What if it was a first offense and he had never shown any signs of being abusive before?
That's probably very rare. If someone is able to beat up his wife there were probably some signs to begin with in most cases.
-
To me, in England it is a totally bizarre concept to shoot people legally anyway. Of all the people to shoot, then shooting cops seems a worthy passtime. Correction - shooting corrupt cops.
Cops who flout the law are lower than a snakes belly. :police:
:agreed:
PER BERGERSEN - Knut (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWeplYgLtWA#)
-
Every generation the hands of the cop are tied even more with the the potential of lawsuits and accusations of police brutality. It never fails that one cop that oversteps his bounds ruins it for everybody and causes public backlash. Over time this has lead to many citizens hating cops and consequently cops start viewing the public as their enemy after a few years on the job. Not all cops are evil corruption mongers, but good cops are ignored because of the actions of the few bad links in the chain that are the reason laws like this are praised by certain elements of the general public. In the 1960's, it was perfectly acceptable to beat the shit out of a guy with your baton if he hit his wife, now you have to put him in the prison system where he meets real criminals and becomes one himself. Which is better, teaching a wife beater a lesson with the business end of your baton and never having a problem with him again or putting him in prison where he is trained in the ways of the common criminal and consequently becomes a chronic problem?
Only it is not a few bad cops it is a culture
-
Every generation the hands of the cop are tied even more with the the potential of lawsuits and accusations of police brutality. It never fails that one cop that oversteps his bounds ruins it for everybody and causes public backlash. Over time this has lead to many citizens hating cops and consequently cops start viewing the public as their enemy after a few years on the job. Not all cops are evil corruption mongers, but good cops are ignored because of the actions of the few bad links in the chain that are the reason laws like this are praised by certain elements of the general public. In the 1960's, it was perfectly acceptable to beat the shit out of a guy with your baton if he hit his wife, now you have to put him in the prison system where he meets real criminals and becomes one himself. Which is better, teaching a wife beater a lesson with the business end of your baton and never having a problem with him again or putting him in prison where he is trained in the ways of the common criminal and consequently becomes a chronic problem?
Only it is not a few bad cops it is a culture
Exactly.
-
Every generation the hands of the cop are tied even more with the the potential of lawsuits and accusations of police brutality. It never fails that one cop that oversteps his bounds ruins it for everybody and causes public backlash. Over time this has lead to many citizens hating cops and consequently cops start viewing the public as their enemy after a few years on the job. Not all cops are evil corruption mongers, but good cops are ignored because of the actions of the few bad links in the chain that are the reason laws like this are praised by certain elements of the general public. In the 1960's, it was perfectly acceptable to beat the shit out of a guy with your baton if he hit his wife, now you have to put him in the prison system where he meets real criminals and becomes one himself. Which is better, teaching a wife beater a lesson with the business end of your baton and never having a problem with him again or putting him in prison where he is trained in the ways of the common criminal and consequently becomes a chronic problem?
Only it is not a few bad cops it is a culture
Says who?
-
This Swedish cop admits that he and his colleagues committed crimes several hundred times while on duty. And in most countries the cops are worse than in Sweden: http://www.dn.se/Pages/Article.aspx?id=637397&epslanguage=sv (http://www.dn.se/Pages/Article.aspx?id=637397&epslanguage=sv)
A whole section on the same theme: http://www.dn.se/stories/stories-insidan/storyarkiv-serier/poliskultur/ (http://www.dn.se/stories/stories-insidan/storyarkiv-serier/poliskultur/)
-
Every generation the hands of the cop are tied even more with the the potential of lawsuits and accusations of police brutality. It never fails that one cop that oversteps his bounds ruins it for everybody and causes public backlash. Over time this has lead to many citizens hating cops and consequently cops start viewing the public as their enemy after a few years on the job. Not all cops are evil corruption mongers, but good cops are ignored because of the actions of the few bad links in the chain that are the reason laws like this are praised by certain elements of the general public. In the 1960's, it was perfectly acceptable to beat the shit out of a guy with your baton if he hit his wife, now you have to put him in the prison system where he meets real criminals and becomes one himself. Which is better, teaching a wife beater a lesson with the business end of your baton and never having a problem with him again or putting him in prison where he is trained in the ways of the common criminal and consequently becomes a chronic problem?
Only it is not a few bad cops it is a culture
Says who?
You aren't serious are you?
-
Every generation the hands of the cop are tied even more with the the potential of lawsuits and accusations of police brutality. It never fails that one cop that oversteps his bounds ruins it for everybody and causes public backlash. Over time this has lead to many citizens hating cops and consequently cops start viewing the public as their enemy after a few years on the job. Not all cops are evil corruption mongers, but good cops are ignored because of the actions of the few bad links in the chain that are the reason laws like this are praised by certain elements of the general public. In the 1960's, it was perfectly acceptable to beat the shit out of a guy with your baton if he hit his wife, now you have to put him in the prison system where he meets real criminals and becomes one himself. Which is better, teaching a wife beater a lesson with the business end of your baton and never having a problem with him again or putting him in prison where he is trained in the ways of the common criminal and consequently becomes a chronic problem?
Only it is not a few bad cops it is a culture
i think cops are better than they used to be. Easy access to corruption was commonplace. Now, they have to really try hard.
I can see how being a cop, on the job, one quickly learns the us versus them mentality. Imagine the element of society that they deal with on a daily basis. I bet they begin to think that all people are criminals.
-
Every generation the hands of the cop are tied even more with the the potential of lawsuits and accusations of police brutality. It never fails that one cop that oversteps his bounds ruins it for everybody and causes public backlash. Over time this has lead to many citizens hating cops and consequently cops start viewing the public as their enemy after a few years on the job. Not all cops are evil corruption mongers, but good cops are ignored because of the actions of the few bad links in the chain that are the reason laws like this are praised by certain elements of the general public. In the 1960's, it was perfectly acceptable to beat the shit out of a guy with your baton if he hit his wife, now you have to put him in the prison system where he meets real criminals and becomes one himself. Which is better, teaching a wife beater a lesson with the business end of your baton and never having a problem with him again or putting him in prison where he is trained in the ways of the common criminal and consequently becomes a chronic problem?
Only it is not a few bad cops it is a culture
Says who?
No one "says" it to make it true. It is based on observations and statistics, along with qualitative information, and whistleblowers.
-
I can see how being a cop, on the job, one quickly learns the us versus them mentality. Imagine the element of society that they deal with on a daily basis. I bet they begin to think that all people are criminals.
True. but this is why being a cop is fundamentally flawed. If they cannot let there emotions dictate how they preform on the job then maybe they should play in the NBA. otherwise, I understand its a necessary evil to have policemen around.
I love living in society, in the past I haven't but that's because I didn't know how too play the game that everyone else seems to be playing. now though, even though my game is sloppy I still enjoy playing it. it's fun! :laugh:
-
You're so lame. You must resort to ad hominem because you have no real arguments.
Some months ago I met a guy from a Swedish board. He is an ex military guy and has been to war, a tough guy in real life and not someone being the king of his own internet board. I told him that I have AS and live on disability. He didn't find anything wrong with that. The opinion of someone like that is worth 1000 times more than yours.
Relevance? I don't find anything wrong with that either, Lit, and yet I'm one of the people who ultimately pay for it. I'm simply pointing out your hypocrisy.
-
Tbh, I don't understand why we sometimes still get involved in these discussions. We won't ever see these things eye to eye. There's nothing either could say to convince the other and I bet you're as frustrated as I am when reading the other's reply.
So why do we?
-
Tbh, I don't understand why we sometimes still get involved in these discussions. We won't ever see these things eye to eye. There's nothing either could say to convince the other and I bet you're as frustrated as I am when reading the other's reply.
So why do we?
you do it for me.
I like to hear all sides. Simple food for thought.
The point is, you may convince someone reading the debate. Or at least teach them to be less closed minded about their current beliefs.
-
Tbh, I don't understand why we sometimes still get involved in these discussions. We won't ever see these things eye to eye. There's nothing either could say to convince the other and I bet you're as frustrated as I am when reading the other's reply.
So why do we?
you do it for me.
I like to hear all sides. Simple food for thought.
The point is, you may convince someone reading the debate. Or at least teach them to be less closed minded about their current beliefs.
Sure, but I'm talking about Lit and me specifically. He and I won't ever agree, it's like banging my head against the wall.
But don't get me wrong. Despite all this, I like him.