Let's talk cops

[IH8PunkRok]

They do have not should or shouldn't have and it is just your opinion, a fucked up completely retarded opinion at that.

ok you are going to make me do this

Freedom of Religion: A child's religion is normally dictated by the parents and either kept or renounced once an adult

Freedom of Speech: Children cannot say certain words or talk about certain subjects as it is deemed inappropriate by society

Freedom of the Press: They pretty much get this one as long as parents allow them

Freedom of Assembly: They may have it but how can they get to a meeting without their parents?

Freedom of Petition: the government does not recognize a child

Right to Bear Arms: no

No Quartering: no house of their own so no

Equal Justice: in fact normally "preferred" justice

Right to Private Property: most things kids have are actually purchased and owned by their parents

None of this is my opinion

[Broke_Audio_Addict]

Yes it is your opinion and all of it is wrong.

[Broke_Audio_Addict]

Sorry your parents raised you to be a sheep instead of thinking for yourself.

[IH8PunkRok]

Sorry your parents raised you to be a sheep instead of thinking for yourself.

is that why I made this thread? Man you sure nailed me

[ROLEXrifleman]

much more appropriate for me than the popcorn eating gif.

Thanks guys!

[Jhunt94]

I feel bad that I put fuel on the fire, but if children have all of the rights that Broke is saying then why when something happens to them then the parents are held accountable for the children's actions. If children were to have all of those rights and expected to be able to make their own choices, then they should be held accountable for them.

[bbeljefe]

There are a couple of different perspectives from which to approach the topic of policing in general and specifically, things such as checkpoints (of any kind). Those perspectives are utilitarian and moral. Personally, I reject the former and focus on the latter with pretty much everything in life... not just police.

First I'll define morality so that others can understand where I'm coming from. Morality must be universal, lest it be reduced to mere opinion. Ergo, moral rules must be universal. This means that they must apply to all people at all times and in all places. For instance, if it is wrong for me to kill you then it is also wrong for you to kill me. Likewise, if it is wrong for me to take your property then it is also wrong for you to take mine... or Sally's or Joe's or anyone else's. If we make an exception to the rule "don't steal" then that rule can no longer be considered a moral rule, as it doesn't apply to all people at all times in all places. That exception makes the moral rule an opinion or, perhaps more apropos, a bigotry. The reason I say bigotry is that, by definition, bigotries are arbitrary and unjustified opinions about something or someone. And I think we can all agree that what's wrong for one person must also be wrong for the next... although I know there are many who will agree with me here and in the next breath, justify bigotry when talking about the state or parents. This is to be expected but I won't elaborate at this point.

With all that out the way, before we can argue whether or not police checkpoints are justified, we must first find out whether or not police are justified. In case you haven't guessed, my argument is that they are not, and here's why.... When a person becomes a cop, he or she makes a promise to enforce laws. Laws are, in their most basic of description, the opinions of some people which are written down. They're basically just words written on paper. In some instances, those words written on paper can be moral rules and in others (the overwhelming majority) they're just bigotries.

For example, the prohibitions on murder, rape and theft can be considered moral rules and as such, have been written down on paper in every human society for as long as humans have been writing things down. We all know that killing, stealing and raping are egregious violations of the most basic of "rights" we humans claim, which are our property rights. We all own our bodies and we all own that which we produce with them. Thus, to take or molest any of that property is a violation. I would hope no one disagrees with me here but in case you do, please explain your position so I can understand it.

But let's look at the other 99.9% of laws. What about the prohibition on certain substances? If you own your own body, who has the right to tell you what you can and cannot put in it? What if I decide to drink some gasoline? Have I harmed you in doing so? Have I violated any of your property rights? What if I want to drink raw milk? Am I allowed to purchase that milk from a farmer? Well... no, I'm not. I'm allowed to drink it (for now) but if I don't own a cow, I can't buy it from a man who does own a cow and who wants to sell it to me because, doing so is against the law in most, if not all states in the US. Think about that for a moment. That's a law. That's basically some small minority of people deciding for everyone what they can and cannot buy, sell or consume. There's no moral implication in the action of drinking, selling or buying raw milk any more or less so than there is from buying, selling or consuming marijuana, cocaine, whiskey or any other substance for that matter... whether it be organic or chemical in its makeup.

So here's the moral problem with police.... every man or woman who becomes a cop agrees to enforce words written on paper, whether those words are agreed upon by a minority or a majority and, most importantly, whether or not those words written on paper are fundamentally moral or immoral. And since the plurality of laws are immoral, it's no stretch of the imagination to argue that cops are fundamentally immoral since they don't appear to have any compunction toward inflicting these laws on the innocent. That's not to say that all cops are fundamentally bad people either. After all, we don't blame an 18th century doctor for not prescribing penicillin for an infection because 18th century doctors didn't know about the drug. Likewise (and sadly), most cops don't know that what they're doing is immoral. To be sure, there are a lot of them who do know that some of what they do is immoral and in those cases it is safe to say they're immoral people but generally speaking, not too many people understand the moral arguments against the state and necessarily, police.

In the end, we all have the right of self defense none of us have the right to inflict our own personal opinions or the opinions of others on other people.... even if we wear a blue costume with a shiny badge pinned to our chest. In simple terms, a man who does not have the moral right to throw you in a cage for doing something he doesn't like does not all of a sudden have that moral right just because he changes cloths or just because some other people want him to.

Now on to the utilitarian argument and a few fun facts about cops and what they do.

First of all, being a cop is not so dangerous as some would like you believe. Statistically (and according to the bureau of labor statistics), being in law enforcement is not even among the top ten most dangerous jobs. Moreover, 2013 saw the fewest number of leo's killed in the past six decades and the fewest number killed by firearm in the past 126 years. So on the contrary... being a cop has become pretty damned safe. Not to mention, cops enjoy early retirement, pay that's well above individuals of similarly low skill and, it's right next to impossible to be fired once you become a cop.... even if you murder. Try being a construction laborer (the tenth most dangerous job) who murders someone and see if you get a paid vacation.

Cops are also not the smartest bunch of people around. In fact, most departments have either an explicit or implicit policy against hiring individuals who are of above average intelligence. Matter of fact, several departments have been sued for refusing to hire people because their IQ test scores were too high. So, here we have a group of people whose intelligence is at or below the average and these people carry deadly weapons and are expected to understand and enforce thousands of very complicated rules that even the smartest people among us have to argue about in courtrooms every day. Moreover, the rates of divorce, domestic violence and child abuse are remarkably higher among cops than they are among "civilians". I put that in quotes because ... civilians. Kind of appropriate label, don't you think?

Now let's turn the focus away from cops and place it on what they do. Take for instance the historical and present prohibitions on substances. We're all acutely aware of what a disaster alcohol prohibition was and I think most understand that drug prohibition is at least as disastrous, if not much more so. It's also a fact that the least policed societies in history have also been the safest. For instance, the US is home to 4% of the world's population but also home to 25% of the world's prison population. Likewise, the US one of the most heavily policed states in the world. Those of us who live here are subjected to thousands more laws than anyone else on the planet... even the most authoritarian dictatorships pale in comparison when one looks at the sheer number of laws on the books. Of course, we certainly don't have laws that allow cops to kill those who violate them on sight but that doesn't mean that doesn't happen. Sadly, it happens every single day somewhere in the US. People are routinely beaten, tazered and killed when they encounter cops and all too often the victims of police violence are completely unarmed. And let's not even talk about the number of pets US cops slaughter each day. How many pizza delivery men or even mailmen do you hear about who summarily shoot and kill barking dogs? You guessed it... almost none. Yet almost every day there is a news story of cops doing just that. And make no mistake... the news does not catch every instance and report on it. Contrast that with countries whose police don't carry weapons or who are held accountable for what they do. Violent crime rates are much lower in these countries and the instances of cops killing citizens are almost unheard of. Likewise, in the few countries where drugs are either legal or largely decriminalized, violent crime and prison rates are much lower. And even the cases of drug addiction are lower.

As for the topic of the OP, DUI checkpoints do not make us safer in any way. They're dangerous for both cops and those who're stopped and the instances of legitimate arrest of intoxicated drivers is, iirc, less than 1% of those stopped. Now, they certainly generate a ton of revenue for the state and since that's all they're really supposed to do, I don't see them going away any time soon. But even if they did take more drunken drivers off the street, what can we do about those who drive angry or upset? It's a fact that our brain chemistry changes drastically when we're upset or angry and, like the changes consumed substances make, that causes us to become less capable of safely operating a motor vehicle. So what do we do about that? Do we make it illegal for people to drive angry? If so, how do we determine who is too mad or sad to drive? Who gets to be the judge? Is there some form of test that can be applied on the side of the road? Of course there isn't. And despite what the cops argue, there is NO roadside test to objectively determine whether or not a person is impaired by alcohol. Breathalyzer tests can tell us a percentage of blood alcohol content but that doesn't speak to the level of impairment. After all, a 90lb woman who seldom drinks but who has one glass of wine, can be seriously impaired but at the same time here breathalyzer test will not show it. Likewise, a 280lb man who drinks beer daily can be well over the BAC limit and not be anywhere near as dangerous as the aforementioned petite gal.

Yet, when the man is stopped by a cop and subjected to these flawed tests, he's likely to lose his job as a result of his arrest. And then what happens to his wife and kids? Does he deserve to sit in a cage or spend his life's savings defending himself against this attack? Does the seriously impaired petite woman only get charged with reckless endangerment when she runs into another car and kills a family or does she get charged with voluntary manslaughter? And what fucking difference do the words used to charge her make to the dead family? Do they care that she was drunk? Would it not be a big deal if she'd killed them after having a fight with her husband and consequently driving just as impaired as if she'd been drinking? If you can answer yes to any of those questions, please take all the time you need in order to explain your position.

Ultimately, these checkpoints do nothing to make us safe and everything to make us unsafe. They're blatant violations of property rights as well as the rights we're alleged to have been granted by the state when the Constitution was written. It doesn't matter that they don't take long to go through and it doesn't matter that you shouldn't have anything to worry about if you're not doing anything wrong. The fact is that cops can and do often say anything they want to gain access to your property. They fabricate probable cause and use these ridiculous laws to harass and extort innocent men and women for their political masters who pay them with the money they steal from the productive class.

Almost everything they do is morally reprehensible and they do nothing good that can't be done by any other human being with a modicum of human dignity and empathy.

[Jhunt94]

^so you're saying that we should get rid of cops, and more than half of the laws?

[Broke_Audio_Addict]

I feel bad that I put fuel on the fire, but if children have all of the rights that Broke is saying then why when something happens to them then the parents are held accountable for the children's actions. If children were to have all of those rights and expected to be able to make their own choices, then they should be held accountable for them.

So if my kid does something really bad I go to jail?

Nope I sure dont.

[thefourth]

FUCK DA PO-LICE.

that is all....