Protecting And Serving: Cop (mis)behavior and consequences general discussion

For what, though? What was their aim when they rolled up there?
They are claiming they were walking like they had guns, apparently. Found some more on it. This is why second Amendment support acts that ban cooperation with the feds are so important:
 
For what, though? What was their aim when they rolled up there?
The ATF performed the Waco Siege which killed a bunch of children, they then posed heroically ontop of said charred children.
They're the modern American version of the various SS organizations of Germany. They do what they want, when they want, and the government signs off after it's been done.
 
It would be nice if more places handled parking violations like Clayton, MO did back when I was in school:

$1 if you went to City Hall and paid the fine within 30min. $3 fine if paid within 30days. After that? Arrest warrent.

They'd only tow the vehicle if it was left there for days and wracked up several violations, was reported stolen, or was parked somewhere no vehicle should be parked.
 
It's a scam so the city can make more money.
Agreed.

Clayton, MO didn't need that extra money. The parking meters downtown were more expensive than the parking fine if you needed to be there all day during the week.

Meter for 9-10 hours? $4.50-$5.00 with a 2hr max on the clock, IIRC.
 
Last edited:
The ATF performed the Waco Siege which killed a bunch of children, they then posed heroically ontop of said charred children.
They're the modern American version of the various SS organizations of Germany. They do what they want, when they want, and the government signs off after it's been done.
We need to start calling them that. Even if it’s not to their faces; mostly because as we’ve seen, the USA has a two-tiered justice system and I can easily see an ATF agent using being called out as an excuse to escalate.
 

Ft5htvqXsAAK2YC


what did he expect...
 
what did he expect...
He's completely in his rights to come outside his house armed, especially when he very well may have had no idea who was outside.

If you think this is okay behavior, then you allow cops to knock on all gun owners doors in hopes the homeowner comes out, then shooting them. Each time the cops could just go 'oops, we had the wrong house'.

Moreover, if you think this is fine behavior, you've at least acknowledged the cost of government existing: it will kill innocents constantly. Government kills, and it fundamentally cannot take morally good action. It at best aspires to do small, necessary, evils to avert larger ones.
 
He's completely in his rights to come outside his house armed, especially when he very well may have had no idea who was outside.

If you think this is okay behavior, then you allow cops to knock on all gun owners doors in hopes the homeowner comes out, then shooting them. Each time the cops could just go 'oops, we had the wrong house'.

Moreover, if you think this is fine behavior, you've at least acknowledged the cost of government existing: it will kill innocents constantly. Government kills, and it fundamentally cannot take morally good action. It at best aspires to do small, necessary, evils to avert larger ones.

I don't believe in rights. I believe in common sense and an understanding of human nature. The bottom line is that in that instance, it was "him or me". Do you honestly expect the officer to take a chance with his own life when a man opens a door and has a firearm drawn on him? Especially when said officer has the legal authority to use lethal force to defend his own life?

Police are scary. In every country and in every time in history. They have power over you, and the authority to kill you if need be. It is up to you on how you deal with this reality.
Considering the stuff the government has been up to of late? I’d be worried about getting purged. Never mind the more ‘realistic’ concern of people impersonating officers to carry out all kinds of nonsense.

Those officers were not breaking that man's door down...he didn't even have to open the door for that matter; at least not without peaking out of a window or loudly yelling "who is it" or something along those lines first...

If you draw a firearm on someone you have to be prepared for the potential consequence. Let alone if you draw on an officer...
 
I don't believe in rights. I believe in common sense and an understanding of human nature. The bottom line is that in that instance, it was "him or me". Do you honestly expect the officer to take a chance with his own life when a man opens a door and has a firearm drawn on him? Especially when said officer has the legal authority to use lethal force to defend his own life?
Not what I was saying. Maybe read next time?

"I don't believe in rights." Well, do you believe in any concept of morality at all? Honest question. Now that morality, whatever it is that views this behavior as acceptable, seems to hold that government killing its innocent citizens is just the price of doing business. Because that's what you are arguing here.

But what's the entire justification for government, morally speaking? Assuming you don't believe in a divine right system, it's almost always to protect its citizens. But your morality system is fine with the government killing its own innocent citizens for a sufficiently good purpose. And this is the key point: every action the government (with maybe the exception of printing money) takes will kill and harm the innocent.

From this, we come to a clear point: if every action the government takes will kill, then how can a government achieve it's goal of protecting people? First: every time government acts, it acts as a hypocrite at best, claiming to exist to protect people while simultaneously killing them. Second, then the only time it's okay for government to act is if it saves more than it kills.
 
Back
Top