patrick.net

mmmarvel says

So far I've never had an officer ask me to take off my clothes

Consider yourself lucky.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/mfY-taPmXxM

http://www.youtube.com/embed/IEzvW5BvY7I

I've got ten thousand other examples if you need.

mmmarvel says

do some sexual act (on them or for them)

Again, just because it hasn't happen to you doesn't mean it hasn't happen to other people every freaking day.

Leesburg police officer accused of forcing a female suspect to perform a sexual act on him in a parking lot during her 2012 arrest

A police officer in a Philadelphia suburb arrested a woman and threw her in jail for the sole purpose of strip searching and sexually assaulting her.

Again, I have tens of thousands of examples, and these are just the known cases.

Power corrupts. The more unchecked power and the less accountability police have, the more corrupt and criminal they will be.

Never judge what is common by your own limited experiences, and remember that even if you made it to middle age without being sexually assaulted or raped by a cop in the line of duty doesn't mean your children or grandchildren will. So it's in your family's best interest to hope this criminal cops accountable even if your family hasn't yet been victimized by them. Otherwise, it is inevitable that one of your descendants will be.

"professor of homeland security" ??

Now I think I have heard it all.

"Working the street, I can’t even count how many times I withstood curses, screaming tantrums, aggressive and menacing encroachments on my safety zone, and outright challenges to my authority." -- Sunil Dutta

There you have it in a nutshell. Officer Dutta just can't stand it when people do not obey arbitrary demands, that may or may not be lawful. His authority, real or imagined, is everything to him.

justme says

"Working the street, I can’t even count how many times I withstood curses, screaming tantrums, aggressive and menacing encroachments on my safety zone, and outright challenges to my authority." -- Sunil Dutta

There you have it in a nutshell. Officer Dutta just can't stand it when people do not obey arbitrary demands, that may or may not be lawful. His authority, real or imagined, is everything to him.

But policemen are placed on the street to be the authority.

Those who assert their "right" to be troublemakers may or may not be in the wrong. However, they are certainly foolish. It is like asserting your right of way at an intersection against a semi-truck.

Peter P says

Those who assert their "right" to be troublemakers

We are not talking about people who are asserting their "right" to be troublemakers. We are talking about people who are asserting their right -- notice no quotes --
1. To peacefully assemble
2. To video police actions in public
3. To NOT be assaulted by police
4. To NOT be raped by police
5. To NOT be murdered by police

Yes, these are rights worth killing over, killing terrorists over, killing foreign soldiers over, and killing criminal cops over.

A cop who engages in felonies is no different from a terrorist. A terrorist with a police badge is still a terrorist. LAPD, ISIS, makes no different what abbreviation you hide behind. Terrorism is defined by actions not political status.

Rights are not intrinsic. They are merely respected.

Dan8267 says

Never judge what is common by your own limited experiences, and remember that even if you made it to middle age without being sexually assaulted or raped by a cop in the line of duty doesn't mean your children or grandchildren will

So, you suggest that we judge by outliers? I thought you're the scientific one.

Peter P says

So, you suggest that we judge by outliers?

I do not follow your reasoning.

Peter P says

Dan8267 says

Never judge what is common by your own limited experiences, and remember that even if you made it to middle age without being sexually assaulted or raped by a cop in the line of duty doesn't mean your children or grandchildren will

So, you suggest that we judge by outliers? I thought you're the scientific one.

Did you miss the part where he said "by your own limited experiences"

errc says

Did you miss the part where he said "by your own limited experiences"

But our experiences are always limited. Therefore, our conclusions are purely by choice.

Peter P says

Rights are not intrinsic. They are merely respected.

Regardless, they are worth fighting for, dying for, and even killing for if necessary. Otherwise, the American Revolution was unjustified and our government is illegitimate. Remember, our government was founded on a violent revolution. To acknowledge the legitimacy of our government is to acknowledge the principle that people have the right to revolt and that revolutions can create legitimate governments.

justme says

"professor of homeland security" ??

Now I think I have heard it all.

Any different than professor of woman's studies? All academic titles are made up.

What is woman's studies anyway? Is it like researching the correlation between red hair and bad temper?

Peter P says

What is woman's studies anyway?

A hobby of mine since I was twelve.

This fellow does not realize that when the USG is complicit in instituting a two-tiered justice system, that there is no law, and that this grown up and uniformed little boy who demands to be listened to has no authority.

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

I've got ten thousand other examples if you need.

Dude, you really need a life and need to stay off of Youtube..

You live in an alternative universe and an alternative reality.... Reality doesn't live on Youtube!!!

Honey, YouTube is just a video hosting site. Whether I link to videos there or another site makes no difference. It's just easier to link to the ones on YouTube because they can be embedded on Patrick.net.

What you are really objecting to is that I bring forth indisputable evidence to support my arguments, and that puts a damper on your bitching. So now you are making a lame personal attack to discourage me from presenting evidence. Honey, that's not going to work and you look dumb trying.

Evidence only goes so far. If you have a conclusion in mind, you will likely find "facts."

An intelligent person knows his rights. A wise person knows when to assert his rights.

Wisdom lets you grow old. (Or is it the other way around?)

Peter P says

An intelligent person knows his rights. A wise person knows when to assert his rights.

A free person always asserts his rights. That's what it means to be free.

Dan8267 says

Peter P says

An intelligent person knows his rights. A wise person knows when to assert his rights.

A free person always asserts his rights.

People do not really just want freedom. They only want to assert their will.

Some think that intelligence is the ability to maximize future freedom (entropy). This does not mean that freedom must be pursued at every point in time, since global optimization is the goal.

Call it Crazy says

needle in the haystack examples of bad cops

That's bullshit. The examples are legion. The evidence accumulating every single day contradicts your assertion that police crimes are rare. You are entitled to your own opinions, no matter how repulsive they are, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

The bottom line is that you and other conservatives are ok with the police performing criminal acts because you think their victims deserve it. And if a few thousand innocent people are also victimized, it's still worth it to be "tough on crime". After all, it will never happen to your family. They are white. And as for the videos showing police sexually assaulting white women, well, you are sure your family is different and Jesus will protect them.

Peter P says

People do not really just want freedom. They only want to assert their will.

A woman is right to assert her will not to be raped by a cop at a traffic stop. I don't see why it is so difficult for some people to empathize with this. Just pretend the women in the posted videos are your mother, sister, daughter. Does that make a difference?

Yes, there are bad apples. Aren't there always?

Police body cameras, together with ubiquitous video surveillance, will protect both sides.

Our loved ones are still more at risk to traffic accidents. We need self-driving cars with cameras inside and out.

Privacy must be preserved inside private properties, but public places should be watched and monitored.

Peter P says

Yes, there are bad apples. Aren't there always?

Saying there are bad apples does not demonstrate that the majority are good. It's a cop out, no pun intended.

It takes a multitude of cops to look the other way and even cover up the crimes of their associates for the police to get away with all the atrocities they have committed over the past 50 years.

Before the 1960s, I would say there were only a few bad cops, but in the past half-century the very nature of law enforcement has drastically changed for the worse.

Hell, the typical cops turn on and stalk the rare good cop like in the case of Officer Donna Jane Watts. So I don't buy the assertion that bad cops are the exception to the rule today. If they were, the bad cops would be routinely arrested by good cops and prosecuted by the state. And then there would truly be few bad apples.

Dan8267 says

Peter P says

An intelligent person knows his rights. A wise person knows when to assert his rights.

A free person always asserts his rights. That's what it means to be free.

Well Dan, what if a criminal pointed a gun at you and said "Give me your wallet or I will shoot you" Would you assert your rights, and tell him to piss off, or would you give him your wallet?

Dan8267 says

Peter P says

Yes, there are bad apples. Aren't there always?

Saying there are bad apples does not demonstrate that the majority are good. It's a cop out, no pun intended.

It takes a multitude of cops to look the other way and even cover up the crimes of their associates for the police to get away with all the atrocities they have committed over the past 50 years.

Before the 1960s, I would say there were only a few bad cops, but in the past half-century the very nature of law enforcement has drastically changed for the worse.

Call it Crazy says

Dan8267 says

That's bullshit. The examples are legion. The evidence accumulating every single day contradicts your assertion that police crimes are rare.

Instead of spouting off like you usually do, how about providing some verifiable data instead of some useless Youtube videos! Show us some true data that shows the majority of cops are bad apples...

We will be waiting....

He has no evidence, because there is no evidence. Sure there are bad cops around, and I hope they are caught and hung. But to say most of the cops are bad is just plain silly. It's like saying most child molesters are nice people.

Call it Crazy says

Instead of spouting off like you usually do, how about providing some verifiable data instead of some useless Youtube videos!

If you consider video evidence and the press coverage to be useless, then no evidence will convince you. You are a perfect example of a conservative who won't change his political stance regardless of evidence. Evidence is irrelevant to you. All that matters is your political position and even falsifying evidence is justified to support that position. To your ilk, the ends always justify the means and the truth is irrelevant.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

Peter P says

An intelligent person knows his rights. A wise person knows when to assert his rights.

A free person always asserts his rights. That's what it means to be free.

Well Dan, what if a criminal pointed a gun at you and said "Give me your wallet or I will shoot you" Would you assert your rights, and tell him to piss off, or would you give him your wallet?

Dan has consistently demonstrated that he's ok with the third option, necessitated by lack of physical strength and lack of gunpower...

Piss himself, offer up his wife and daughter for anal rape, and cry himself to sleep each night.

Fact and logic ain't helping you deal with a violent criminal.

Strategist says

Well Dan, what if a criminal pointed a gun at you and said "Give me your wallet or I will shoot you" Would you assert your rights, and tell him to piss off, or would you give him your wallet?

Just because people are sometimes subjected to violence or threats of violence does not mean they or society should tolerate it.

I may give the criminal my wallet, but then shoot him in the back as he leaves. I would be justified in doing so. More importantly, I would be equally justified in doing so whether the criminal was
- a nobody
- a black
- a white
- a cop
- a senator
- the president
- the pope
- or god

A criminal is a criminal regardless of what kind of funny hat he wears.

dodgerfanjohn says

Dan has consistently demonstrated that he's ok with the third option, necessitated by lack of physical strength and lack of gunpower...

This is a Straw Man argument. I never said that it is not in a person's interest to comply with a criminal when threatened by violence or that a person has an obligation to sacrifice his life. In fact, my statement is just the opposite.

I stated that a victim or a bystander has the right to use lethal force to stop a criminal from using lethal force regardless of whether or not that criminal has a police badge. Do you disagree with this statement?

What Dan said he would do to the criminal probably constitutes murder. Once the imminent danger is no longer present, there is no justification to defend with lethal force.

Peter P says

What Dan said he would do to the criminal probably constitutes murder

In Florida, where I live, this is exactly the situation that Stand Your Ground was intended for. Now feel free to argue against that law if you like...

Murder, of course, is any intentional killing of a person against their will. Contrary to the StrawMan arguments my opponents make on Patrick.net, I do not hold the position that violence is never justified, only that it's not the first tool you should use.

As for the criminal no longer being a threat in the above, he certainly is. Having a gun that he already pointed at you in commission of the crime means that any attempt to place him under citizen's arrest, which is your right, would entail him using the gun again. Hence, imminent danger still exists as long as the criminal has the gun and is within shooting range.

Another example would be a woman shooting the man who just raped her as he is leaving. Would you prosecute that woman? I wouldn't. Nor would I convict her if I were in a jury and she was on trial.

By the way, shouldn't the pro-gun posters like dodgerfanjohn and CallItCrazy be behind me on this one? It's what they are always advocating.

Call it Crazy says

Call it Crazy says

Sorry for being ignorant...

Dan8267 says

I may give the criminal my wallet, but then shoot him in the back as he leaves. I would be justified in doing so.

You would not assert your rights with a criminal, but would assert your rights with a cop. You know why? Because you know the cop would not shoot you.
And no, you are not justified in murdering the criminal by shooting him in the back.

Dan8267 says

dodgerfanjohn says

Dan has consistently demonstrated that he's ok with the third option, necessitated by lack of physical strength and lack of gunpower...

This is a Straw Man argument. I never said that it is not in a person's interest to comply with a criminal when threatened by violence or that a person has an obligation to sacrifice his life. In fact, my statement is just the opposite.

I stated that a victim or a bystander has the right to use lethal force to stop a criminal from using lethal force regardless of whether or not that criminal has a police badge. Do you disagree with this statement?

But not a cop. You always call it murder.

Dan8267 says

Another example would be a woman shooting the man who just raped her as he is leaving. Would you prosecute that woman? I wouldn't. Nor would I convict her if I were in a jury and she was on trial.

I would not prosecute her. It is still murder, but I would look the other way. :)

More Straw Man arguments from Strategist. For now on, I'm only responding to debate on arguments I actually made, not fantasy arguments.

Call it Crazy says

HEY YOU says

"You can bet I will give you my point of view based on my Constitutional Rights."

We're still waiting.........................................................

I'm Back.

" The views presented here are his own and do not represent the LAPD or CTU." Just another troll?

"..a professor of homeland security." What was he doing on 9-11

Who does this idiot thinks pays his salary? He's just a socialist govt, employee taking tax dollars,healthcare & a pension(for 17 years?). He needs to get a grip on reality & I would tell him who he works for .He nothing special,just an employee that can be replaced. True Americans don't have Big Govt. jobs. They are successful in the Free Market.If he doesn't like being told about the Big Govt. teat or his work environment, he can quit.

I really don't give a damn about whether he can handle the truth.
I will argue & tell him what I think anytime I choose but I wouldn't YELL. I've heard that we have something called Freedom of Speech.If he doesn't like what I say, I'm never bothered by anyone's tender sensibilities. The Constitution trumps what any of my govt. employees thinks.
I don't have to aggressively approach him, the truth will put him in his place.So I'm not bothered by his vague threats.

I'm invoking my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.I want my attorney. In other words the 5th is saying "Shut the fuck up ,cops."

The minute I read this article I wondered if it was an attempt to gain notoriety. Must be working. My comment is #77.

Dan8267 says

Saying there are bad apples does not demonstrate that the majority are good.

And a few bad cops does not mean that the majority are bad. Wow, you're slanted view is soooo - uh, slanted. How many millions of times across this land, day and night are people stopped by and questioned by police? Millions and millions. And the odds are HUGE that nothing out of the ordinary will happen. You get a ticket, the cop is checking out a situation - something he saw or something that was reported and life (for everyone) goes on. There are bad people EVERYWHERE, bad teachers, bad preachers, bad babysitters, bad mothers, bad fathers, bad civil rights activists (okay, so I'd be hard pressed to name a 'good' civil rights activist), but the MAJORITY of people are good. To think otherwise is a bit perverted.

but a lot of sanctimonious dashes...

Dan8267 says

We are not talking about people who are asserting their "right" to be troublemakers. We are talking about people who are asserting their right -- notice no quotes --

Thank you for supporting every armed to the teeth teabagger/redneck.
I knew you'd come around eventually.

Dan8267 says

To acknowledge the legitimacy of our government is to acknowledge the principle that people have the right to revolt and that revolutions can create legitimate governments.