• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

I'm an American Citizen. If You Want to Remain a Cop, Don't Violate My Human Rights

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
It's worked well for me in the last 56 years.
What about when innocent people are harmed through police action based on faulty information? Like the toddler who got blasted with a flashbang by a SWAT raid based on unverified evidence that didn't find any drugs or the drug dealer purported to be in the house? Tough shit, kid, shouldn't have broken the law? Police are human, they make mistakes. Just because none of those mistakes have impacted you yet doesn't mean that you've figured out some miraculous solution to avoiding harm at the hands of police; it happens to innocent people too.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Ok how do you propose a citizen should best handle a situation where Police misconduct is occurring?
I don't know, but according to you, bend over and take a nightstick in the ass is apparently the best course of action.

The answer is NOT for some douchebag cop to write an article that tells every American "don't challenge my authority". Fuck that asshole, it's pricks like him that are the problem. He should start by becoming an officer of the law, rather than thinking he's Judge Dredd.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
What about when innocent people are harmed through police action based on faulty information? Like the toddler who got blasted with a flashbang by a SWAT raid based on unverified evidence that didn't find any drugs or the drug dealer purported to be in the house? Tough shit, kid, shouldn't have broken the law? Police are human, they make mistakes. Just because none of those mistakes have impacted you yet doesn't mean that you've figured out some miraculous solution to avoiding harm at the hands of police; it happens to innocent people too.
That toddler shouldn't have broken the law. It's his own fault he got blown up.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Wow are you a naive little lemming.

There is a good chance someday you will have a wake up call.
Tell you what Dave; if I'm ever stopped or detained by the police (outside of speeding or in a witness role), I'll owe you a Coke. I should warn you, the odds are slightly in my favor, just based on statistics.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
3,956
33
91
What about when innocent people are harmed through police action based on faulty information? Like the toddler who got blasted with a flashbang by a SWAT raid based on unverified evidence that didn't find any drugs or the drug dealer purported to be in the house? Tough shit, kid, shouldn't have broken the law? Police are human, they make mistakes. Just because none of those mistakes have impacted you yet doesn't mean that you've figured out some miraculous solution to avoiding harm at the hands of police; it happens to innocent people too.
I said most situations not all. I even included some examples of situations completely beyond the person's control as you bring up. I even discussed that the continued militarization of police needs to be look at closely and reform around this needs to occur. Military hardware doesn't regularly belong on the streets unless it is a extreme situation.
 
Last edited:

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
3,956
33
91
I don't know, but according to you, bend over and take a nightstick in the ass is apparently the best course of action.

The answer is NOT for some douchebag cop to write an article that tells every American "don't challenge my authority". Fuck that asshole, it's pricks like him that are the problem. He should start by becoming an officer of the law, rather than thinking he's Judge Dredd.
No I didn't say that. Watch this video you might learn something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU_hKw0BREY

You need to remain calm and cool. A Police encounter is the worse place to vent your frustrations about the police. That is the main point of the article that the Officer wrote.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
I bet your one of those guts who does everything a cop tells you too.....like a sissy who does not know how to exercise their rights!

You don`t need a law degree to know your rights!! You just need to take some time a learn your rights......for example when you are pulled over for a traffic stop...The policeman asks for your drivers license....registration and proof of insurance and he asks your passenger for their ID......your passenger does NOY have to comply.
Self image issues, you has them.

Unless i have a reason to exercise my rights (hypothetically have a kilo of cocaine in my car) , I'll stick to using common sense. Tell your passenger to refuse id, BECAUSE MY RIGHTS BRO, BRO!!! and wait an hour while being detained to wait for K-9 or just show your id because who gives a fuck.

And if the cops fuck up, I'll go along and wait for the city to pay off my mortgage. Dumbasses fight with cops, people with 3 digit IQ retain attorneys to fight the city.
 
Last edited:

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,402
9,248
126
Half of this forum has a deep hatred of cops. We get it.
And the other half gets down on their knees and puckers up every time they see a cop. Ironically, this half tends to self-identify as 'small government ' or even 'libertarian.'

The article makes a valid point. Recently, at one of those community gatherings that happen all summer, I had an opportunity to have a polite conversation with a state trooper. He was complaining that OSP is understaffed and lacks permanent funding. I pointed out that Oregon, despite its vastness, has the lowest highway speed limits in the country, and that OSP has blocked every attempt to raise them to modern levels like all the surrounding states have done. Those states also have fully funded highway patrols. Coincidence? He didn't get it.
 

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,048
7
81
And the other half gets down on their knees and puckers up every time they see a cop. Ironically, this half tends to self-identify as 'small government ' or even 'libertarian.'

The article makes a valid point. Recently, at one of those community gatherings that happen all summer, I had an opportunity to have a polite conversation with a state trooper. He was complaining that OSP is understaffed and lacks permanent funding. I pointed out that Oregon, despite its vastness, has the lowest highway speed limits in the country, and that OSP has blocked every attempt to raise them to modern levels like all the surrounding states have done. Those states also have fully funded highway patrols. Coincidence? He didn't get it.
this is something that has and continues to blow my mind..... the way people have the ideology completely mixed up..

they just dont understand it, if your someone who thinks we should have LESS laws, and LESS law enforcement involvement in daily life, you would identify best with being a LIBERAL.. as in, you believe in LIBERTY, AND FREEDOM... that's the true definition, of that type of ideology....

now how the Libertarian group somehow aligned with the republican party, who is classically CONSERVATIVE, as in, they believe in living a conservative lifestyle, many laws, many police to enforce these laws, draconian laws, such as high drinking age, tight restrictions on prescription substances, and an overall enforcement of a conservative lifestyle....is beyond me.



they literally have it backwards.... the democratic party, is at it's base.. liberal, if liberals had complete control, we would have no drinking age, no substance control, no control over women's birthrights, etc..

if republicans, at it's base ideology had complete control.... we would have the equivalent of the bible belt nationwide....no liquor on sundays, harsh penaltys for anything deemed activities a person of "NON CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY," partake in.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,402
9,248
126
this is something that has and continues to blow my mind..... the way people have the ideology completely mixed up..

they just dont understand it, if your someone who thinks we should have LESS laws, and LESS law enforcement involvement in daily life, you would identify best with being a LIBERAL.. as in, you believe in LIBERTY, AND FREEDOM... that's the true definition, of that type of ideology....

now how the Libertarian group somehow aligned with the republican party, who is classically CONSERVATIVE, as in, they believe in living a conservative lifestyle, many laws, many police to enforce these laws, draconian laws, such as high drinking age, tight restrictions on prescription substances, and an overall enforcement of a conservative lifestyle....is beyond me.



they literally have it backwards.... the democratic party, is at it's base.. liberal, if liberals had complete control, we would have no drinking age, no substance control, no control over women's birthrights, etc..

if republicans, at it's base ideology had complete control.... we would have the equivalent of the bible belt nationwide....no liquor on sundays, harsh penaltys for anything deemed activities a person of "NON CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY," partake in.
This used to confuse me as well. But I remembered that liberalism is not absolute freedom, but the promise of equal treatment under the rule of law. The government is limited by law, and all persons are to be treated equally by government. ' ... liberty and justice FOR ALL. ' And this is what conservatism fundamentally opposes, that all persons be treated equally by government.
They want 'small government,' don't get me wrong, but only for themselves.
 

zanejohnson

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 2002
7,048
7
81
This used to confuse me as well. But I remembered that liberalism is not absolute freedom, but the promise of equal treatment under the rule of law. The government is limited by law, and all persons are to be treated equally by government. ' ... liberty and justice FOR ALL. ' And this is what conservatism fundamentally opposes, that all persons be treated equally by government.
They want 'small government,' don't get me wrong, but only for themselves.

correct...

seems you also payed attention in American Government 101..
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY