Leo's aren't all bad

imported post

nitrovic wrote:

A lot on that site aren't LEO's, just wannabe's or trolls. Just fyi.

Click to expand...

A lot on this site aren't open carry activist-advocates either, just LEO-wannabes and trolls. Just FYI.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

FreedomJoyAdventure wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Mike Nifong and prosecutors like him provide the winning argument against capital punishment.

Click to expand...

Exactly so. The problem with prosecutors (and judges and sheriffs and police chiefs) is that so many of them are out to make a name for themselves in order to advance their political careers. And unfortunately they sometimes do so at the expense of innocent citizens.

"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Click to expand...

Two things that I immediately dismiss in a debate are references to Wikipedia and quotations.

Perhaps we should mistrust those whom the urge to ABOLISH punishment is strong.....hmmm....makes you wonder what their personal motive is to detach punishment from a crime....

imported post

[/quote]<SNIP>Unfortunately we have to trust government with certain powers even if they can be used against us in an irresponsible way.<SNIP> 
[/quote]

I disagree. Over and over again I am reminded by current events that the government CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH THE POWER TO EXECUTE ITS CITIZENS. The government should not have any power that individual citizens do not.

And as for punishment? What's the purpose of punishment? Merely to spite the criminals? To express your wrath? Or to rehabilitate? What do you think you can really hope to accomplish in either case?

I think the best we can do is just lock up criminals for our own protection. I'm not sure that rehabilitation works - rehabilitation must come from within, and punishment is most likely to just further the hate and injustice.

At the same time, we shouldn't be paying for the prisons to have television or exercise equipment. Gotta go now, more on this later.

imported post

Well I disagree with YOU.

There are 2 things and 2 things ONLY that keep ME from killing people. My morals and the fact that if I did I could be EXECUTED. To say that execution serves NO purpose is ridiculous.

Do the people have the right to execute? Why do you fight for the 2nd Amendment? So you can shoot someone in the finger? Or so you can possibly take someone's life? Should you have the power to decide if they are guilty of wanting to take YOUR life and therefor be allowed to KILL them? What if you are wrong and they were just playing around or something? What if they were INNOCENT and you perceived them as a threat and killed them?

Again, to use the "innocent" line as a reason to abolish a specific punishment means that you are less against that rationality and more against that particular punishment OTHERWISE you would use that same principle and apply it to ALL punishments. And IF YOU DID what we would end up with is a society where there are no punishments and people are free to murder, rape, rob, harass, speed, and vandalize all because people are against the EXCEPTION of an innocent person being punished. But...i'm sure that's different.

Right?

imported post

richarcm wrote:

Two things that I immediately dismiss in a debate are references to Wikipedia and quotations.

Click to expand...

A fool, only, denies that we stand upon the shoulders of giants. Believe nothing that you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it is congruent with your weltanshung.

imported post

Provision is made in the Torah, or Old Testament, that if a person should bear false witness against another, and be found out; then it should be done to the false witness as the witness sought to hve done to the innocent.

Works for me.

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Provision is made in the Torah, or Old Testament, that if a person should bear false witness against another, and be found out; then it should be done to the false witness as the witness sought to hve done to the innocent.

Works for me.

Click to expand...

Ditto

imported post

When someone has been found beyond a shadow of a doubt to be guilty of a heinous crime, murder, forcible rape, child molestation, etc., I seethem the same waythat I seea rabid dog. You don't put the dog down to punish it for being rabid, you put the dog down so that he doesn't bite anybody else. Nothing personal mind you, just has to be done for the greater good.

Even if it doesn't work as a deterrent, it prevents repeat offenders.

Imagine if you could eliminate these sick people from repeating. How many times do we hear of a horrible crime being committed by someone who has recently been released from prison? Usually early, because they behaved well while locked up. these people may be sick, but they are not dumb.

imported post

richarcm wrote:

FreedomJoyAdventure wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Mike Nifong and prosecutors like him provide the winning argument against capital punishment.

Click to expand...

Exactly so. The problem with prosecutors (and judges and sheriffs and police chiefs) is that so many of them are out to make a name for themselves in order to advance their political careers. And unfortunately they sometimes do so at the expense of innocent citizens.

"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Click to expand...

Two things that I immediately dismiss in a debate are references to Wikipedia and quotations.

Perhaps we should mistrust those whom the urge to ABOLISH punishment is strong.....hmmm....makes you wonder what their personal motive is to detach punishment from a crime....

Click to expand...

A few things:

- richarcm, this isn't personal for me, FYI. You are welcome to disagree with me and distrust me if you like. You seem to have a strong emotional investment in punishing others. I am interested in enjoying the fruits of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, hopefully with minimal interference from or to others. I believe in the golden rule, and I'm committed to doing what works.

- It appears that this thread is suffering from mission creep, much like our governments and law enforcement agencies. Perhaps we should create a new thread titled, 'What should society do with criminals?' or something like that, since the title and original topic was 'Leo's aren't all bad'.

- So back to the original premise, 'Leo's aren't all bad': there are a lot of good people who go into Law Enforcement. Some of them manage to remain 'good', some of them do not. Law Enforcement also attracts authoritarians,bullies, and people who feel a need to punish others. There are several problems with Law Enforcement. The state uses LEOs to raise revenue (speeding tickets) and to infringe on the rights and freedom of the people in many, many ways. Who do you think 'To protect and to Serve' applies to? The courts have repeatedly ruled that the police have no obligation to protect individual citizens. So ultimately, the police are here 'To Protect and to Serve' the state. When faced with the choice of enforcing an unconstitutional law, or not enforcing it and risk losing his job and pension, what do you think the average LEO will do? It'susually difficult and expensive to get into Law Enforcement. I don't expect many LEOswill give up their careers for your rights or mine. Which brings us back to the problem: good or bad, LEOs are people and can be expected to act in their own interest. When their interests conflict with your rights, guess who loses?

- Society as a whole has a right to protect itself against criminals. I assert that society has a responsibility to do this in a manner that is least likely to impact the rights of innocent citizens.

imported post

who are the most dangerous threat to our liberties and persuit of happiness? Cops or criminals?

imported post

richarcm wrote:

Well I disagree with YOU.

There are 2 things and 2 things ONLY that keep ME from killing people. My morals and the fact that if I did I could be EXECUTED. To say that execution serves NO purpose is ridiculous.

Do the people have the right to execute? Why do you fight for the 2nd Amendment? So you can shoot someone in the finger? Or so you can possibly take someone's life? Should you have the power to decide if they are guilty of wanting to take YOUR life and therefor be allowed to KILL them? What if you are wrong and they were just playing around or something? What if they were INNOCENT and you perceived them as a threat and killed them?

Again, to use the "innocent" line as a reason to abolish a specific punishment means that you are less against that rationality and more against that particular punishment OTHERWISE you would use that same principle and apply it to ALL punishments. And IF YOU DID what we would end up with is a society where there are no punishments and people are free to murder, rape, rob, harass, speed, and vandalize all because people are against the EXCEPTION of an innocent person being punished. But...i'm sure that's different.

Right?

Click to expand...

You sure seem pretty fixated on killing and punishing. I'm not interested in either.

I'm all for locking criminals up so they cannot victimize innocent citizens, but I'm not sure that 'punishment' serves a useful purpose. Locking criminals up protects society. Punishing them may or may not serve a purpose. So basically, if it wasn't for threat of execution (and maybe your morals?), you'd probably be killing people?

"Yes I am passionate about my political beliefs. Yes I will debate them with you and most of the time, yes I will win." - I'm sure you'll recognize that from your MySpace page, Chris. I'm going to reserve comment on that.

imported post

richarcm wrote:

who are the most dangerous threat to our liberties and persuit of happiness? Cops or criminals?

Click to expand...

The answer is self-evident in the fact that the question needs to be asked at all.

imported post

richarcm wrote:

who are the most dangerous threat to our liberties and persuit of happiness? Cops or criminals?

Click to expand...

Who prevents me from unrestrained exercise of my Constitutionally guaranteed rights? Do you really have to ask?

imported post

canadian wrote:

richarcm wrote:

who are the most dangerous threat to our liberties and persuit of happiness? Cops or criminals?

Click to expand...

The answer is self-evident in the fact that the question needs to be asked at all.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

nitrovic wrote:

A lot on that site aren't LEO's, just wannabe's or trolls. Just fyi.

Click to expand...

A lot on this site aren't open carry activist-advocates either, just LEO-wannabes and trolls.  Just FYI.

Either we are equal or we are not.  Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.  NRA KMA$$

Click to expand...

Actually I would venture to say a lot ARE OC advocates. You really are in the dark.

imported post

FreedomJoyAdventure wrote:

richarcm wrote:

Well I disagree with YOU. 

There are 2 things and 2 things ONLY that keep ME from killing people.  My morals and the fact that if I did I could be EXECUTED.   To say that execution serves NO purpose is ridiculous.  

Do the people have the right to execute?   Why do you fight for the 2nd Amendment?  So you can shoot someone in the finger?  Or so you can possibly take someone's life? Should you have the power to decide if they are guilty of wanting to take YOUR life and therefor be allowed to KILL them?  What if you are wrong and they were just playing around or something?  What if they were INNOCENT and you perceived them as a threat and killed them? 

Again, to use the "innocent" line as a reason to abolish a specific punishment means that you are less against that rationality and more against that particular punishment OTHERWISE you would use that same principle and apply it to ALL punishments.  And IF YOU DID what we would end up with is a society where there are no punishments and people are free to murder, rape, rob, harass, speed, and vandalize all because people are against the EXCEPTION of an innocent person being punished.   But...i'm sure that's different. 

Right?

Click to expand...

You sure seem pretty fixated on killing and punishing. I'm not interested in either.

I'm all for locking criminals up so they cannot victimize innocent citizens, but I'm not sure that 'punishment' serves a useful purpose. Locking criminals up protects society. Punishing them may or may not serve a purpose. So basically, if it wasn't for threat of execution (and maybe your morals?), you'd probably be killing people?

"Yes I am passionate about my political beliefs. Yes I will debate them with you and most of the time, yes I will win." - I'm sure you'll recognize that from your MySpace page, Chris. I'm going to reserve comment on that.

Click to expand...

His entire argument is based on the assumption that punishment after the fact provides an effective deterrent before the act, a premise I reject outright. Were this true, surely far fewer murders would be committed in the states where the death penalty is permitted; the reality is there is no such trend.

imported post

You know, if everybody was armed and able to defend themselves, that would be a real deterrent, unlike punishment criminals hope to avoid. We wouldn't have to execute anybody in a truly free country. The threat of being killed in the process of committing a crime will stop far more crime than the threat of punishment later.

Guilt (and the miscarriage of justice) becomes largely irrelevant, because society is concerned with prevention rather than retribution.

imported post

FreedomJoyAdventure wrote:

richarcm wrote:

Well I disagree with YOU.

There are 2 things and 2 things ONLY that keep ME from killing people. My morals and the fact that if I did I could be EXECUTED. To say that execution serves NO purpose is ridiculous.

Do the people have the right to execute? Why do you fight for the 2nd Amendment? So you can shoot someone in the finger? Or so you can possibly take someone's life? Should you have the power to decide if they are guilty of wanting to take YOUR life and therefor be allowed to KILL them? What if you are wrong and they were just playing around or something? What if they were INNOCENT and you perceived them as a threat and killed them?

Again, to use the "innocent" line as a reason to abolish a specific punishment means that you are less against that rationality and more against that particular punishment OTHERWISE you would use that same principle and apply it to ALL punishments. And IF YOU DID what we would end up with is a society where there are no punishments and people are free to murder, rape, rob, harass, speed, and vandalize all because people are against the EXCEPTION of an innocent person being punished. But...i'm sure that's different.

Right?

Click to expand...

You sure seem pretty fixated on killing and punishing. I'm not interested in either.

I'm all for locking criminals up so they cannot victimize innocent citizens, but I'm not sure that 'punishment' serves a useful purpose. Locking criminals up protects society. Punishing them may or may not serve a purpose. So basically, if it wasn't for threat of execution (and maybe your morals?), you'd probably be killing people?

"Yes I am passionate about my political beliefs. Yes I will debate them with you and most of the time, yes I will win." - I'm sure you'll recognize that from your MySpace page, Chris. I'm going to reserve comment on that.

Click to expand...

I'm fixated on protecting society from those who are out to destroy us. If that means death then that means death. I'm not too good to kill one to protect many.

Locking criminals up is great! However many criminals will commit crime simply TO BE locked up. Many of these criminals, unfortunately, have a better life behind bars than on the streets. Then there are the gang bangers who are constantly in and out of prison and see it as nothing more than a trophy. Prison is a powerful punishment but it has it's limitations. Not to mention its already overcrowded and VERY expensive. Locking up criminals protects society however it is hardly a deterrent. Again, there are two things that prevent me from murdering....my morals (which you conveniently overlooked) and execution. Unfortunately not everyone has morals. And if all i get is imprisonment I might find that some instances of murder MAY be worth the punishment.

You can reserve comment on whatever you want. You are also allowed your beliefs. But you seem as stubborn as I am and this is obviously going to go around in circles.

I just don't see the purpose in fighting to protect your right to use deadly force and at the same time fight against capital punishment. It reminds me of those who are anti war and pro abortion (or the other way around). I also see where punishment is a useful tool when a check and balance is applied to it. I'm sorry that you do not feel that way....we just differ in opinion and I respect that.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

FreedomJoyAdventure wrote:

richarcm wrote:

Well I disagree with YOU.

There are 2 things and 2 things ONLY that keep ME from killing people. My morals and the fact that if I did I could be EXECUTED. To say that execution serves NO purpose is ridiculous.

Do the people have the right to execute? Why do you fight for the 2nd Amendment? So you can shoot someone in the finger? Or so you can possibly take someone's life? Should you have the power to decide if they are guilty of wanting to take YOUR life and therefor be allowed to KILL them? What if you are wrong and they were just playing around or something? What if they were INNOCENT and you perceived them as a threat and killed them?

Again, to use the "innocent" line as a reason to abolish a specific punishment means that you are less against that rationality and more against that particular punishment OTHERWISE you would use that same principle and apply it to ALL punishments. And IF YOU DID what we would end up with is a society where there are no punishments and people are free to murder, rape, rob, harass, speed, and vandalize all because people are against the EXCEPTION of an innocent person being punished. But...i'm sure that's different.

Right?

Click to expand...

You sure seem pretty fixated on killing and punishing. I'm not interested in either.

I'm all for locking criminals up so they cannot victimize innocent citizens, but I'm not sure that 'punishment' serves a useful purpose. Locking criminals up protects society. Punishing them may or may not serve a purpose. So basically, if it wasn't for threat of execution (and maybe your morals?), you'd probably be killing people?

"Yes I am passionate about my political beliefs. Yes I will debate them with you and most of the time, yes I will win." - I'm sure you'll recognize that from your MySpace page, Chris. I'm going to reserve comment on that.

Click to expand...

His entire argument is based on the assumption that punishment after the fact provides an effective deterrent before the act, a premise I reject outright. Were this true, surely far fewer murders would be committed in the states where the death penalty is permitted; the reality is there is no such trend.

Click to expand...

Thats EXACTLY what I believe. To think that execution can LINEARLY be applied to rate of murder in any given state is silly. Sorry.

When my parents threatened to spank me if I didn't do as they asked you BETTER believe I obeyed them. I didn't want a belt to my behind!! To say that execution is not a deterrent is insane. I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. Yes, I'm also deranged enough to think that parents should be allowed to spank their own children.

And again if its about protecting the "innocent" then apply it to punishment in general, stand behind your belief and promote anarchy.

imported post

richarcm wrote:

who are the most dangerous threat to our liberties and persuit of happiness? Cops or criminals?

Click to expand...

Cops.