-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Portland ordered to pay $175,000 to three men over false arrest re gun carry
- Thread starter KBCraig
- Start date
Nutczak
Regular Member
imported post
Pavegunner wrote:
But when they are rude, combative, overstepping their authority and balatantly trampling peoples rights and trying to escelatea situation, They do not deserve any respect and therefore I refuse to respect those types.
Things have a way of taking care of themselves when there is a problem, I have seen it happen many times.
One of the most memorable was a young officer in Greenfield WI, he was obnoxious, well one day he got obnoxious with the wrong person. And he spent many hours inthe hospitalfor facial reconstruction surgery.
Pavegunner wrote:
If any officer allows a fellow officer to break the law, and does not act in a way to stop his illegal behavior, They themselves are no better than the one committing the crimes against the public. So, I do not care of an officer is the most fair and honest person on the force, if they allow someone else in uniform to act poorly, it makes them no better!
Nobody forced them to take that job!
When they treat someone in a respectable, professional manner, I agree they do deserve some respect.
But when they are rude, combative, overstepping their authority and balatantly trampling peoples rights and trying to escelatea situation, They do not deserve any respect and therefore I refuse to respect those types.
Things have a way of taking care of themselves when there is a problem, I have seen it happen many times.
One of the most memorable was a young officer in Greenfield WI, he was obnoxious, well one day he got obnoxious with the wrong person. And he spent many hours inthe hospitalfor facial reconstruction surgery.
rodbender
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Citizen wrote:
As far as the Constitution goes, it does not prohibit the states or local jurisdictions from having police. However, nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Federal government can have them, thusly they are barred. This would include the BATFE, DEA, FBI, and the Treasury Dept.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Ironbar wrote:
Ironbar wrote:
Bah, you only try to make that argument because you don't live in Chicago or NYC ...
Pavegunner
Regular Member
imported post
Nutczak wrote:
Nutczak- it's quite obvious you are a cop-hater. if you read my entry, it does not defend the dirtbag cops who violated the civil rights of it's people.
You are being ignorant by painting all cops as bad. "nobody forced them to take that job" WTF
Nutczak wrote:
Nutczak- it's quite obvious you are a cop-hater. if you read my entry, it does not defend the dirtbag cops who violated the civil rights of it's people.
You are being ignorant by painting all cops as bad. "nobody forced them to take that job" WTF
Nutczak
Regular Member
imported post
Pavegunner,
Give me one single instance where someone was forced to work a job as a police officer. Nobody forced me to do what I do for a living, I chose my profession.
Were you forced into you current employment position? Anyone? Was anyone forced to take a certain job or profession against your will.
So don't give that crap! i'll say it again, when ever a cop whines about how tough his job is, I do not give a flying-****! nobody forced them to be a cop! it is a decision they made, so if they want to complain about it, they can find employment elsewhere.
The points I made very easily cross over to anyones lifestyle or choice of employment.
Lets say you work for a bank, you see a fellow teller embezzling money, but you say or do nothing to stop their illegal behavior. It makes you no better than the embezzling scumbag you are protecting.
Pavegunner,
Give me one single instance where someone was forced to work a job as a police officer. Nobody forced me to do what I do for a living, I chose my profession.
Were you forced into you current employment position? Anyone? Was anyone forced to take a certain job or profession against your will.
So don't give that crap! i'll say it again, when ever a cop whines about how tough his job is, I do not give a flying-****! nobody forced them to be a cop! it is a decision they made, so if they want to complain about it, they can find employment elsewhere.
The points I made very easily cross over to anyones lifestyle or choice of employment.
Lets say you work for a bank, you see a fellow teller embezzling money, but you say or do nothing to stop their illegal behavior. It makes you no better than the embezzling scumbag you are protecting.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Well said.
Even noms-de-'net can be sturm und drang, why a given name is best.
Well said.
Even noms-de-'net can be sturm und drang, why a given name is best.
gsx1138
Regular Member
imported post
Nutczak wrote:
But you should really stop hating on bank tellers. They have a difficult and thankless job and they deserve our respect.
Nutczak wrote:
Well stated.
But you should really stop hating on bank tellers. They have a difficult and thankless job and they deserve our respect.
rodbender
Regular Member
imported post
Nutczak, are you really JohnnyB?
Nutczak, are you really JohnnyB?
Streetbikerr6
Regular Member
imported post
grishnav wrote:
grish if a single mom has 3 kids and is shooting up heroin and these kids are left to starve since she is passed out or worse dead, does that not mean they are victims?
If a drug dealer hits up an elementary school and sells drugs to kids who have no idea what they are doing since they are 10 years old or 11, are they not victims of this individual drug dealer?
Your friend aside, if there is a crack addict roaming around the streets and falls in the street and gets hit by a car, or dies of an overdose, is he not himself his own victim, or a victim of drugs?
I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I would really like your comment on this, you seem thought out, please respond. And as to your friend with marijuana, sure he can do all he wants, no flak from me, but the minute drugs start affecting family's lives for the worse, they are all victims arent they? NowI am not arguing against your friends pain relief, butare youproposing that all drugs become legalized in any amount to any age? Please clarify. Thanks
grishnav wrote:
grish if a single mom has 3 kids and is shooting up heroin and these kids are left to starve since she is passed out or worse dead, does that not mean they are victims?
If a drug dealer hits up an elementary school and sells drugs to kids who have no idea what they are doing since they are 10 years old or 11, are they not victims of this individual drug dealer?
Your friend aside, if there is a crack addict roaming around the streets and falls in the street and gets hit by a car, or dies of an overdose, is he not himself his own victim, or a victim of drugs?
I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I would really like your comment on this, you seem thought out, please respond. And as to your friend with marijuana, sure he can do all he wants, no flak from me, but the minute drugs start affecting family's lives for the worse, they are all victims arent they? NowI am not arguing against your friends pain relief, butare youproposing that all drugs become legalized in any amount to any age? Please clarify. Thanks
mark edward marchiafava
Banned
imported post
Let's set the record straight: it's RE-legalize drugs.
Let's set the record straight: it's RE-legalize drugs.
Streetbikerr6
Regular Member
imported post
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
You could say that for anything. The beginning of time had no laws.
mark edward marchiafava
Banned
imported post
You kids just don't get it.
If you READ the history of this once-great Republic, you'd learn the modern day "drug laws" didn't exist till fairly recently.
Read, study and learn.
You kids just don't get it.
If you READ the history of this once-great Republic, you'd learn the modern day "drug laws" didn't exist till fairly recently.
Read, study and learn.
grishnav
Regular Member
imported post
Streetbikerr6 wrote:
Of a crappy, abusive parent; not of heroin.
If a drunkard father comes home and beats the kids, we don't blame the alcohol, we blame the alcoholic! And when we send them to AA, we get them to take responsibility for their actions and make amends, we don't call to ban booze for the rest of responsible society!
Riight. Because 10 years olds are where all the money's at.
Hint: Drugs don't get dealt to 10 year olds, because it's not profitable, because 10 year olds aren't out working and making money. Any drug money he had would have had to have been provided by you in the form of allowance, Mr. Parent. And allowance typically isn't enough to buy drugs. Further, what kind of school are you sending your kids to that's letting drug dealers sell on campus? Further still, even you implicitly admit that, at best, the kids would be a victim of the dealer rather than the drugs themselves. Finally, if you legalize them, there won't be any 'dealers' in the traditional sense of the word! They'd be sold in stores, just like alcohol is. People don't come around trying to sell 10 year olds booze, now, do they? Do you honestly think they'd try to if it was legal? Do you think your school's principal would let them? If so, why the hell you sendin' him to that school? Jeese.
This whole "the drugs are going to attack the kids" is the right-wing's rehashing of the brady bunch's argument that kids will get their hands on guns and hurt themselves with them no matter what precaution you take. It's a tired, thoroughly debunked argument that's based on emotion rather than reality.
Only insomuch as a drunk driver is a victim of alcohol, or a cancer patient a victim of cigarettes. You make choices with your life. Choices have consequences. If falling in the street and getting hit by a car is one of the possible risks with using crack, and you use crack, you accept those risks, and if you get him by a car, then it's your own damn doing, not crack's.
If you accept the argument that it's crack's fault that you fell in front of the car, then you must also except the brady bunch argument that guns cause gun crime and gun accidents, because it is the exact same flawed reasoning.
It never ceases to amaze me that the left and the right use the same arguments and counter arguments for different objects and yet can't understand each other's reasoning. Try switching the object: Lefties feel the way about guns that righties feel about drugs: irrationally scared of an inanimate object.
Of the person, not the drug.
Streetbikerr6 wrote:
Of a crappy, abusive parent; not of heroin.
If a drunkard father comes home and beats the kids, we don't blame the alcohol, we blame the alcoholic! And when we send them to AA, we get them to take responsibility for their actions and make amends, we don't call to ban booze for the rest of responsible society!
Riight. Because 10 years olds are where all the money's at.
Hint: Drugs don't get dealt to 10 year olds, because it's not profitable, because 10 year olds aren't out working and making money. Any drug money he had would have had to have been provided by you in the form of allowance, Mr. Parent. And allowance typically isn't enough to buy drugs. Further, what kind of school are you sending your kids to that's letting drug dealers sell on campus? Further still, even you implicitly admit that, at best, the kids would be a victim of the dealer rather than the drugs themselves. Finally, if you legalize them, there won't be any 'dealers' in the traditional sense of the word! They'd be sold in stores, just like alcohol is. People don't come around trying to sell 10 year olds booze, now, do they? Do you honestly think they'd try to if it was legal? Do you think your school's principal would let them? If so, why the hell you sendin' him to that school? Jeese.
This whole "the drugs are going to attack the kids" is the right-wing's rehashing of the brady bunch's argument that kids will get their hands on guns and hurt themselves with them no matter what precaution you take. It's a tired, thoroughly debunked argument that's based on emotion rather than reality.
Only insomuch as a drunk driver is a victim of alcohol, or a cancer patient a victim of cigarettes. You make choices with your life. Choices have consequences. If falling in the street and getting hit by a car is one of the possible risks with using crack, and you use crack, you accept those risks, and if you get him by a car, then it's your own damn doing, not crack's.
If you accept the argument that it's crack's fault that you fell in front of the car, then you must also except the brady bunch argument that guns cause gun crime and gun accidents, because it is the exact same flawed reasoning.
It never ceases to amaze me that the left and the right use the same arguments and counter arguments for different objects and yet can't understand each other's reasoning. Try switching the object: Lefties feel the way about guns that righties feel about drugs: irrationally scared of an inanimate object.
Of the person, not the drug.
Yes. Yes I am. Or at least as an incremental step, all drugs for all adults. But if you want to ban kids from drugs, just remember: The ones who want to do them are going to find a way. That way could be high quality, safe drugs from the corner store, or crap from the street laced with god knows what. Obviously you'd rather not have your kid doing drugs at all, but if he's going to do them, would you rather have him get highly pure, controlled dosage drugs from 7-11, or buy black tar laced with rat poison from some dude on the street (who might or might not just shoot him and steal his money instead of providing any drugs at all)? You make the call. I know what my choice is.
bigdaddy1
Regular Member
imported post
How does the topic go from a story on how some abusive cops get a slap on the wriststo lets legalize drugs?
How does the topic go from a story on how some abusive cops get a slap on the wriststo lets legalize drugs?
Crashbox
Regular Member
imported post
bigdaddy1 wrote:
bigdaddy1 wrote:
+1.
Streetbikerr6
Regular Member
imported post
Crashbox wrote:
Crashbox wrote:
ask the guy with the near same avatar as you.