Sick burn?

http://www.channel3000.com/news/29827742/detail.html
http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/23/pa...g-their-6-year

cliffs:

• County Prosecutor brings felony sexual assault charges against 6 year old boy for playing doctor with 5 year old girl
• tries to force boy to admit guilt
• Parents try to go to press, prosecutor asks for and receives gag order
• Lawsuit brought by parents alleges the charges were brought because the 5-year-old is the daughter of a high-ranking official in Grant County
• brother of "victim" also participated but was not charged
• lawsuit also names a retired sheriff sgt and 'an investigator with Grant County Social Services "whose regional supervisor...is the political figure's wife's sister-in-law"—i.e., the aunt of the alleged victim.'

wow, that's amazing.

Unrelated: The NYPD: Mayor Bloomberg's private army

Bump

I'm glad that you can see your experiences are likely greatly tainted and that your work enviornment as a police officer is probably very different than that of officers working a police in large cities in poor communities.

How long do you think it would take for someone with a mini hidden camera and microphone from IA who was in their early 20's, black, dressed like a gangsta to get a police officer on film and audio recording breaking the law (making a threat, using excessive force, etc) in say Boston, MA at 1am if the IA undercover had alcohol on their breath and talked like a wise ass or tough guy to various police officers under the cover of dark without an audience around?

I am an ACist but don't have an answer to your questions. I am simply an average Joe who wants the government off his ass and out of his pockets.

If we knew what the market outcome would be, we wouldn't need the market. I think a lot would depend on what kind of agreements were entered into. For example, it could be that to live in the area where your suspect lives they had to agree to the jurisdiction of the DRO to investigate.

If we were close to having ACland, we would have a better idea of what it would look like. I am guessing that in 100 years if we continue to have a statist society, these 4th amendment issues will look quite a bit different than they do today. Nobody uses this as a reason to reject the state, so it seems dubious to reject ACism on the inability to predict the future.

I thought about parodying the ACist position by mumbling something about "don't worry, the market will solve it". Sad that what I thought turned out to be true (though I'm surprised nothing about profit motive)..

It's good that no one in america is worrying today because government is solving everyone's problems, huh?

Yep, you're either an ACist or everything is peachy and absolutely nothing is wrong.

I can tell by all of the threads in the politics forum filled with posts of everyone agreeing and posting how life is wonderful and how content they all are.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...r=Weird%20News

A judge

See Robert Murphy's, "Chaos Theory"

http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

"Surely there will
always be deviant, antisocial individuals who, through malice or
ignorance, ignore the incentives and commit crimes. How would
a system of market anarchy deal with such people?
First, keep in mind that wherever someone is standing in a purely
libertarian8 society, he would be on somebody’s property. This
is the way in which force could be brought to bear on criminals
without violating their natural rights.
For example, the contract9 of a movie theater would have a clause
to the effect, “If I am judged guilty of a crime by a reputable arbi-
tration agency [perhaps listed in an Appendix], I release the theater
owner from any liability should armed men come to remove me
from his property.”
So we see that it is not a contradiction to use force to capture
fugitives in a completely voluntary society. All such uses would
have been authorized by the recipients themselves beforehand.10"

LOL. So basically in your view, we should not consider ourselves bound to the social contract because that's oppressive, but we are all subject to the imposition of the views and desires of propertyholders?

We should not be victims of force perpetrated by the state but we should be victims of force perpetrated by the rich man who "owns" the land we stand on?

It's pretty plain that a lot of propertarians in fact want to live in 18th century Russia, but you rarely see one who's so up front about it.

LoL right back. Without the aid of a crystal ball, I was answering an esoteric question.

The philosopher David Hume called a social contract "a convenient fiction"

"AS no party, in the present age can well support itself without a philosophical or speculative system of principles annexed to its political or practical one; we accordingly find that each of the factions into which this nation is divided has reared up a fabric of the former kind, in order to protect and cover that scheme of actions which it pursues. . . . The one party [defenders of the absolute and divine right of kings, or Tories], by tracing up government to the DEITY, endeavor to render it so sacred and inviolate that it must be little less than sacrilege, however tyrannical it may become, to touch or invade it in the smallest article. The other party [the Whigs, or believers in constitutional monarchy], by founding government altogether on the consent of the PEOPLE suppose that there is a kind of original contract by which the subjects have tacitly reserved the power of resisting their sovereign, whenever they find themselves aggrieved by that authority with which they have for certain purposes voluntarily entrusted him."



We should not be victims of a State that claims a monopoly on violence


18th century Russians were literally slaves that were forbidden to move in search of of a better job. This comparison is irrelevant to what ACists propose

Mumia Abu-Jamal Death Sentence Commuted To Life Without Parole.

Need moar vids of cops gonna cop imo.

Tough Cop Tasers 14 Yr Old Schoolgirl.

it will get pled down

Cliffs:

1. Group of teens walking down street
2. ????????????????????
3. TASER! TASER! TASER!

Seriously, that article was the most words I've ever seen to say "Cop tazes girl, no idea why. Cop says he was hit, girl says he was not. Also, miscellaneous black kid arrested by fat black cop."

Yea, the editing on that video leaves a bit to be desired.

I'm going to need to know what happened before DBJ's #1 and during #2.


That being said, I find it unlikely the "walking on the highway" charge is gonna stick, if it actually requires a decent sized road for it to apply. Washington street isn't a highway in any sense of the word. (IANAL tho)

The tazering happened right here, btw: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll...h&z=19&vpsrc=6 Somewhat familiar with that area.

wow, I stop at that Wawa all the time (a block away)

so do the cops, oddly I'm yet to be tazzed

New Police 'Tool' Will Stop Protesters From Breathing.

Police to test laser that 'blinds rioters'

I heard something on the radio recently that I found interesting. It was a discussion about 'less lethal' weapons. It was claimed that this term misleads people because one tends to think that by using a taser, an example of a 'less lethal' weapon, that a police officer is somehow using less force on a suspect. But in reality what happens is different. Police do not use 'less lethal' weapons in place of using a lethal weapon such as a gun. They do not find themself in a circumstance where they would normally have used a firearm and shot a person, but instead they choose a 'less lethal' weapon and do not shoot the person but only tase them.

The reality is that less lethal weapons basically only increase the overall force used by police on the populace. They do not choose less lethal weapons to use in circumstances where they would have used 'more lethal' weapons. What they do is use tasers and the like as a pain compliance tool in circumstances where they would have used a hands on approach to cuff up a suspect. So these less lethal weapons increase the overall ammount of force police use, they do not decrease it. They now use tasers on a regular basis in circumstances where in the past they would have used an approach like: ta da.... verbal commands..... to get compliance from a suspect.

Less lethal is a scam, don't be fooled or mislead by the term. The existance of tasers means you will be more likely to suffer a painful experience at the hands of police than you would have before they became a tool of law enforcement.

FYP, more accurate. I don't know why people refuse to acknowledge or downplay "going hands-on" like it's somehow more humane. Hand to hand greatly increases the likelihood someone, whether suspect or cop, will be injured vs using a taser.