Law and Order 2 - Page 53 - Politics and Economics

Oh, also the great thing about dblbarrel in this thread is that usually we hear how people need the government to protect them from cases where there are information imbalances and he's here proudly telling us how the people who are supposed to protect us from that routinely exploit that very imbalance against the people they are supposed to be protecting (well actually, they have no obligation to protect them, but they like to pretend that the do so they can get the hero worship that goes with that, but that's another thread).

This plus dblbarrel strawmanning every logical argument into ACist utopiantalk, and this thread really sucks and there is no progress to be made. DblBarrel is probably more ethical than most cops and he still supports exploiting those information imbalances, which is extremely depressing.

03-02-2012 , 05:22 PM

#1302

Case Closed

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 19,112

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

All I've ever wanted to hear ITT.

GG all.

You're in that equation too, brah.

03-02-2012 , 05:25 PM

#1303

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

Nah I'm not tho.

Also, lulz to someone on a poker site getting butthurt about exploiting info imbalances

03-02-2012 , 05:27 PM

#1304

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

Nah I'm not tho.

Also, lulz to someone on a poker site getting butthurt about exploiting info imbalances

Yeah because competing with people in a game of skill is totally equivalent to taking a job where you are supposed to serve and protect the public, then exploiting said public up to the neck.

03-02-2012 , 05:35 PM

#1305

Case Closed

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 19,112

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

Nah I'm not tho.

Also, lulz to someone on a poker site getting butthurt about exploiting info imbalances

Easily more lol that you continually go to bat for people who exploit power in balances in real situations.

03-02-2012 , 05:42 PM

#1306

NeBlis

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 12,039

Indiana House Approves Bill That Allows Homeowners To Kill Police Officers

03-02-2012 , 05:44 PM

#1307

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

****ING HELL YEA INDIANA

WINNAR!!!!!

ETA, forgot: DEATH TO TYRANTS!!

Last edited by DblBarrelJ; 03-02-2012 at 06:04 PM.

03-02-2012 , 05:50 PM

#1308

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,257

Quote:

Originally Posted by einbert

Im curious what progress was supposed to be made?

03-02-2012 , 05:52 PM

#1309

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

Pretty sure he actually thinks he's changing the world, where as Im just here to kill time, and frequently just to **** with people for my own amusement.

03-02-2012 , 06:06 PM

#1310

einbert

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 14,911

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

Im curious what progress was supposed to be made?

For me the main reason I participate in these forums is to try to understand why our world is so ****ed up and how to help fix it, even if it's just a little bit. I realize the more cynical here don't care about any of that and are just here for the lulz, which is all good.

03-02-2012 , 06:12 PM

#1311

Case Closed

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 19,112

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

Pretty sure he actually thinks he's changing the world, where as Im just here to kill time, and frequently just to **** with people for my own amusement.

Well duh we know that. You're a cop. I'm pretty sure that's a prerequisite to get onto the force.

03-02-2012 , 07:20 PM

#1312

Aptronym

journeyman

Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 361

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeBlis

Indiana House Approves Bill That Allows Homeowners To Kill Police Officers

Ridiculous headline, though not unexpected from a website whose stated purpose is "to discredit all the lies and propaganda that the right-wing spreads". Sounds real impartial.

A little more nuanced and mainstream coverage from the Indystar here.

When you read the actual text of the bill you see that the hysteria in that headline is unwarranted.

Quote:

Summary:

Specifies that a person may use reasonable force against any other person in certain circumstances. Provides that a person is justified in using reasonable force against a law enforcement officer if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: (1) protect the person or a third person from unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the law enforcement officer's unlawful entry into the person's dwelling; or (3) prevent or terminate the law enforcement officer's criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession. Specifies that a person is not justified in using force against a law enforcement officer if: (1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime; (2) the person provokes action by the law enforcement officer with intent to injure the law enforcement officer; (3) the person has entered into combat with the law enforcement officer or is the initial aggressor; or (4) the person reasonably believes the law enforcement officer acting lawfully or is engaged in the lawful execution of the law enforcement officer's official duties. Provides that a person is not justified in using deadly force against a law enforcement officer who the person knows or reasonably should know is a law enforcement officer unless: (1) the person reasonably believes that the law enforcement officer is acting unlawfully or is not engaged in the execution of the officer's official duties; and (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.

Seems entirely reasonable to me. The bill does not at all affect any officer who is engaged in the "lawful" conduct of his duty.

03-02-2012 , 07:24 PM

#1313

will1530

self-banned

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 5,773

So the law allows people to prevent criminals from breaking into their home, assaulting them or another person, and stealing property? How is that at all controversial?

03-02-2012 , 07:24 PM

#1314

Aptronym

journeyman

Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 361

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

****ING HELL YEA INDIANA

WINNAR!!!!!

ETA, forgot: EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW!!

FYP

03-02-2012 , 07:33 PM

#1315

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

I lulz every time I come in here and feel so thankful I have enough life experience to know you people are not only a bizarre cult of whack jobs and cranks, but a tiny tiny minority as well.

03-02-2012 , 07:35 PM

#1316

will1530

self-banned

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 5,773

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

I lulz every time I come in here and feel so thankful I have enough life experience to know you people are not only a bizarre cult of whack jobs and cranks, but a tiny tiny minority as well.

Seriously? What is wrong with a bill that allows people to defend themselves against police that are breaking the law? That law is written basically like any other self defense law out there. There isn't anything outrageous that I can find. What exactly is the objection?

Also, lol @ tiny minority of wackjobs and cranks. This bill passed the House 74 to 24 and the Senate 45-5.

Last edited by will1530; 03-02-2012 at 07:41 PM.

03-02-2012 , 07:40 PM

#1317

Sholar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,357

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

I lulz every time I come in here and feel so thankful I have enough life experience to know you people are not only a bizarre cult of whack jobs and cranks, but a tiny tiny minority as well.

Hey, while you're here anyway...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholar

Although in some (but not all) states you can be (lawfully ordered) to provide pedigree information, I thought even in those cases a verbal response to the question always satisfied that requirement even if one did have a state issued identification card in one's possession. Is that not correct?

03-02-2012 , 07:52 PM

#1318

Case Closed

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 19,112

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

I lulz every time I come in here and feel so thankful I have enough life experience to know you people are not only a bizarre cult of whack jobs and cranks, but a tiny tiny minority as well.

You really don't get that people are intimidated of you in real life?

03-02-2012 , 07:54 PM

#1319

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

To give a serious response. This creates a great deal of danger to both civilians and law enforcement and serves to create no new "right".

AFAIK LE has never been protected anywhere from actions taken outside the color of law. I can assure you, if a cracked out cop is committing a residential burglary, to my knowledge you've already had the right to protect your home.

What this turns into is a lot of people shooting at, and being shot at by cops conducting legitimate LE business because they feel infringed upon.

What you're attempting to turn this into already exists.

03-02-2012 , 07:57 PM

#1320

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholar

Hey, while you're here anyway...

You're somewhat correct but the general rule is that you're still going to have to provide enough info for me to verify the info you're providing through the DMV, so just going "Sholar" typically isn't going to cut it.

03-02-2012 , 07:58 PM

#1321

will1530

self-banned

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 5,773

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

Except in Indiana, where a state supreme court decision said citizens do not have the right to protect themselves from cops who enter their home illegally. This law was made to overturn that decision. So, yes it did create a new right, or actually reaffirmed a right that the courts had taken away.

03-02-2012 , 08:06 PM

#1322

Aptronym

journeyman

Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 361

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

AFAIK LE has never been protected anywhere from actions taken outside the color of law

Wrong. Used to be the case, until the Ind Sup Court screwed the pooch:

Quote:

Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home
INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said

This bill merely returns things to the status quo, the way things have always been and should always be. As such, I don't see why you have a problem with it.

03-02-2012 , 08:10 PM

#1323

DblBarrelJ

2+2 Resident Enforcer

Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 13,857

If that's the case then it's fine, still were I an Indiana cop it would be quite some time before I entered a residence without a weapon at least unholstered and by my side.

03-02-2012 , 08:12 PM

#1324

Aptronym

journeyman

Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 361

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

you people are ... a bizarre cult of whack jobs and cranks

Lolz. The last resort of the uninformed.

Unable to rebut another's position with facts, fling poo like a monkey instead.

How pathetic.

03-02-2012 , 08:14 PM

#1325

Aptronym

journeyman

Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 361

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

I lulz every time I come in here and feel so thankful I have enough life experience to know you people are not only a bizarre cult of whack jobs and cranks, but a tiny tiny minority as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

If that's the case then it's fine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aptronym

Lolz. The last resort of the uninformed.

I rest my case.