Supreme Court allows strip searches for any offense

Discussion in 'Freedom of Expression' started by mongrel, Apr 2, 2012.

  1. I think everyone here can seee that Herro has posted a few paragraphs that completely blow anything adhocrat stated out of the water. Those posts were both eloquent and factual leaving adhocrat in a position where he/she has no reasonable retort. Sadly on this forum there are many who take sensationalistic views of everything, taking quite reasonable items and turning them into drama and anti this n that. Sometimes it's nice to see them neutered by a good post they have no reply to. People often have a blinkered view on things influenced by their past but feel they are the only ones who are right and the only ones who can see what's really happening. Herro, I tip my hat to you sir, not because I like/admire you, but for giving us a lesson in argumentative discussion and without lowering the tone or insult.

    Adhocrat, I await your lengthy reply to the posts made by Herro, if not then time to admit defeat son,
  2. moarxenu Member

    "Under oath doesn't mean shit." Jeff Quiros - Director of Special Affairs, SF Org
    • Like Like x 1
  3. adhocrat Member

    Herro's argument started with a straw man and went on to beg the question and other such logical fallacies, and now you use a false dichotomy to lure a response.

    I would suggest you take a class in logic, or at least get a good book. I studied from Irving Copi back in the day.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Studied Irving Berlin more like, Herro made perfect sense and I await your retort, unfortunately the fact that you have decided to try and belittle my ejucashun because you clearly feel superior merely shows you have no answer to his well written posts, diversion is no argument or maybe it is in Irving Copi's world.

    Step up to the plate wuss!
  5. Herro Member

    You want begging the question? I'll show you begging the question. Why do you hate America's firefighters?
  6. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 4
  7. what about in california?
    148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or
    obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding
    one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

    sounds like they could charge ANYONE with this.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. anonymous612 Member

    Uhm, that's an entirely different law (which isn't limited to Cali) and it's actually more relevant to EMTs and firefighters. That's the law that says (in plainer English) that you can't interfere with a paramedic who is trying to treat his patient, or you can't stop a firefighter from stopping a fire. It's actually a very important law, because it means if a protester gets injured in a conflict with police -- for instance, the guy in Occupy Oakland who took a canister to the head -- police cannot legally stop EMTs from getting to the protester and offering treatment.

    Generally speaking that would refer to physically interfering.

    The law that would most commonly be misquoted as banning lying to police would be an obstruction of justice charge, which is a completely different law.
    • Like Like x 2
  9. failboat Member

    • Like Like x 1
  10. Herro Member

    Anyone who intentionally interferes with the ability of the stated individuals to carry out their duties. What's so wrong with that?
  11. Herro, your missing the point, everyone should be free to do whatever they damn well want. No matter who gets hurt.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. PresidentShaw Member

  13. anonymous612 Member

    So, I'll ask the same question about this law I ask about other laws.

    It bans:
    1) Resisting police or EMTs that are discharging the duty of their office (meaning, legal and ethical actions as part of their job)
    2) Delaying police or EMTs that are making legal and ethical actions as part of their office.
    3) Obstructing (aka blocking) police or EMTs that are making legal and ethical actions as part of their office.

    If you object to this law so strongly, which of these three things is it that you wish you could do? Do you wish you could stop paramedics from treating patients? Or do you just wish you could delay them for long enough for the patient to die? Or are you trying to make sure a criminal escapes police?

    Really, if you hate this law so much...well, those are the only things it bans, so what part of that is the problem?
  14. Anonymous Member

  15. PresidentShaw Member

  16. Anonymous Member

    Ensure felony suspects are innocent, to prevent felony suspects from being victimized by correctional intelligence officers :)
  17. anonymous612 Member

    Uhm, if police are capable of ensuring felony suspects are innocent...then they aren't felony suspects and this doesn't apply to them.

    Srsly, people.
  18. Zak McKracken Member

    I'm going to go out on a limb, and risk inciting the wrath of 612,
    but wanted to add that solving the problem that caused the stream of shit in the latest SCOTUS case won't do much to address adhocrat's concerns unfortunately.

    The guy was arrested, and subject to very unpleasant treatment because the officers on the road had bad data. Better data would mean they'd have probably just let him go. Maybe with a ticket, maybe not (because cops hate paperwork.)

    But if police HAD better data, and were able to know pretty much definitely who is, and who isn't a scofflaw, there would be more room for abuse. Maybe/probably not in the quoted incident, but in other ones where officers are less scrupulous, and more egoistic jerkoffs. e.g. better intel helps "good cops" do their job, but also helps "bad apples" be even worse apples.

    Its a tradeoff.
    Do we want to risk empowering the "bad cops" even more so? That depends on how many there are, and how endemic the problem is in our society.

    Do we want to limit and circumscribe the "good cops"? If we do so to the point where they are unable to do their job effectively, it becomes pointless. But some kind of limits are good. We have them already. As 612 and others say, cops are always required to obey the law and uphold the Constitution. Do they? Usually. Is their compliance "good enough"?
    I'm not sure.

    I'd like to empower the "good cops" more. I'd like them to stay good, not most of the time but all the time. I dislike the Supreme Court ruling, but my gut says it was the right one. I worry that it will help set a precedent allowing more invasive and broader rights violations, with still zero accountability for the people who fuck shit up, though it will be court rulings following this one that actually set the scary precedents.

    I think I'm most upset with the attorneys for the plaintiff here, for painting themselves into a corner that gave the 5-4 an opportunity to LOL @ their skank ass.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. adhocrat Member

    If we could tell without fail who the good cops were then there wouldn't be any problem. But since good and bad are subject to change, with a good cop sometimes doing bad and a bad cop sometimes doing good, it makes it a crap shoot for one person to have authority over another, there is no way for the person to know if he is dealing with a good cop or a bad cop, and no way of knowing if the good cop witll act badly, or the bad cop act good.

    That means that we have to trust total strangers with our very lives.

    There was a news story yesterday where the 911 operator told the caller to return to the scene of the crime or be refused police assistance, He then went back, reluctantly, and was then murdered.

    He obeyed the lawful orders of an idiot, and paid the ultimate price. The idiot is still alive and well and 'sorry'.

    Having police means that we HAVE to assume that that stranger: one, knows what he is doing, two, not be a bad cop on a bad day, or a good cop on a bad day, and three then accept that this utter stranger actually has our interests at heart. And this is nothing to say about the fact that all cops are human, which means all the emotions of humanity, with all that entails.

    Too many ifs in that scenario for me.

    The situation is simple enough. We have one group of armed people with a different set of rules than the other, disarmed group.

    Not, police versus citizen, not government versus citizen, simply one group of armed people and one larger group of unarmed people. That is the reality.
    • Like Like x 3
  20. Anonymous Member

    Police training needs to change. Sadly, they're become more and more militarised.
    Good luck with that, Americans.
    • Like Like x 2
  21. You probably trust your life to perfect strangers every day but just don't realise it. Think about it.

    As for the story about the 911 call, well there is probably more to it but the main reason for the "idiot" telling tha person to go back was probably to do with the amount of "idiots" who call in with false info (just for kicks) hoax calls, and just downright stupid reasons, look into how many hoax or dumb calls they get every day, you will be shocked.

    Unfortunately we can't personally pick our own police officers, they also cannot be our friends therefore you will always have to put your life in the hands of a complete stranger.

    I've always found that if your having an interaction with a police officer it's for one of two reasons, one, you have broken a law and are about to get busted, or two, you have not broken a law and have nothing to worry about, either case if you begin the interaction by vehemently protesting or getting up in their face then things ain't gonna end well, the best way to deal with either is to just be polite and obey the officers orders, that way everything will be easy for both parties and both can get on their ways.

    Good cops and bad cops both respond favourably to good behaviour.
  22. Anonymous Member

    Would it be ok for me to park a car I "borrowed" in such a way that firefighters can't reach the firehydrant, mind if i do so in front of your parents "accidentally" burning house.

    You're right tho, everyone is free to do as they please that doesn't mean they are free of consequences.
  23. You obviously didn't get the Anderson/adhocrat memo.
  24. Anonymous Member

    Didn't get the sarcasm, my bad.
  25. Ditto
  26. adhocrat Member

    Quite right, we do. I spent years cutting metal that goes into machinery that keeps you aloft, so if my part is bad, you may die.
    But that isn't the problem here. The problem is that in the immediate situation, there is someone ordering you to do something that you may know for a fact will not help. SO you are n the situation of obeying a lawful order or doing what is right. That is the problem with 'authority' in that it infantalizes us, making it harder to trust our own judgement,
    I assume you didn't read about the situation, and see above, about ignoring your own emphatic emotions and obeying the lawful orders of the authorities. I'll obey my own sense of the situation over any authority any time and accept the consequences. But I will not obey someone just because he wears a snazzy blue suit.

    Which is of couse the point. We don't get to choose these people. Therefore we have NO way of knowing about them, and we CANT fire them. So we are in the situation of having no data about these people, no way of getting data and no way of stopping them if they are wrong.

    This is so naïve on some many levels I'll leave you to figure it out. But look up TOm Cruise missile and Keith Henson, or look up the Alien and Sedition acts and see who was jailed and what they did to get jailed.
    People with power will use that power, That is so basic as to be axiomatic.

    There was a news story recently of two young girls selling lemonade in their front yard. Day 1 the cops come by and buy a cup, Day two the cops come by and buy a cup, day three the cop comes by and screams at them that they are breaking the law and they must stop NOW.
    Yep, makes perfect sense.
    • Like Like x 2
  27. Herro Member

    You depend on strangers for vital and non vital things. You depend on any number of strangers who make our communication here possible. Another example, you depend on all manner of strangers to have properly constructed the roof above your head so that it does not come crashing down on your head. You have to trust strangers with ensuring you have clean water to drink. You can't have any kind of even mooderately complex society without depending upon strangers.

    Police are no different. You might not know with perfect certainty whether a cop is good or bad, but that holds true of any encounter with a stranger. But, as with most other strangers you can generally assume that the cop isn't a danger to you. Because by and large, they aren't a threat to you. You keep pointing out that the system we have now has flaws, as if that somehow renders it illegitimate. But why do you willfully ignore how well it works? We should never stop trying to improve out society, but you want to hold that society to an entirely unreasonable standard.
  28. Herro Member

    See you keep doing the same thing over and over. You either throw out some unusual anecdote or pose some strange hypothetical scenario to show how things could, in theory, go wrong. And then you jump from that straight to saying the whole thing is rotten (or "incredibly evil" as you phrased it earlier), yet you entirely ignore the fact millions of people inhabiting this country go about their day to day lives without being victimized by this supposedly evil system. And as the ever present "they" say, people generally dislike cops until they have the need to call them.
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Anonymous Member

    Without forgetting that the few officers that appear in the latest "OMG police brutality" viral video are about as representative of the police force as Ozzy Osborne is of white people.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Anonymous Member

    fuck you, i won't do what you tell me
    • Like Like x 2
  31. Clever Name Member

    Ozzy Osbourne???
  32. adhocrat Member

    You are good at projecting (you keep doing the same thing over and over)
    What you do over and over is misstate what i have said.

    Let me approach it a different way.
    Let's assume, as I think most of us do, that the law is supposed to apply equally to all people in a given geographical area. Then how is it that one group of people can carry guns and point then at another and all other groups are forbidden from doing the same? Resolve that contradiction without resort to special pleading or other logical fallacies, please.
    SO if we are not equal before the law, then we are not a democratic society, we are an authoritarian one.

    And Herro, do you really think that one group of people taking 30-50% of you money is a fair and just society? In any other context, that would be considered evil.
    • Like Like x 2
  33. Anonymous Member

    Why are some people allowed to drive cars and other not?
    • Like Like x 1
  34. Herro Member

    I think this is the third time I've said this to you in this thread. Police officers have responsibilities that other citizens do not have. Meeting these requirements sometimes requires that they use force. We give all kinds of people varying rights based on their responsibilities or their role within society. Why are doctors allowed to give their patients potent drugs?

    As to taxes. I am perfectly ok with paying taxes. I might want changes to the specifics of who pays what and how it's all spent, but I've no qualms with taxation itself. Sure my money is taken, but in return I have access to a vast array of services provided by the state. It's funny that you say it would be evil in another context. Obviously. Contex matters. In one context a man cutting open my body is torture, in another it's surgery.
    • Like Like x 1
  35. adhocrat Member

    And this is the third time I've told you the police having undue powers is the question, so all you are doing is begging the question. The book by Irving Copi is still available.

    My contention is that police should not have those powers. So to say they do is to beg the question.

    As for taxes, while you may not mind being robbed in the name of good, I see the incredible harm that brings, including empire building and foreign wars leading to other people hating us for being thugs, and the loss of the middle class.

    SO in essence, you are saying you see no way to not use violence as the basis of society. I am saying there are other ways. If you don't want to explore those other ways, no problem. I would never think to force you to do something you didn't want to do. It would be nice if you were to grant me the same respect but your philosophy demands that instead you condemn me for being unwilling to do as you say i should do.

    What a guy you are Herro, wanting me to set aside my conscience and substitutes yours. I think even you can see the problem with that.
    • Like Like x 2
  36. Herro Member

    Lol adhocrat, do you even realize what you're saying at this point? I think you need to refresh yourself on what begging the question is. You're asking me, why is it ok for police to have undue powers? That's a textbook example of begging the question. To repeat, for the fourth time, police have responsibilities others don't have. Meeting those responsibilities sometimes requires them to point guns at people. That's why they're allowed to point guns at people in those circumstances.

    With regards to taxes, once again you're pointing out that taxation isn't perfect, neglecting all the benefits, and then saying the whole thing must go. That's entirely irrational. Furthermore, we as a society decide you have to pay taxes if you want the benefits of being a citizen. I'm sorry that you don't get your way, but you are not more important than society as a whole. Finally, we all have a say in taxes though voting. It's not perfect andnew should never stop, trying to improve it but that's no reason to say its evil or to call it robbery.

    As for alternatives, I'd refer you back to my earlier posts where I already addressed the alternatives of which you are so fond. Remember, you said I was off topic or making straw men while I was doing that?

    Anhways, I see nothing wrong with expecting you to contribute to society and be bound by the same rules as anyone else. If you didn't have to play by the same rules wouldn't we just have an authoritarian society, according to your own definition from a previous post? Now that's how you beg a question.
    • Like Like x 1
  37. there's a lot of this kind of bullshit going around here. You make his(adhocrat's) position seem so selfish. I think its the other way around.
    • Like Like x 1
  38. adhocrat Member

    My question is and has been why do police have special powers not given to the rest of us?
    Your answer is that they have responsibilities we don't have and I have shown why that is utter BS and cannot work. No one can decide what is best for me but me. You want to give up your responsibility to someone wiser than you. But as much as it pains me to say this, there is no one wiser than you (at least as far as you are concerned).

    That is why I wish to find a way that does not use violence as the basis for a society. You say there is no other alternative. I say there are many other alternatives.
    • Like Like x 2
  39. Because adhocrat's position is based completely on the self, don't want to pay taxes, don't want to obey authority etc etc

    Adhocrat spouts more bulshit than anyone barring yourself!
  40. adhocrat Member

    I don't take Herro at all seriously. His self imposed job is to make others feel bad. That in itself is really all you need to know about him.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins