Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What's wrong with cops these days?
Topic Started: Jul 20 2010, 10:22 PM (2,292 Views)
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 27 2010, 04:40 AM
Translation:

My friend is a dangerous driver. He has no qualification that show he is capable of handling a killing machine. Those who use the roads paid for and maintained by the communal effort of the tax payer have not consented to his dangerous driving, instead they communally insist that all people who use their roads (and endanger the lives of every other road user with their two tonne weapons) submit to checks and balances to minimise that danger.

My friend refused to submit to the regulations imposed by the owners of the road. Rather than try to mediate the dispute he had and negotiate a way to use the road system that he did not own, he chose to deny the legal system he was operating under and use the road without consent. (Nevermind the fact that the owners of the road system he was using have no objection to my friend using his vehicle on land that my friend owns, rather than the roads that they own.)

Later that evening, my friend imbibed a poison that makes it twice as likely for him to kill someone with his two tonne weapon. In further defiance of the community that owns the road system he insists on using without consent from the owners, he took his weapon and wielded it threateningly in public, defying the safety regulations that govern safe use of his weapon (agreed upon by the owners of the road (speed and seat belts)).
Very well translated. E, although you own a car, you do not own the road, regardless if it was paid for with stolen, or voluntarily contributed monies. Ergo, if you wish to use that car, you must do so on your own property, or designated "public" land, i.e., land not owned by someone else.

If you were eating your wonderfully healthy calzones on a picnic table on non-private land, the so-called kidnappers would not have taken, or questioned you - of, if they did, you would have had every reason no ignore them. Once you trespassed onto privately owned land, regardless of if you recognize the land-owners legitimacy in owning that land, you have an obligation to abide by the legal owner's requests for use.

Stay on foot. It is healthier.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Al Araam
Member Avatar
Demigod of Death & Inactivity

E, you live in anarchy with a group of people who believe in your particular vision of anarchy. That doesn't prove anything. That's actually the only condition in which living in anarchy was acknowledged as not being impossible. Your friend's trouble with the law, however, illustrates the problems of your particular brand of anarchy quite well. Living a life of "anarchy" without leeching off the state, and thus off of all of the citizens of said state, without being self-sufficient is more or less impossible. Is theft really any more just when you do it than when the state does it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Not too put words in E's mouth but...

I think Robin Hood was a good guy. I support stealing from thieves. (But then I also support stealing in general as a means for redistributing wealth, so make of that what you will.)

I don't support sanctimonious testimony against the government because the government are thieves forcing others to play by their rules when I myself am stealing and forcing my rules on others. But in principle, I don't think E's actions are as bad as (say) him defying the licensing rules I operate on my own private land paid by with my own money rather than with funds stolen from the people.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Comrade Queen
Member Avatar
Comrade Bitchqueen
Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 28 2010, 05:58 AM
Not too put words in E's mouth but...

I think Robin Hood was a good guy.
Well, maybe the storybook version. The possible, historical Robin was found to be sadly lacking in noble spirit and was in fact a murderous cutthroat.

http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/leicester-mercury/mi_8142/is_20100503/roger-real-robin-hood/ai_n53403361/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

The Robyn Hode story is fiction designed to establish the Saxon Livery Guilds written in the 14th Century. It's not about a 13th Century real life bandit. It's a glorified clothes advert, nothing more sinister than that. None of the attempts to link Robin Hood with a real person hold water. I'd give sources, but it's easier for you to wikipedia it - I'm confident that it'll back me up.

I was, of course, referring to the Disney Robin Hood. That fox is a pretty cool guy, he fights baloo and doesn't afraid of anything!

[Edit]


And Roger Godberd is a pretty good example of an Anarchist. HI-OH!
Edited by Nag Ehgoeg, Jul 29 2010, 05:46 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 29 2010, 05:30 AM
The Robyn Hode story is fiction designed to establish the Saxon Livery Guilds written in the 14th Century. It's not about a 13th Century real life bandit. It's a glorified clothes advert, nothing more sinister than that. None of the attempts to link Robin Hood with a real person hold water. I'd give sources, but it's easier for you to wikipedia it - I'm confident that it'll back me up.

I was, of course, referring to the Disney Robin Hood. That fox is a pretty cool guy, he fights baloo and doesn't afraid of anything!

[Edit]


And Roger Godberd is a pretty good example of an Anarchist. HI-OH!
Prefer the Errol Flynn Robin Hood myself, over the animated version. Oh, and Basil Rathbone makes for a very good villian!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Comrade Queen
Member Avatar
Comrade Bitchqueen
Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 29 2010, 05:30 AM
The Robyn Hode story is fiction designed to establish the Saxon Livery Guilds written in the 14th Century. It's not about a 13th Century real life bandit. It's a glorified clothes advert, nothing more sinister than that. None of the attempts to link Robin Hood with a real person hold water. I'd give sources, but it's easier for you to wikipedia it - I'm confident that it'll back me up.

I was, of course, referring to the Disney Robin Hood. That fox is a pretty cool guy, he fights baloo and doesn't afraid of anything!

[Edit]


And Roger Godberd is a pretty good example of an Anarchist. HI-OH!
The thing is, Roger is the best suspect we have to find a basis for Robin Hood as a real person. There are events in his life that coincide quite well with the more fictional portrayal we all know and love. Legends do have basic elements in reality, after all.

And Wikipedia does not back you up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood#Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood#Ballads_and_tales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Godberd
Edited by Comrade Queen, Jul 29 2010, 05:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hastine
Member Avatar
Universi enim hic sumus.
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 29 2010, 05:30 AM
I was, of course, referring to the Disney Robin Hood. That fox is a pretty cool guy, he fights baloo and doesn't afraid of anything!
That movie was my childhood, man.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Scythirus
Jul 29 2010, 05:34 PM
Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 29 2010, 05:30 AM
The Robyn Hode story is fiction designed to establish the Saxon Livery Guilds written in the 14th Century. It's not about a 13th Century real life bandit. It's a glorified clothes advert, nothing more sinister than that. None of the attempts to link Robin Hood with a real person hold water. I'd give sources, but it's easier for you to wikipedia it - I'm confident that it'll back me up.

I was, of course, referring to the Disney Robin Hood. That fox is a pretty cool guy, he fights baloo and doesn't afraid of anything!

[Edit]


And Roger Godberd is a pretty good example of an Anarchist. HI-OH!
The thing is, Roger is the best suspect we have to find a basis for Robin Hood as a real person. There are events in his life that coincide quite well with the more fictional portrayal we all know and love. Legends do have basic elements in reality, after all.

And Wikipedia does not back you up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood#Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood#Ballads_and_tales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Godberd
Really? *Wikis* Well what do you know? Doesn't really back you up either. Specifically:

1. Roger Godberd was outlawed for the de Montfort revolt. Robin Hood was not.
2. There is no evidence that Godberd was ever referred to as Robin Hood.
3. Hunter's "Robyn Hode" fits the Gest better.
4. "At the same time it is possible that Robin Hood has always been a fictional character; the folklorist Francis James Child declared "Robin Hood is absolutely a creation of the ballad-muse" and this view has not been disproved."
5. The establishment of "Robin Hood" as the "John Doe" of the Middle Ages is irrefutable, origin of the title does not translate to a real man doing the deeds - which is why even the advocates of Godberd describe him as a "prototype" Robin Hood.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
You know what? Given that the title of the thread is "What's wrong with cops these days?", I'm going to answer that question...

With another question:

What has always been wrong with cops?

Because seriously, as far as they are concerned, nothing has really changed. If anything, they commit less atrocious acts than they used to. The only reason people get outraged about things they do these days is because the media tells the masses what to be angry about. And almost everybody is stupid enough to buy into the bullshit the media spoonfeeds them.

The problem with cops is they are given the authority to enforce the law, which means it is far easier for them to violate the law. The average person abuses power, and this is no exception.

So problem identified. Solutions?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flumes
Member Avatar
CLEVELAND ROCKS!
Giving the middle finger to the economy of the town that ticketed me... Drive 20 in a 25, 15 if there are no cops around... All so my speakers stay in range longer. :lol: The tourists all love rap music. :lol:

^^

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Comrade Queen
Member Avatar
Comrade Bitchqueen
Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 30 2010, 05:17 AM
Really? *Wikis* Well what do you know? Doesn't really back you up either. Specifically:
At least Wikipedia acknowledges Godberd as a possibility. I didn't see anything in the article about "Saxon Livery Guilds."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Scythirus
Jul 30 2010, 11:45 PM
Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 30 2010, 05:17 AM
Really? *Wikis* Well what do you know? Doesn't really back you up either. Specifically:
At least Wikipedia acknowledges Godberd as a possibility. I didn't see anything in the article about "Saxon Livery Guilds."
True. I'm a little surprised, but it's a fair cop.

Have you read the Gest (just out of curiosity - not meaning that as a challenge or anything: I wouldn't wish reading that much Middle English prose on anyone, and I'd be quite surprised if you answered in the affirmative)? It talks about clothes a lot. And Robin Hood wears, guess what, the red hood and tights of the Livery Guild. The first thing he asks of the Knight is why his clothes are so worn. They celebrate victories by buying clothes. There are six kinds of cloth mentioned in the Gest.

I admit, I don't have any sources to cite beyond what I've already quoted from wikipedia, but it is widely accepted in the UK that Robin Hood was a purely fictional character.

I acknowledge Godberd as a possibility for being a part of an amalgam (certainly, a good two hundred years after Godberd's death and the usage of "Robin Hood" in common parlance, we start to see some very clear parallels in Robin Hood's supposed deeds and Godberd's life). And I agree with your original point. But the problems associated with saying that he was the "real" Robin Hood are outlined in the wikipedia article.

tl;dr:

Godberd is one of the closest matches for a real life Robin Hood we have. He was not a nice man.
Robin Hood is a fictional character, who cares?

****

Sed:

I think E has actually addressed this many a time.

You give someone a monopoly on power, they abuse it.

Solution?

Break the monopoly. Allow diversification of the law market. Stop propping up one group of hired thugs with money taken by force without consent (and stop putting them in a Chinese Finger Trap by telling them to police themselves). If the law didn't allow these thugs the power it affords them, we'd see more conscientious policing.

If the police arrest you for no reason, they're breaking the law.
If you resist this unlawful arrest (and, as E is living proof, resistance can be non-violent), you are breaking the law.

Let me restate that. It is illegal to resist unlawful arrest (by a police officer) peacefully.

I can think of no other case where it's illegal to resist a criminal. Except where that criminal is the police (or the hand which feeds them - The Government).

If the police kick down your door for no reason, don't try to arrest you and taze your granny:

It is illegal to try and stop them.

If a policeman pulls a gun on you, again for no legal reason, it is illegal to pull your gun on him in response.

Now if "Security Firm A" tries to kidnap you and put you in a box against your will, they'll have a lot harder time of it when you can call up "Security Firm B" and report your unlawful kidnap. Of course, if they have evidence and took you in using a reasonable procedure, then why the hell would "Firm B" object and take your case? Criminals get punished, law abiding citizens don't get shat on.

Let every man be his own sheriff and king of his own castle. That'll show the thugs in uniforms.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
If a policeman is found to have used excessive force, he is repremanded, and possibly suspended for a few days.
If I am found to have used excessive force, I go to jail.

If a policeman is found to have obtained evidence illegally, I, the victim, is punished by having to see that evidense tossed out.
If I attempt to use illegaly gained evidence against a fellow citizen, I go to jail.

The solution here is obvious - we can continue to protect constitutional rights prohibiting illegally obtained evidence by putting the cop who obtained it in jail - then still using the evidence in a trial.

We also can achieve constitutional protections by putting a cop in jail for using excessive force, but NOT letting a criminal go.

Cops are not, as they like to think, THE LAW. A few simple changes would correct that.

Also, Nag, we are not required as citizens to aide and cooperate in our own arrest. We cannot use force to resist, but we dont have to help the cops either. What E did was perfectly legal, and charging him for resisting arrest is illegal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 31 2010, 09:20 AM
Let every man be his own sheriff and king of his own castle. That'll show the thugs in uniforms.
Sigged.

In Free Grafton, everyone is a cop.

And speaking of castles, I'm building one out of tires.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
Quote:
 
The solution here is obvious - we can continue to protect constitutional rights prohibiting illegally obtained evidence by putting the cop who obtained it in jail - then still using the evidence in a trial.
Are you kidding me? The point of making certain avenues of gaining evidence illegal isn't just for the sake of it. The point is that such evidence could easily be planted or otherwise suspect. Using it in trial is absolutely obscene and perverts the whole legal system.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Comrade Queen
Member Avatar
Comrade Bitchqueen
Nag Ehgoeg
Jul 31 2010, 09:20 AM
Have you read the Gest (just out of curiosity - not meaning that as a challenge or anything: I wouldn't wish reading that much Middle English prose on anyone, and I'd be quite surprised if you answered in the affirmative)? It talks about clothes a lot. And Robin Hood wears, guess what, the red hood and tights of the Livery Guild. The first thing he asks of the Knight is why his clothes are so worn. They celebrate victories by buying clothes. There are six kinds of cloth mentioned in the Gest.

I admit, I don't have any sources to cite beyond what I've already quoted from wikipedia, but it is widely accepted in the UK that Robin Hood was a purely fictional character.

I acknowledge Godberd as a possibility for being a part of an amalgam (certainly, a good two hundred years after Godberd's death and the usage of "Robin Hood" in common parlance, we start to see some very clear parallels in Robin Hood's supposed deeds and Godberd's life). And I agree with your original point. But the problems associated with saying that he was the "real" Robin Hood are outlined in the wikipedia article.

tl;dr:

Godberd is one of the closest matches for a real life Robin Hood we have. He was not a nice man.
Robin Hood is a fictional character, who cares?

No, I haven't read Gest. I frankly haven't even seen it in a store. What I do have is an old copy of Paul Creswick's Robin Hood that was given to me in my childhood. Granted, that's a relatively modern book, but it's the only Robin Hood prose I own. Nevertheless, I never said the Robin Hood's story was word-for-word Roger Godberd's life. What I did say is that he was a BASIS. If you've ever seen a film based on a book, you'd know that nothing of what you wind up with is even close to an exact retelling.

Quote:
 
If the police arrest you for no reason, they're breaking the law.
If you resist this unlawful arrest (and, as E is living proof, resistance can be non-violent), you are breaking the law.

Let me restate that. It is illegal to resist unlawful arrest (by a police officer) peacefully.

I can think of no other case where it's illegal to resist a criminal. Except where that criminal is the police (or the hand which feeds them - The Government).

If the police kick down your door for no reason, don't try to arrest you and taze your granny:

It is illegal to try and stop them.

If a policeman pulls a gun on you, again for no legal reason, it is illegal to pull your gun on him in response.


According to the Constitution, it is NOT illegal to resist unlawful arrest. Unfortunately, the last time our authorities and government listened to the Constitution was a rainy Tuesday many decades ago.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

In New Hampshire, it's illegal to peacefully resist unlawful arrest. (As E found out, unless that resistance is "purely verbal".)

I'd check your State's laws: nationally it might be "legal", but I bet I'll bet money that locally it isn't (except in California, where I know it's legal to peacefully resist arrest).

(NH, it's illegal in your state too - there's no provision of force. I'd look up Scy's but I don't remember which state he lives in.)

Scy, I restate: amalgam. Hundreds of years after the Robin Hood story is first told, it's retold slightly differently and happens to match up a bit better with real life bandits. I don't deny the similarity of Godberd's life with modern tales. I already said I agreed with you in that respect. He's even a vague sort of match to the Gest. But yeah, "film based on the book" is actually a pretty apt analogy.
Edited by Nag Ehgoeg, Aug 1 2010, 06:41 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Quaon
Jul 31 2010, 04:42 PM
Quote:
 
The solution here is obvious - we can continue to protect constitutional rights prohibiting illegally obtained evidence by putting the cop who obtained it in jail - then still using the evidence in a trial.
Are you kidding me? The point of making certain avenues of gaining evidence illegal isn't just for the sake of it. The point is that such evidence could easily be planted or otherwise suspect. Using it in trial is absolutely obscene and perverts the whole legal system.
Most of the time, it's illegal because it was obtained through criminal activity - usually a breach of privacy like search without a warrant.

How many times do you think a cop would plant evidence if it meant going to jail?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paradise
Member Avatar
Resident bureaucrat

Relevant articles from The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/node/16640389
http://www.economist.com/node/16636027

Yeah, there seems to be something wrong with the american cops these days.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
flumes
Member Avatar
CLEVELAND ROCKS!
I love The Economist.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quaon
Member Avatar
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
Nag Ehgoeg
Aug 1 2010, 06:43 AM
Quaon
Jul 31 2010, 04:42 PM
Quote:
 
The solution here is obvious - we can continue to protect constitutional rights prohibiting illegally obtained evidence by putting the cop who obtained it in jail - then still using the evidence in a trial.
Are you kidding me? The point of making certain avenues of gaining evidence illegal isn't just for the sake of it. The point is that such evidence could easily be planted or otherwise suspect. Using it in trial is absolutely obscene and perverts the whole legal system.
Most of the time, it's illegal because it was obtained through criminal activity - usually a breach of privacy like search without a warrant.

How many times do you think a cop would plant evidence if it meant going to jail?
That's utterly irrelevant. I'm not arguing against cops going to jail for planting evidence; I'm arguing for the fact that it is utterly unjust and backwards to allow illegally obtained evidence into a trial. This is basic stuff.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
It may be somewhat unjust but surely it's not "utterly" unjust. If a criminal escapes retribution because incriminating illegally obtained evidence is withheld, justice is then not attained.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Quaon
Jul 31 2010, 04:42 PM
Quote:
 
The solution here is obvious - we can continue to protect constitutional rights prohibiting illegally obtained evidence by putting the cop who obtained it in jail - then still using the evidence in a trial.
Are you kidding me? The point of making certain avenues of gaining evidence illegal isn't just for the sake of it. The point is that such evidence could easily be planted or otherwise suspect. Using it in trial is absolutely obscene and perverts the whole legal system.
I meant, of course, if the evidence is deemed valid and applicible (sp), not in the case of a plant.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Nag Ehgoeg
Aug 1 2010, 06:40 AM
In New Hampshire, it's illegal to peacefully resist unlawful arrest. (As E found out, unless that resistance is "purely verbal".)

I'd check your State's laws: nationally it might be "legal", but I bet I'll bet money that locally it isn't (except in California, where I know it's legal to peacefully resist arrest).

(NH, it's illegal in your state too - there's no provision of force. I'd look up Scy's but I don't remember which state he lives in.)

Scy, I restate: amalgam. Hundreds of years after the Robin Hood story is first told, it's retold slightly differently and happens to match up a bit better with real life bandits. I don't deny the similarity of Godberd's life with modern tales. I already said I agreed with you in that respect. He's even a vague sort of match to the Gest. But yeah, "film based on the book" is actually a pretty apt analogy.
Well, now. This silly Michigan law MUST be changed. I shall see it done.

Sed is from Washington State.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic »
Add Reply