| 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: |
| What's wrong with cops these days? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 20 2010, 10:22 PM (2,291 Views) | |
| Quaon | Aug 1 2010, 02:09 PM Post #101 |
![]()
A Prince Amoung Men-Shoot First and Ask Questions Later
|
Evidence obtained illegally is by definition invalid. |
![]() |
|
| Rhadamanthus | Aug 1 2010, 02:13 PM Post #102 |
|
Legitimist
![]()
|
In some cases, but not in most cases. The point of barring the admission of evidence that is found improperly usually has nothing to do with the quality of the evidence, but rather to do with incentivizing law enforcement to conduct their investigations lawfully. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Aug 1 2010, 02:43 PM Post #103 |
|
Science and Industry
|
The definition itself may be invalid, and is only coherent under a given interpretation of procedural justice, for example in light of the Miranda ruling. You are thinking of something else when you refer to "planted and suspect evidence", which is not the issue. |
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Aug 1 2010, 04:41 PM Post #104 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
I'm not Sedulius. Also. http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm Edited by Comrade Queen, Aug 1 2010, 04:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Aug 2 2010, 08:03 AM Post #105 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
That is based on a court decision, as an interpretation of the constitutional protections forwarded to the arrested. Those protections can be applied just as easily by throwing the obtainer of said evidence in jail. Oh, and Scy, sorry. I was tired. Edited by New Harumf, Aug 2 2010, 08:08 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Aug 2 2010, 02:06 PM Post #106 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
Awesome resource. |
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Aug 2 2010, 03:25 PM Post #107 |
|
Field Marshal
|
Sed is from Idaho, but is currently living in Louisiana, but lives primarily Oklahoma. His father now lives in DC. Since I don't exactly live anywhere permanently, I don't really try to memorize state laws. I suppose, the way I figure, if you do the right thing the law for the most part isn't going to get involved. If police do something unlawful against my family, we get Feds involved. I know not everybody has that power, but if you do, use it. We can all write our Congressmen, and if you happen to catch him on the right day he might just do something for you. My dad, on the other hand, can just call or visit these people personally. lol Yay! I like how federal power always trumps state power. Honestly I think state and local governments make things inefficient. I think they to be destroyed and rebuilt, though really I think the government as a whole needs to be destroyed and rebuilt. The government as it is does not give us democracy (and you're fooling yourself if you think they are), but worse they do not even give us efficiency. If the government was made efficient on every level (cutting the red tape, etc), the citizen would suffer a whole hell of a lot less. This is why I need to become Emperor and pass decrees. lol |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Aug 2 2010, 05:20 PM Post #108 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
And if the Feds do something to your family? Even if by its very nature the "self-policing" hierarchy was not inherently corrupt, there's always someone high enough up the chain to screw you (for most people, that's the police, for Sed it's the Feds, for Robert Mueller... well, "when the President does it, it's not illegal"). That's why a universal equality of enforcement is preferential. And define "doing the right thing"? Was Dr. King doing the wrong thing? Was Rosa Parks doing the wrong thing? Was Emmeline Pankhurst doing the wrong thing? Gandhi? Stephen Donaldson? *Activist for your cause here*? Nuh-uh, don't buy that. The police won't hassle you if you keep your head down and go with the status quo - they damn well will hassle you if you "do the right thing". And, just out of interest, were you following why we were discussing State laws? It's because some States have laws that say you can't resist unlawful arrest. I'd say resisting unlawful arrest is doing the right thing (and that website Scy linked to seems to think the Federal legal system agrees). I agree that none of us are living in a democracy. I agree government needs to be rebuilt. But local representation means that the government is "representing" a smaller number of people and in a more confined area. By definition this means better representation for each and every citizen living in that area than if the government was operating on a wider area. Obviously, a line needs to be drawn somewhere that balances representation with efficiency but I think that the Average Joe would rather see more power to State government and less to Federal. I don't see how giving supreme executive power to a person of radical, strong opinions is going to result in anything but civil war. :rolleyes: Edited by Nag Ehgoeg, Aug 2 2010, 05:26 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Aug 2 2010, 08:31 PM Post #109 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
If I had the room, I'd sig the whole thing! |
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Aug 3 2010, 05:20 AM Post #110 |
|
Field Marshal
|
Feds do try, only to be trumped by other Feds. That's politics baby! Haha! But seriously, at this point my dad is forced to play the political game or be destroyed with the amount of power he has. It's irrelevant in politics whether you've done something right or wrong. Rather, it's relevant who your friends are. My dad has a lot of enemies, but they stay off him for the most part, pathetically striking at whatever weakpoints they can find. It's unfortunate that that's how it works at that level. What is doing the right thing? Well, I'd have to write a book about that, wouldn't I? But my point was, so long as I, a young white male who is the son of a powerful figure, do the right thing, I'm fine, as far as local and state police are concerned. Yes, I know that is fucked up, but that's the system. Now, if I was doing the right thing and someone didn't like what I was doing, as happens with my dad, that's where the trouble starts, but that's at the federal level, and I'm not powerful enough personally to be concerned about that. I just have to hope my dad isn't assassinated any time soon. And every word I say, really, just shows more how fucked up the system is. It's nice that I have the advantages that I do, but I recognize that it's fucked up that I have those advantages and others do not. ----- Anyways, I wasn't being serious about handing all power over to me. Obviously that was a joke. I know there is a need for state and local governments, but I think it's been taken too far. They have different regulations at every level and different forms, and this makes it way harder on the average citizen to get anything done. The fact that you have to spend over a hundred dollars just to get your name changed in some places is ridiculous. That's one example of many problems. I think there needs to be one uniform law and system to all levels of government. The only reason state and local governments need to exist is to more efficiently govern at those levels. I'm saying that the problem is is they are doing the exact opposite: making governing more inefficient. My ideas on this are not at all radical. They're logical. The government is inefficient and is inconveniencing the citizenry, serving its the ends of the select few in power rather than the ends of the citizenry as a whole. The government needs to be made efficient so as to be convenient to the citizenry and so as to better serve them and only serve them as was its original purpose. I'm only proposing to enforce a basic idea that the founding fathers of the USA put forth, that a government should serve its people, not the other way around. You want to argue that that is radical, go right ahead. That's your opinion. In the meantime, I'll gather support and attempt to put into effect real change. I'll probably fail because the powers that be will deny such change, since the government at this point might as well be an oligarchy of the elite, but at least I will have done the right thing. ----- So again, what is the right thing? I know what the right thing is by heart. I don't have to think about it. Sure, every now and then I slip up and do the wrong thing, but immediately recognize I did do wrong and make an effort to make things right. If you really want me to go in depth about what the right thing is, I will, but I don't think there is any need for that. I think you already know. I suppose I can throw one rule of thumb out there that they're always saying in the Army. If you're doing something you feel you shouldn't be doing, then you probably shouldn't be doing it. |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Aug 3 2010, 06:55 AM Post #111 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
The reason state/local governments have different laws is so they can more effectively govern the people in their area. An area with a lot of youth crime will take measures to prevent that crime. An area that has a large population of retirement age will spend more on providing services for the elderly. Standardisation of things like application forms sounds like a good thing in theory, but in some places more information may be required than in others. If I live in London and want a shotgun licence, it's less likely that my local chief of police knows what I need it for than if I live out in the country. Now, we can standardise forms to include absolutely all the information that might be needed: if we did, that'd increase paperwork across the board serving only to increase red tape. Same for standardising fees. If people are constantly changing their names (areas with a higher percentage of youth and migrant citizens, marriages and divorces etc) that places a strain on the system. If people rarely change their names (retirement areas) then if someone wants their name changed the infrastructure isn't in place to do so effectively. Both of these situations means levying different fees to an area that processes an "average" number of name change requests. Government should serve it's people. That is a fundamentally good idea. Telling the government of California that they have to operate the same way as the government of Texas does not serve the people. It makes it harder for the government to do its job, and ultimately only increases costs. Hell, the people of Detroit don't need the same things as the people in Ann Arbor! Reform is needed. Great efficiency is needed. Less duplication in statutes is needed. But again, I state I favour more power to citizens first and local government second. Let us trim the fat of national government to grease the pan of liberty! Edited by Nag Ehgoeg, Aug 3 2010, 06:59 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Aug 3 2010, 08:22 AM Post #112 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
I like that. Sig'd. Generally, Sed, when things start getting complicated is when the Feds stick their nose in where it doesn't belong - i.e. education, housing, water quality, food, farm subsidies, etc. etc. All these things should be handled at the state and local level, and if they were, everything would be very simple, and pretty cheap. When the Feds add mandates to everything, and usually unfunded mandates, it forces communities to try to fit the Federal "standards" and then nothing works. Reduce the Federal government back to its constitutional original limits, back off of plunking everything under the Interstate Commerce Clause, and we will all be better. Did you hear dingbat Barney Franks yesterday? He basically said the Federal Government can do whatever it wants, period. That is the problem, because too many think this is indeed the case! [edit] Sorry, it was Congressman Stark of California. Watch and let your jaw drop. http://www.breitbart.tv/congressman-at-town-hall-the-federal-government-can-do-most-anything-in-this-country/ Edited by New Harumf, Aug 3 2010, 11:26 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Aug 3 2010, 10:47 PM Post #113 |
|
Field Marshal
|
I'm not saying we should hand over all power to the current inefficient and corrupt Federal government. I'm saying that we put things that should be standardized and free (like education, housing, food, and water) over to a federal government reformed to serve the people. I honestly don't see any reason why laws have to vary from place to place. What is right is right. Plain and simple. Laws that enforce otherwise are wrong, and should in all honesty be resisted. I see no reason why there cannot be one supreme law of the land. You guys are still thinking within the box of the current system. The current system, as I've said, is inefficient and corrupt and needs to be wiped away and replaced. If the government is to ever serve the people, it must be rebuilt from the ground up. ----- On a separate but somewhat related note, have you guys been following the story about the wildfires in Russia? http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/bd6961c9402f4e5a9b369304fe0ebe5f/EU--Russia-Fires/ A highlight from the article:
Now that is the government serving the people. I know Russia is no where even close to perfect, but at least they have common bloody decency to help their citizens in need. |
![]() |
|
| East Anarx | Aug 4 2010, 11:58 AM Post #114 |
|
Anarchitect
![]()
|
It's easy to be generous with other people's money. |
![]() |
|
| Menhad | Aug 4 2010, 01:03 PM Post #115 |
|
ET2(IDW)
|
I agree. Education, housing and medical care are not rights. We should/do have the right to pursue these things, and that's all the government should be responsible for. It's corrupt and inefficient now, you want to add all these other parts? How will that make things better? |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Aug 4 2010, 02:08 PM Post #116 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Whenever a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it, without his consent… to anyone who does not own it, then I say… that an act of plunder is committed. – Claude Bastiat, The Law, 1850 |
![]() |
|
| Union | Aug 4 2010, 02:17 PM Post #117 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
Fundamentally, money is nothing more than a collective agreement that certain objects, be they paper or gold, have intrinsic value. Since the value of money is derived from society, it is impossible to "own" money in any real sense, and thus it could be said that taxation is nothing more than society taking back what is rightfully theirs. As such, the phrase "being generous with other people's money" is downright ridiculous, as the money was society's to begin with, and it is their right to allocate it as they wish. ^^ |
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Aug 4 2010, 07:15 PM Post #118 |
|
Field Marshal
|
Wow, thanks for the support Union. :) You guys need to think outside of the box we're all forced to be in right now. The system as it is is not what has to be. Sure education, healthcare, and housing aren't rights, but if the government is capable of providing it, then it should. Why? Because it's the right thing to do. Because it would be serving the people to the best of its abilities. After all, a country of housed, healthy, educated people is going to perform better overall in general. Honestly, it seems to me that you guys are proposing that we should not help our fellow citizens, and that is quite simply unAmerican. You guys need to remember the old American values, not replace them with new ones. It used to be common sense that if you saw someone in need you would help them. Now everyone is out for themselves. I'm sorry, but when our nation has around 40 million people living in poverty, and around 30 million people unemployed, there's a goddamn problem. And when the rich of the country are too selfish to do anything about it, when they have millions if not billions of dollars each and could easily solve the problems of many, there's a goddamn problem. Seriously, one could take half the wealth of the top 1% richest people of the country, apply it towards the problems of poverty and unemployment, solve those problems, and still have a surplus to apply to other things, and the rich would still be stinking rich. Bless Bill Gates for giving away half of his fortune to charity and convincing 40 other billionaires to do the same. That's the kind of rich we need. If only the rest were so generous. |
![]() |
|
| Union | Aug 4 2010, 09:22 PM Post #119 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
But Sed, its OK if Billionaires choose to give away their money. Society just can't force them too (despite providing the stable platform necessary for the economic activity, as well as the market itself, that made them that money in the first place) because it violated their rights (given by society in the first place, and thus malleable to the people's will, unless we take the idea of rights "given by the creator" to heart. Of course, that same creator gave us free will, and unless everyone born prior to the Enlightenment is in hell, does not particularly care whether our rights are respected. This is of course ignoring that the Bible is in favor of taxation and helping your brother, and that most churches used to collect a tithe...) It is just so profoundly stupid. I trust the men who chose to serve the public more than the parasite who used the public to get rich. Let's talk free market. A company has a cure for cancer, available for a single payment of 5 monies. A company also has a long-term treatment for cancer, buyable for 2 monies a year. What is in the company's rational interest to distribute? Hell, maybe relying on economic rationalization to cure social ills is a bad idea, since so much more money exists in treating or abusing social ills rather than curing them. This is of course completeing ignoring the underlying idiocy in both distrusting government for being subservient to corporate interests and relying on corporate interests to treat social ills instead, out of the kindness of their hearts, because people become better people when motivated by greed and not service. I suppose I am assuming, of course, that most people motivated by greed will go work in the private, not public sector, and that, a few bad apples aside, most people involved in public office are fundamentally good people. Then there is the concept that a single actor is naturally for inefficient at organizing society, to the point that libertarians will critique dozens of redundant government departments, but at the same time be for thousands of redundant companies in the market to take those reigns instead. hell maybe a horse IS faster when there is a dangling carrot, but horses will also run themselves to death chasing the goddamn carrot, and then you have no fucking horse at all, do you? and why the fuck would the horse stop chasing that dangling carrot to help the homeless anyway? Let's also rail against inflation, while ignoring its nature in motivating investment of monies over hoarding (because your money loses value if you hoard) and instead offer up a metallic standard in which your money acquires value by sitting under your bed, and somehow expecting economic prosperity to increase. Not to mention that a metallic standard is fundamentally a finite resource, which makes total economic activity a zero-sum game (because gold doesn't spontaneously materialize. for you to gain an ounce someone has to lose it elsewhere). Let us also ignore for the entire history of the metallic standard, the money supply was still increasing because more gold was being mined, which caused net inflation ANYWAY, which is the only reason it fucking worked, and that gold is currently at peak production (actually, it was a few years ago). Rawr. lolbetarians. EDIT: Stems are very harsh to smoke, by the way. Edited by Union, Aug 4 2010, 09:33 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Aug 4 2010, 09:47 PM Post #120 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
Recommended reading. Posted Image |
![]() |
|
| Union | Aug 4 2010, 09:48 PM Post #121 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
YAAAAY More strawmen! Blame the Fed! Gold! Gold! Bad Fed! More Gold! |
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Aug 4 2010, 09:49 PM Post #122 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
If you read the book at all, you'd realize it wasn't a strawman. I sincerely suggest you read it. |
![]() |
|
| Union | Aug 4 2010, 09:50 PM Post #123 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
What? The Mandrake thing? An expanding money supply is BAAAAD. Yessir. Really, really, bad! :rolleyes: Edited by Union, Aug 4 2010, 09:50 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Aug 4 2010, 09:53 PM Post #124 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
It's bad when its only value is fiat. If you read the book, you'd know that the Federal Reserve makes money out of thin air and pays for it by taking more money from the citizens of America. It gets deeper than that and it makes you facepalm a lot, causing your head to hurt. |
![]() |
|
| Union | Aug 4 2010, 09:54 PM Post #125 |
![]()
Pyrenees Republic
|
all money is thin air. money is an abstract concept. nothing has any value but that we give it. gold is just metal until we chose it as valuable. ffs. Edited by Union, Aug 4 2010, 09:55 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic » |












11:51 AM Jul 13