What if the person is just a businessman who committed fraud and stile 3.5 million dollars from 100,000 people? Would it be okay to arrest him? If you define arrest as "violent force" then using violent force against the non-violent is a necessity, not a sin.
As to marijuana smoking, I'm a libertarian, as well as someone who enjoys cannabis. I believe it should be made legal. However, I don't blame the cops who enforce the law. Their job is to enforce the law no matter their personal bias and I respect them for that. I blame the gov't.
I don't know if I can attest for the Gun laws, but if that's the case that's absolutely insane. If a police officer is convicted of domestic VIOLENCE he should be fired, much less have a handgun. Are you sure it wasn't for Domestic Disturbance (which can include just getting into a shouting match).
As for the speeding tickets, Police generally don't give out speeding tickets to other officers, or, for that matter, any other private citizen they know, unless they're super strict. It's actually legal, called "Officers Discretion."
Like everything the Gov't does, however, nothing can be accomplished without money. People like to say "you can't just throw money at it" but you also can't accomplish anything without the money. We need stricter hiring practices and for that to work we need more money to offer incentives to smarter people to become police officers.
Well, you do more than just throw money at it, of course. It's just that this problem will not be solved without a lot more funding (as most problems in government and regulation are solved).
First of all. The reason they're usually just fired is that there's not enough evidence to get a conviction. Just like a lot of criminal cases never go to trial due to a lack of evidence. The benefit is that with a police officer they can be fired without necessary evidence.
Secondly, the amount of education required to be a police officer depends on the city. In Regina, Saskatchewan you need a University Degree to become an officer. In some smaller communities you can become a police officer without a high school diploma (not cool).
Specific instances of police abuse of authority does not prove that "all police are evil and should be punished." If anything police are proven to be human. The cops involved in that incident should have been fired and/or charged, and I don't disagree with that. However, saying all police are bad from a specific instance is like saying all black people are bad because a black person robbed you one time. Yes, I'm equating hating the police to racism because they're both discrimination against a group for acts by individuals.
A little of both. Cops know how the system works and they know that it's much better to get a lawyer and tough it out (because the state only has so much money). However, cops are pursued more vigorously by prosecuters and other cops because a) honest cops hate dirty cops, and b) the state loves a good, "look at us, we are stopping police corruption" headline.
No, you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying it's alright for police to not do their job properly because they don't get paid enough. What I'm saying is that the solution of "All police are bad, we should fire all of them that don't preform up to our standards" will lead to a non-existent police force. The reason we have police making stupid mistakes is we have to make do with who we get.
Whoa whoa whoa. They do not MAKE over 100k. Just cause their training costs more doesn't mean they benefit from it. If you work for IBM, do you include in your salary the cost of the server you work on? No, that's stupid. Benefits? Only if you work for a federal police force. The pension is 60% after 35 years service (in Canada, anyways, and that's dependant on the city).
Police Officers are more important than landscapers. And if more landscapers die in the line of duty than police officers, I'd love to see the proof. However, your language reveals who the real "thug" is here.
No, my point is that unless we can fire all the police officers and replace them with new ones, then bitching about it does no good. If they abuse their power they're not fired because there's no one to replace them. And police that abuse their power are better than no police at all. Look at the riots that happened after the police strike in California.
Secondly, I never implied they were forced, stop burning the straw man. My implication was that holding them to a higher degree of judgement without a higher degree of pay will lower the amount of people applying to be police officers. And since most police forces are understaffed as is, you'll create a shortage of police and then suddenly "crappy service" becomes "no service". If you get paid 10 dollars an hour at Best Buy, no one expects you to invent a new Processor, if you get paid less than the average person to police them, then you really shouldn't complain when you get shitty service. Sure their job is more important, why is not being treated as such monetarily? If you're not willing to increase the wage of police officers so we can fire all the bad ones, then stop bitching. It's like complaining a bee stung you when you refuse to remove your hands from their hive.
They are paid to protect and serve the public, but they are judged on their worthiness by how many crimes under their purview are solved, so someone who wants to move up and get paid more needs only focus on that area.
Secondly, saying that rape is something that police do that is not part of their job description is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard. IF anyone ever commits rape it's not an indictment against everyone who works the same job as them.
You're right, if you don't like your job description you can change jobs, but if there's no one to replace you, and you're a police officer, and if all the police officers who didn't obey their "job description" left, we'd be left with anarchy. Look at what happened when the police went on strike in California.
I agree to your first statement, that it may indeed lead to higher fines against regular users, however the slippery slope is a fallacy. For all we know this could lead to lower fines against people who aren't profiting.
As to your second point, I assume it can only be construed as profit-seeking if you actually would benefit monetarily from posting the content. And I mean, as much as I hate the RIAA (or the UK's equivalent) and the idea of copyright as it stands in general, I do disagree with people profiting from another's work by direct copy of that work.
They are given a pay-grade equal to or below an average citizen. I believe in holding someone to a higher standard when it's possible. If you fired every police officer who did something like this you'd have a HUGELY understaffed police force. They're not paid competitive wages as it is, so they have to make do with the people they're given. If you increase the pay, then you can be more picky about who you choose.
I don't disagree with this, they should be policed more rigorously than the general public, and they usually are. If a cop comes under investigation for a crime, it is a lot more likely to make it to Court than if it is a private citizen, at least in Canada anyways.
The best solution to this problem is to allocate more money to police budget so that you have more people wanting to become police officers (since now you'll have an actual benefit to the amount of work they have to do) and can be pickier with who you choose.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it a bad law to fine people for copying someone else's work and profiting from it?
Isn't it really simple to check which IP address posted the content, which IP address hosts the site, and then who owns those IP addresses?
What if the person is just a businessman who committed fraud and stile 3.5 million dollars from 100,000 people? Would it be okay to arrest him? If you define arrest as "violent force" then using violent force against the non-violent is a necessity, not a sin. As to marijuana smoking, I'm a libertarian, as well as someone who enjoys cannabis. I believe it should be made legal. However, I don't blame the cops who enforce the law. Their job is to enforce the law no matter their personal bias and I respect them for that. I blame the gov't.
Thank-you sir. You're a scholar and a gentleman.
I don't know if I can attest for the Gun laws, but if that's the case that's absolutely insane. If a police officer is convicted of domestic VIOLENCE he should be fired, much less have a handgun. Are you sure it wasn't for Domestic Disturbance (which can include just getting into a shouting match). As for the speeding tickets, Police generally don't give out speeding tickets to other officers, or, for that matter, any other private citizen they know, unless they're super strict. It's actually legal, called "Officers Discretion."
Like everything the Gov't does, however, nothing can be accomplished without money. People like to say "you can't just throw money at it" but you also can't accomplish anything without the money. We need stricter hiring practices and for that to work we need more money to offer incentives to smarter people to become police officers.
Well, you do more than just throw money at it, of course. It's just that this problem will not be solved without a lot more funding (as most problems in government and regulation are solved).
Which is the case with almost all institutions/bureaucracies.
First of all. The reason they're usually just fired is that there's not enough evidence to get a conviction. Just like a lot of criminal cases never go to trial due to a lack of evidence. The benefit is that with a police officer they can be fired without necessary evidence. Secondly, the amount of education required to be a police officer depends on the city. In Regina, Saskatchewan you need a University Degree to become an officer. In some smaller communities you can become a police officer without a high school diploma (not cool).
Specific instances of police abuse of authority does not prove that "all police are evil and should be punished." If anything police are proven to be human. The cops involved in that incident should have been fired and/or charged, and I don't disagree with that. However, saying all police are bad from a specific instance is like saying all black people are bad because a black person robbed you one time. Yes, I'm equating hating the police to racism because they're both discrimination against a group for acts by individuals.
A little of both. Cops know how the system works and they know that it's much better to get a lawyer and tough it out (because the state only has so much money). However, cops are pursued more vigorously by prosecuters and other cops because a) honest cops hate dirty cops, and b) the state loves a good, "look at us, we are stopping police corruption" headline.
I felt I should give him my support =P
Or, not all police are bad, and a single event is not enough justification to hate an entire profession.
I'd like to see you say that when you call the police to report a crime and they say they'll get back to you in 30-60 days.
No, you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying it's alright for police to not do their job properly because they don't get paid enough. What I'm saying is that the solution of "All police are bad, we should fire all of them that don't preform up to our standards" will lead to a non-existent police force. The reason we have police making stupid mistakes is we have to make do with who we get.
Whoa whoa whoa. They do not MAKE over 100k. Just cause their training costs more doesn't mean they benefit from it. If you work for IBM, do you include in your salary the cost of the server you work on? No, that's stupid. Benefits? Only if you work for a federal police force. The pension is 60% after 35 years service (in Canada, anyways, and that's dependant on the city). Police Officers are more important than landscapers. And if more landscapers die in the line of duty than police officers, I'd love to see the proof. However, your language reveals who the real "thug" is here.
No, my point is that unless we can fire all the police officers and replace them with new ones, then bitching about it does no good. If they abuse their power they're not fired because there's no one to replace them. And police that abuse their power are better than no police at all. Look at the riots that happened after the police strike in California. Secondly, I never implied they were forced, stop burning the straw man. My implication was that holding them to a higher degree of judgement without a higher degree of pay will lower the amount of people applying to be police officers. And since most police forces are understaffed as is, you'll create a shortage of police and then suddenly "crappy service" becomes "no service". If you get paid 10 dollars an hour at Best Buy, no one expects you to invent a new Processor, if you get paid less than the average person to police them, then you really shouldn't complain when you get shitty service. Sure their job is more important, why is not being treated as such monetarily? If you're not willing to increase the wage of police officers so we can fire all the bad ones, then stop bitching. It's like complaining a bee stung you when you refuse to remove your hands from their hive.
They are paid to protect and serve the public, but they are judged on their worthiness by how many crimes under their purview are solved, so someone who wants to move up and get paid more needs only focus on that area. Secondly, saying that rape is something that police do that is not part of their job description is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard. IF anyone ever commits rape it's not an indictment against everyone who works the same job as them. You're right, if you don't like your job description you can change jobs, but if there's no one to replace you, and you're a police officer, and if all the police officers who didn't obey their "job description" left, we'd be left with anarchy. Look at what happened when the police went on strike in California.
I'd love to see that proven. And I bet you more people have been beat up or harrassed (framed doesn't apply) by a private citizen (i.e. a criminal.)
Exactly!
I agree to your first statement, that it may indeed lead to higher fines against regular users, however the slippery slope is a fallacy. For all we know this could lead to lower fines against people who aren't profiting. As to your second point, I assume it can only be construed as profit-seeking if you actually would benefit monetarily from posting the content. And I mean, as much as I hate the RIAA (or the UK's equivalent) and the idea of copyright as it stands in general, I do disagree with people profiting from another's work by direct copy of that work.
Only if the person who owns the site, and the person who posted the copyrighted content are the same person I'd surmise.
Well, at least it's only going to punish people who are illegally profiting from another's work. I don't see any reason to hate this law yet.
They are given a pay-grade equal to or below an average citizen. I believe in holding someone to a higher standard when it's possible. If you fired every police officer who did something like this you'd have a HUGELY understaffed police force. They're not paid competitive wages as it is, so they have to make do with the people they're given. If you increase the pay, then you can be more picky about who you choose.
I don't disagree with this, they should be policed more rigorously than the general public, and they usually are. If a cop comes under investigation for a crime, it is a lot more likely to make it to Court than if it is a private citizen, at least in Canada anyways. The best solution to this problem is to allocate more money to police budget so that you have more people wanting to become police officers (since now you'll have an actual benefit to the amount of work they have to do) and can be pickier with who you choose.