I hope you have the right guy, if anonymous picks up on this crap this dudes life could be turned upside down for a while. (obviously deserves it if he is trying to suppress a recorded beating).
The Government may protect the police from the people. but the government can't protect against the informed masses.
Unrelated, but this is why i like our country, they have actually codified sanity checks in the persecutions job role.
zombies you pay for aren't just your everyday home PC... at least i hope not, otherwise i've just worked out how I'm going to make millions. but i would imagine the valuable machines are hijacked servers of some description.
that's a great point.. now if only we knew which countries police we should alert to arrest them! or knew more about them other than "i have x for sale, pay me in bitcoin"
if you have an apple tree that produces some "bad apples" that taste fowl (eg, causing problems, false arrests, unfair fines etc). then you prune the branches.
But if you have an apple tree that produces poisonous(kills / beats people in a way that will effect the rest of their lives) apples, you clear the entire plantation.
how many McDonald employees hold down and bash someone? I'd imagine McDonald employees to rival the number of police officers in the country, yet why do we not see an equal distribution of violence and aggression if its just "a couple of bad apples", when do you stop blaming the individual apples and start declaring the Tree defective?
also, why is an officer getting sent to an "anger management class". If you have anger issues you shouldn't be carrying a gun, let alone being a police officer!!
Its funny how the biggest critisism of recording the police is that "it can be taken out of context to change the meaning of the events to destroy a reputation", and yet the internet seems to correct itself a lot more than what the cops do as far as accidentally fucking up peoples lives.
wrong! some dude in Australia got Jail time for posting crap on a dead girls wall, also anti stalking laws in this country mean that many a person has been arrested because of what has been said on facebook.
If i have no food then you can bet I'd justify stealing, burning and killing pretty easily if it means i get fed.
hell, countries justify this all the time?! what do you think an army is for? its a collection of well paid thugs who specialise in arson, robbery and murder. justified for "the greater good" and by that, they mean "our greater good, not yours". how is that any different from a gang forming for arson, robbery and murder for their own benefit?
yes there is, when you have got nothing to lose then that's all the justification you personally need.
Civilized society is everything but civil, It's an attempt to curb animalistic desire with rules to gain a productive output with the reward of the desire being fulfilled at the end and punishment of removing the reward or increasing the desires. Without that reward, where is the incentive to follow the rules? you can hardly blame animals for being animals. humans don't have the desire "to do the right thing" any more than a wolf has in not getting into a fight with the alpha male. we just like to trick ourselves into thinking we are moralistic creatures not anamalistic creatures.
we look into the situation and say "its because they are scum", when its more accurate to say the reason others haven't joined in is because we are simply in a situation where rioting is not a Net gain exercise.
Also, shouting false warnings lowers the impact of real warnings, thus could lead to even more deaths if permitted.
or maybe less, as people would be less likely to panic and just think their way out the situation. If you don't think your in danger until you are out of the theater while its burning down then the organized movement is probably much safer, even if its a little slower. Or maybe people just need to stop accepting everything that passes through their ears as gospel from sources without authority?
True, Yelling "fire" in a theatre is creating a volatile and dangerous situation, encouraging rioting simply validates a criminals behaviour to himself and perhaps his immediate peers.
in this instance, yelling "fire" would be the government / who ever* is at fault for creating the volatile situation in the first place, the "inciting the riot" is similar to the patron who points to the fire exit and creates a rush of bodies that causes the actual damage.
*the individuals that started the actual rioting? I'm not trying to blame the government.*
because under the influence of alchohol / drugs you're not of sound mind to make the decision to drive or put people in a risk scenario for your own benifit, (it doesn't even have to be about how the drugs affect your performance or in what way they interact with you, you're just not of sound mind to legally accept the responsibility of driving a car, so legally you shouldn't) also the final human in the link is the dude who drove drunk, where as the final link in the chain in the previous example is the actual contract killer (the dude who would have been charged, and don't get me wrong, i disagree with the husband being innocent, but both examples are hardly mutually exclusive.).
specific laws governing the license to use government / publicly funded property can be valid while blanket laws about "hate" communication or incitement shouldn't.
I disagree with the hired killer not getting charged, but giving someone incentives to break the law is a crime, telling someone to break the law with no incentive certainly shouldn't be, because the action is then entirely on the head of whoever is blindly following orders for no reason.
I would dare say that unfortunately most abuse by officers still doesn't get reported as most citizens simply take it as a way of life thinking they can't fight city hall.
If the cops are able to find out who you are and all your particulars if you criticize a police department in a comic, do you really think that the average citizen feels empowered and safe enough to fight against "city hall"?
You're posting this in a article where someone is being charged by drawing a comic of police. Its hardly an improvement because 80% of cops are "good". also, define a good cop, Police are people who will arrest you if they feel you are guilty, they don't go and fuck around with others rights... UNLESS they are perceived by the police as a "baddie", then you're just a baddie, and it doesn't matter what happens to you. even a "honorable nice cop" will treat a "baddie" like crap by default (throw them in a cage, manhandle them etc) its hardly a big jump from manhandling to assault.
basically what you said could be said about wife beaters. I know of a couple actually, they are really nice people in most circumstances, in the wrong situation though, they show their real colours.
Can i point out that not believing in god is stupid? now hear me out.
God is as real as the concept of territory. God is simply an idea, that idea however has very real effects on people and politics. To deny its existence is to shut your eyes and yell "lalalal" at the world around you.
a god that is like the "god idea"(bible, koran, etc) describes... well that's just fantasy.
It's no different than an eyewitness saying "yep, he murdered an unarmed man", except that it tends to be even more damning, and, in the absence of the second camera, would almost certainly get me convicted.
We can't even get the guilty convicted half the time - what makes you think I can ruin innocent lives at my whim?
wait, your worried you're going to get convicted, but somehow you can't even convict the guilty half the time?
That's just a stupid technicality.
what, that cameras don't lie? seems more of an inconvenient technicality than anything.
It presents a distorted version of what happened.
no it doesn't, what happened would be more distorted without the evidence to back it up. You're just concerned that people might see a one sided story and its not on you're side? ever wonder how all those "criminals" felt?
what makes you think I can ruin innocent lives at my whim?
1) Well, first off you don't need to take someone to court to ruin their lives.
2) In front of wife / boss "sir, you're under arrest for child pornography" = "fucked life" does it matter that they dropped charges 20 min later? no.
3) Harassing Innocent people (aka, what this story is about) because charges were dropped previously, I do hear this far too often.
4) you have people helplessly handcuffed completely under your control. if you can't think of ways to ruin someone while they are helpless then you're too stupid to be arresting people in the first place.
now, I'm not saying you would do any of the examples above, but pretending that you can't is just ridiculous.
It's no different than an eyewitness saying "yep, he murdered an unarmed man", except that it tends to be even more damning, and, in the absence of the second camera, would almost certainly get me convicted
with the absence of a gun on the guy, bullet holes near you're position, a recently fired weapon with the guys finger prints all over it, witness accounts of shots fired from 2 different weapons (making different noise) and radio chatter of "oh god, someones trying to kill me".. I'm not sure if the second camera would be you're saving grace, in fact i don't think the first camera would make a difference to your case. Again, a camera (any camera) helps to paint a clearer picture.
now if there was a way to keep my employees accountable (cops) without keeping tabs on them directly through camera footage, I'd be happy to peruse that, but i get the impression I'd be met with just as much resistance from police.
the other side of the coin? you could always reduce police powers so they can't discuss the crimes of a 3rd party without their consent until convicted? then everything comes out "after the trial" for both sides, instead of the citizen being left in the lurch.
Deliberately insulting your teacher - whether loudly or quietly - isn't likely to go without a reprimand.
calling him a liar is probably worse than implying a cop as a "pig". But i do see you're point, were do you draw the line?
in my opinion, both are "public servants" (not the official authority, the official authority is the people, but this isn't about whats official anyway.), i think the difference is one system you could always leave and re-intergrate elsewhere? where as the other that isn't an option?
in the end you would still be an idiot for insulting police because what they can do back, not what they should do back.
another point should be "why should police be protected against insults that everyday citizens aren't" which also ties into why should police be protected against being video taped when everyday citizens can't?
but the moment you give random assholes the ability to ruin my career and get me locked up for trying to do my job
and yet you hold this power over the citizen every time you interact with them, maybe its time to balance the power out a bit? what happened to "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about?".. there needs to be a risk involved in arresting people (and potentially ruining lives on circumstantial evidence) so that police only arrest when they have a good reason to arrest someone and don't just go arresting peaceful people who smoke dope or dance at the Washington monument because it's "risk free".
Cameras lie, all the time,
NO THEY DO NOT. people lie, cameras are hard evidence, even if they can't paint a complete picture a camera is no more capable of lying then a DNA swab or a boot print.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope you have the right guy, if anonymous picks up on this crap this dudes life could be turned upside down for a while. (obviously deserves it if he is trying to suppress a recorded beating). The Government may protect the police from the people. but the government can't protect against the informed masses. Unrelated, but this is why i like our country, they have actually codified sanity checks in the persecutions job role.
zombies you pay for aren't just your everyday home PC... at least i hope not, otherwise i've just worked out how I'm going to make millions. but i would imagine the valuable machines are hijacked servers of some description.
that's a great point.. now if only we knew which countries police we should alert to arrest them! or knew more about them other than "i have x for sale, pay me in bitcoin"
further to the "tree" argument.
if you have an apple tree that produces some "bad apples" that taste fowl (eg, causing problems, false arrests, unfair fines etc). then you prune the branches.
But if you have an apple tree that produces poisonous(kills / beats people in a way that will effect the rest of their lives) apples, you clear the entire plantation.
I'm getting sick and tired of this argument.
how many McDonald employees hold down and bash someone? I'd imagine McDonald employees to rival the number of police officers in the country, yet why do we not see an equal distribution of violence and aggression if its just "a couple of bad apples", when do you stop blaming the individual apples and start declaring the Tree defective?
also, why is an officer getting sent to an "anger management class". If you have anger issues you shouldn't be carrying a gun, let alone being a police officer!!
Its funny how the biggest critisism of recording the police is that "it can be taken out of context to change the meaning of the events to destroy a reputation", and yet the internet seems to correct itself a lot more than what the cops do as far as accidentally fucking up peoples lives.
wrong! some dude in Australia got Jail time for posting crap on a dead girls wall, also anti stalking laws in this country mean that many a person has been arrested because of what has been said on facebook.
If i have no food then you can bet I'd justify stealing, burning and killing pretty easily if it means i get fed.
hell, countries justify this all the time?! what do you think an army is for? its a collection of well paid thugs who specialise in arson, robbery and murder. justified for "the greater good" and by that, they mean "our greater good, not yours". how is that any different from a gang forming for arson, robbery and murder for their own benefit?
yes there is, when you have got nothing to lose then that's all the justification you personally need.
Civilized society is everything but civil, It's an attempt to curb animalistic desire with rules to gain a productive output with the reward of the desire being fulfilled at the end and punishment of removing the reward or increasing the desires. Without that reward, where is the incentive to follow the rules? you can hardly blame animals for being animals. humans don't have the desire "to do the right thing" any more than a wolf has in not getting into a fight with the alpha male. we just like to trick ourselves into thinking we are moralistic creatures not anamalistic creatures.
we look into the situation and say "its because they are scum", when its more accurate to say the reason others haven't joined in is because we are simply in a situation where rioting is not a Net gain exercise.
you're going to need a lot of bullets, because if they weren't after you then, they will be after you now.
Also, shouting false warnings lowers the impact of real warnings, thus could lead to even more deaths if permitted.
or maybe less, as people would be less likely to panic and just think their way out the situation. If you don't think your in danger until you are out of the theater while its burning down then the organized movement is probably much safer, even if its a little slower. Or maybe people just need to stop accepting everything that passes through their ears as gospel from sources without authority?
True, Yelling "fire" in a theatre is creating a volatile and dangerous situation, encouraging rioting simply validates a criminals behaviour to himself and perhaps his immediate peers.
in this instance, yelling "fire" would be the government / who ever* is at fault for creating the volatile situation in the first place, the "inciting the riot" is similar to the patron who points to the fire exit and creates a rush of bodies that causes the actual damage.
*the individuals that started the actual rioting? I'm not trying to blame the government.*
because under the influence of alchohol / drugs you're not of sound mind to make the decision to drive or put people in a risk scenario for your own benifit, (it doesn't even have to be about how the drugs affect your performance or in what way they interact with you, you're just not of sound mind to legally accept the responsibility of driving a car, so legally you shouldn't) also the final human in the link is the dude who drove drunk, where as the final link in the chain in the previous example is the actual contract killer (the dude who would have been charged, and don't get me wrong, i disagree with the husband being innocent, but both examples are hardly mutually exclusive.).
specific laws governing the license to use government / publicly funded property can be valid while blanket laws about "hate" communication or incitement shouldn't.
I disagree with the hired killer not getting charged, but giving someone incentives to break the law is a crime, telling someone to break the law with no incentive certainly shouldn't be, because the action is then entirely on the head of whoever is blindly following orders for no reason.
why should anon fear another 14 year old basement dweller?
I would dare say that unfortunately most abuse by officers still doesn't get reported as most citizens simply take it as a way of life thinking they can't fight city hall.
If the cops are able to find out who you are and all your particulars if you criticize a police department in a comic, do you really think that the average citizen feels empowered and safe enough to fight against "city hall"?
well, you do need to have power first before you abuse it.
and those with the power are the minority. so i'm not really sure what you're trying to say.
Police power getting better?
... UNLESS they are perceived by the police as a "baddie", then you're just a baddie, and it doesn't matter what happens to you. even a "honorable nice cop" will treat a "baddie" like crap by default (throw them in a cage, manhandle them etc) its hardly a big jump from manhandling to assault.
You're posting this in a article where someone is being charged by drawing a comic of police. Its hardly an improvement because 80% of cops are "good". also, define a good cop, Police are people who will arrest you if they feel you are guilty, they don't go and fuck around with others rights
basically what you said could be said about wife beaters. I know of a couple actually, they are really nice people in most circumstances, in the wrong situation though, they show their real colours.
there is a difference between social conservatism and fiscal conservatism
but... that sounds really hard! i just want to choose between a black man and a woman, that's much easier!
Can i point out that not believing in god is stupid? now hear me out.
God is as real as the concept of territory. God is simply an idea, that idea however has very real effects on people and politics. To deny its existence is to shut your eyes and yell "lalalal" at the world around you.
a god that is like the "god idea"(bible, koran, etc) describes... well that's just fantasy.
I'm done, carry on.
Belief != religion. atheism is a belief, but its not a religion.
Wait, are you saying that there is a way to create new creative works and still generate an income WITHOUT suing pirates?
It's no different than an eyewitness saying "yep, he murdered an unarmed man", except that it tends to be even more damning, and, in the absence of the second camera, would almost certainly get me convicted.
We can't even get the guilty convicted half the time - what makes you think I can ruin innocent lives at my whim?
wait, your worried you're going to get convicted, but somehow you can't even convict the guilty half the time?
That's just a stupid technicality.
what, that cameras don't lie? seems more of an inconvenient technicality than anything.
It presents a distorted version of what happened.
no it doesn't, what happened would be more distorted without the evidence to back it up. You're just concerned that people might see a one sided story and its not on you're side? ever wonder how all those "criminals" felt?
what makes you think I can ruin innocent lives at my whim?
1) Well, first off you don't need to take someone to court to ruin their lives.
2) In front of wife / boss "sir, you're under arrest for child pornography" = "fucked life" does it matter that they dropped charges 20 min later? no.
3) Harassing Innocent people (aka, what this story is about) because charges were dropped previously, I do hear this far too often.
4) you have people helplessly handcuffed completely under your control. if you can't think of ways to ruin someone while they are helpless then you're too stupid to be arresting people in the first place.
now, I'm not saying you would do any of the examples above, but pretending that you can't is just ridiculous.
It's no different than an eyewitness saying "yep, he murdered an unarmed man", except that it tends to be even more damning, and, in the absence of the second camera, would almost certainly get me convicted
with the absence of a gun on the guy, bullet holes near you're position, a recently fired weapon with the guys finger prints all over it, witness accounts of shots fired from 2 different weapons (making different noise) and radio chatter of "oh god, someones trying to kill me".. I'm not sure if the second camera would be you're saving grace, in fact i don't think the first camera would make a difference to your case. Again, a camera (any camera) helps to paint a clearer picture.
now if there was a way to keep my employees accountable (cops) without keeping tabs on them directly through camera footage, I'd be happy to peruse that, but i get the impression I'd be met with just as much resistance from police.
the other side of the coin? you could always reduce police powers so they can't discuss the crimes of a 3rd party without their consent until convicted? then everything comes out "after the trial" for both sides, instead of the citizen being left in the lurch.
Deliberately insulting your teacher - whether loudly or quietly - isn't likely to go without a reprimand.
calling him a liar is probably worse than implying a cop as a "pig". But i do see you're point, were do you draw the line?
in my opinion, both are "public servants" (not the official authority, the official authority is the people, but this isn't about whats official anyway.), i think the difference is one system you could always leave and re-intergrate elsewhere? where as the other that isn't an option?
in the end you would still be an idiot for insulting police because what they can do back, not what they should do back.
another point should be "why should police be protected against insults that everyday citizens aren't" which also ties into why should police be protected against being video taped when everyday citizens can't?
but the moment you give random assholes the ability to ruin my career and get me locked up for trying to do my job
and yet you hold this power over the citizen every time you interact with them, maybe its time to balance the power out a bit? what happened to "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about?".. there needs to be a risk involved in arresting people (and potentially ruining lives on circumstantial evidence) so that police only arrest when they have a good reason to arrest someone and don't just go arresting peaceful people who smoke dope or dance at the Washington monument because it's "risk free".
Cameras lie, all the time,
NO THEY DO NOT. people lie, cameras are hard evidence, even if they can't paint a complete picture a camera is no more capable of lying then a DNA swab or a boot print.