|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 11 2016 08:05 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 07:57 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I've never understood how the only crime someone can be charged with is resisting arrest. There has to be a crime to get arrested for that leads to resisting. You need A to have B. Any time someone is charged with resisting and only resisting that should be immediately and instantly thrown out. Not how it works. You can be arrested for any number of reasons and whether you disagree with them is immaterial. Your recourse occurs after the fact if there is in fact no good reason to detain you. That's what laws pertaining to habeas corpus and wrongful imprisonment are for.
If I've committed no crime my resistance is completely justified as far as I'm concerned.
|
On July 11 2016 08:06 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 08:05 forsooth wrote:On July 11 2016 07:57 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I've never understood how the only crime someone can be charged with is resisting arrest. There has to be a crime to get arrested for that leads to resisting. You need A to have B. Any time someone is charged with resisting and only resisting that should be immediately and instantly thrown out. Not how it works. You can be arrested for any number of reasons and whether you disagree with them is immaterial. Your recourse occurs after the fact if there is in fact no good reason to detain you. That's what laws pertaining to habeas corpus and wrongful imprisonment are for. If I've committed no crime my resistance is completely justified as far as I'm concerned.
That's not how the real world works.
|
On July 11 2016 08:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 08:06 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 11 2016 08:05 forsooth wrote:On July 11 2016 07:57 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I've never understood how the only crime someone can be charged with is resisting arrest. There has to be a crime to get arrested for that leads to resisting. You need A to have B. Any time someone is charged with resisting and only resisting that should be immediately and instantly thrown out. Not how it works. You can be arrested for any number of reasons and whether you disagree with them is immaterial. Your recourse occurs after the fact if there is in fact no good reason to detain you. That's what laws pertaining to habeas corpus and wrongful imprisonment are for. If I've committed no crime my resistance is completely justified as far as I'm concerned. That's not how the real world works.
I would say that "the real world" doesn't seem to be working to well.
|
From my experience on the army, even tho you are taught different things, unofficially you will get adviced from a good amount of veterans/officers that if you have to use brute force to detain somebody, it's better to use lethal force to avoid legal problems afterwards. So i wonder if the US police gets that kind of mentality aswell were outright killing on a bad arrest is a safer career move.
|
On July 11 2016 08:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 08:06 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 11 2016 08:05 forsooth wrote:On July 11 2016 07:57 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I've never understood how the only crime someone can be charged with is resisting arrest. There has to be a crime to get arrested for that leads to resisting. You need A to have B. Any time someone is charged with resisting and only resisting that should be immediately and instantly thrown out. Not how it works. You can be arrested for any number of reasons and whether you disagree with them is immaterial. Your recourse occurs after the fact if there is in fact no good reason to detain you. That's what laws pertaining to habeas corpus and wrongful imprisonment are for. If I've committed no crime my resistance is completely justified as far as I'm concerned. That's not how the real world works.
If the police abuse their power, compliance will only open you up to further abuse. The Chicago police department has proven that being taken into custody does not always mean due process.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site
So the real world is a complex place where people in uniforms are not always the good guys.
|
On July 11 2016 08:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 08:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 11 2016 08:06 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 11 2016 08:05 forsooth wrote:On July 11 2016 07:57 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I've never understood how the only crime someone can be charged with is resisting arrest. There has to be a crime to get arrested for that leads to resisting. You need A to have B. Any time someone is charged with resisting and only resisting that should be immediately and instantly thrown out. Not how it works. You can be arrested for any number of reasons and whether you disagree with them is immaterial. Your recourse occurs after the fact if there is in fact no good reason to detain you. That's what laws pertaining to habeas corpus and wrongful imprisonment are for. If I've committed no crime my resistance is completely justified as far as I'm concerned. That's not how the real world works. If the police abuse their power, compliance will only open you up to further abuse. The Chicago police department has proven that being taken into custody does not always mean due process. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-siteSo the real world is a complex place where people in uniforms are not always the good guys.
Resisting arrests does not solve the problem of police abusing their authority.
I'm sure we can come to a reasonable middle ground between "Even though resisting arrest is against the law, I'm justified in doing so if I've committed no crime" and "I'm going to be completely compliant with abusive police officers and do nothing as they trample my rights"
|
On July 11 2016 08:16 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 08:13 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2016 08:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 11 2016 08:06 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 11 2016 08:05 forsooth wrote:On July 11 2016 07:57 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I've never understood how the only crime someone can be charged with is resisting arrest. There has to be a crime to get arrested for that leads to resisting. You need A to have B. Any time someone is charged with resisting and only resisting that should be immediately and instantly thrown out. Not how it works. You can be arrested for any number of reasons and whether you disagree with them is immaterial. Your recourse occurs after the fact if there is in fact no good reason to detain you. That's what laws pertaining to habeas corpus and wrongful imprisonment are for. If I've committed no crime my resistance is completely justified as far as I'm concerned. That's not how the real world works. If the police abuse their power, compliance will only open you up to further abuse. The Chicago police department has proven that being taken into custody does not always mean due process. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-siteSo the real world is a complex place where people in uniforms are not always the good guys. Resisting arrests does not solve the problem of police abusing their authority.
I don't think they are trying to solve problems. Some people are just afraid the police are going to kill or beat them.
|
On July 11 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 08:16 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 11 2016 08:13 Plansix wrote:On July 11 2016 08:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 11 2016 08:06 OuchyDathurts wrote:On July 11 2016 08:05 forsooth wrote:On July 11 2016 07:57 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I've never understood how the only crime someone can be charged with is resisting arrest. There has to be a crime to get arrested for that leads to resisting. You need A to have B. Any time someone is charged with resisting and only resisting that should be immediately and instantly thrown out. Not how it works. You can be arrested for any number of reasons and whether you disagree with them is immaterial. Your recourse occurs after the fact if there is in fact no good reason to detain you. That's what laws pertaining to habeas corpus and wrongful imprisonment are for. If I've committed no crime my resistance is completely justified as far as I'm concerned. That's not how the real world works. If the police abuse their power, compliance will only open you up to further abuse. The Chicago police department has proven that being taken into custody does not always mean due process. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-siteSo the real world is a complex place where people in uniforms are not always the good guys. Resisting arrests does not solve the problem of police abusing their authority. I don't think they are trying to solve problems. Some people are just afraid the police are going to kill or beat them.
That ought to be an irrational fear for everyone. The fact that it isn't shows we need to hold police to higher standards of accountability.
Individually breaking the law by resisting arrest does nothing to further that end.
|
I'm just looking forward to the "never resist" crowd peacefully handing over their guns to the officers that come to confiscate them after some ban is passed in the distant future.
Surely the specter of an oppressive government depriving people of their rights will be met with the same skepticism we see now. Surely people won't cling to their guns ignoring that the confiscation may or may not be legal and that they should wait until after their gun has been taken to dispute it.
Or maybe at some point they will become aware of how ridiculous the very framing of the conversation is, let alone the details of any particular case.
|
ATLANTA (AP) — Wanda Melton has voted for every Republican presidential nominee since Ronald Reagan in 1980, but now the Georgia grandmother plans to cross over to support Democrat Hillary Clinton.
"I'm not a real fan of Hillary," Melton says from her office in Atlanta. "But I think it would just be awful to have Donald Trump." She adds: "I cannot in good conscience let that happen."
Melton is among a particular group of voters, whites with college degrees, who are resistant to Trump. Their skepticism comes as an ominous warning as Trump struggles to rebuild even the losing coalition that Mitt Romney managed four years ago.
College-educated whites made up more than one-third of the electorate in 2012. Polls suggest Trump trails Clinton with those voters, especially women.
"Donald Trump simply cannot afford to lose ground in any segment of the electorate" that supported Romney, said Florida pollster Fernand Amandi. Romney's strength with that group, for example, made for a close race in Florida, where President Barack Obama won by less than 75,000 votes out of more than 8.4 million cast.
Some Republicans worry Trump's approach — his unvarnished, sometimes uncouth demeanor and his nationalist and populist arguments — guarantees his defeat, because the same outsider appeal that attracts many working class and even college-educated white men alienates other voters with a college degree.
Source
|
How long until it has a gun and can be used to kill suspects who refuse to come out of a tight space, or why not just use a predator and take out the whole building. Maybe you get his family too, but hey, they should have known better than to be related to a criminal.
For sake of ignoring black plight, people are letting us fall into a police state.
|
On July 11 2016 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:https://twitter.com/Khanoisseur/status/751995652838596608How long until it has a gun and can be used to kill suspects who refuse to come out of a tight space, or why not just use a predator and take out the whole building. Maybe you get his family too, but hey, they should have known better than to be related to a criminal. For sake of ignoring black plight, people are letting us fall into a police state.
your pointless hyperbole only serves to antagonize people and does your cause no good.
|
On July 11 2016 08:36 GreenHorizons wrote:https://twitter.com/Khanoisseur/status/751995652838596608How long until it has a gun and can be used to kill suspects who refuse to come out of a tight space, or why not just use a predator and take out the whole building. Maybe you get his family too, but hey, they should have known better than to be related to a criminal. For sake of ignoring black plight, people are letting us fall into a police state.
Extreme intellectual dishonesty doesn't help your case.
|
I'm not necessarily taking GH side but drones little more than the size of Dragonflies have been developed and tested since the late 90's in the US. Not to mention during the height of the Iraq War at peace protests people noticed several groups of said Dragonflies flying over them expect they didn't seem natural as Dragonflies do not fly in groups. This is all public knowledge that has seen funding increases and R&D projects for DARPA well over a decade. Not counting DARPA still classified UAV projects and othr branches of developments.
See you do learn something from books 
|
On July 11 2016 08:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +ATLANTA (AP) — Wanda Melton has voted for every Republican presidential nominee since Ronald Reagan in 1980, but now the Georgia grandmother plans to cross over to support Democrat Hillary Clinton.
"I'm not a real fan of Hillary," Melton says from her office in Atlanta. "But I think it would just be awful to have Donald Trump." She adds: "I cannot in good conscience let that happen."
Melton is among a particular group of voters, whites with college degrees, who are resistant to Trump. Their skepticism comes as an ominous warning as Trump struggles to rebuild even the losing coalition that Mitt Romney managed four years ago.
College-educated whites made up more than one-third of the electorate in 2012. Polls suggest Trump trails Clinton with those voters, especially women.
"Donald Trump simply cannot afford to lose ground in any segment of the electorate" that supported Romney, said Florida pollster Fernand Amandi. Romney's strength with that group, for example, made for a close race in Florida, where President Barack Obama won by less than 75,000 votes out of more than 8.4 million cast.
Some Republicans worry Trump's approach — his unvarnished, sometimes uncouth demeanor and his nationalist and populist arguments — guarantees his defeat, because the same outsider appeal that attracts many working class and even college-educated white men alienates other voters with a college degree. Source
White with a college degree here who supports Trump over Hillary.
I plan on getting another one for free with my G.I. Bill when my military service ends.
I love the media trying to paint the narrative that 'educated vote for Hillary' and 'uneducated vote for Trump'.
-educated is good 'uneducated' is bad
-if you vote Hillary, you're educated (good)
-if you vote Trump, you're uneducated (bad)
-therefore you should vote for Hillary not Trump
It's a great Clinton ad
Interestingly, from that same article -
Romney drew support from 56 percent of white voters with college degrees, according to 2012 exit polls. Obama notched just 42 percent, but still cruised to a second term.
That's an even bigger gap than polls show between Trump and Clinton currently. I didn't vote in 2012 I was pretty jaded with the choices but if forced to would have selected Obama over Romney at the time.
|
On July 11 2016 08:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:I'm not necessarily taking GH side but drones little more than the size of Dragonflies have been developed and tested since the late 90's in the US. Not to mention during the height of the Iraq War at peace protests people noticed several groups of said Dragonflies flying over them expect they didn't seem natural as Dragonflies do not fly in groups. This is all public knowledge that has seen funding increases and R&D projects for DARPA well over a decade. Not counting DARPA still classified UAV projects and othr branches of developments. See you do learn something from books
I'm in no way denying that they might have been doing recording video or whatever. I rail against taking it right to drone striking whole neighborhoods as the next step.
It completely turns people off of any actual point he might have been trying to make.
|
On July 11 2016 08:53 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 08:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:I'm not necessarily taking GH side but drones little more than the size of Dragonflies have been developed and tested since the late 90's in the US. Not to mention during the height of the Iraq War at peace protests people noticed several groups of said Dragonflies flying over them expect they didn't seem natural as Dragonflies do not fly in groups. This is all public knowledge that has seen funding increases and R&D projects for DARPA well over a decade. Not counting DARPA still classified UAV projects and othr branches of developments. See you do learn something from books I'm in no way denying that they might have been doing recording video or whatever. I rail against taking it right to drone striking whole neighborhoods as the next step. It completely turns people off of any actual point he might have been trying to make.
I wasn't saying whole neighborhoods. I wasn't really talking about that anyway, so much as how drones act as a barrier between the humanity of the user and those they are used on. I can see why it would have been misunderstood.
But from my perspective, bringing up black neighborhoods being precision bombed as a "last resort" is about as relevant as a lot that gets said about what black people need to do to get the police and the system to stop abusing them and respect their constitutional rights.
EDIT: As for the "police state" side. I feel like there's some quote out there somewhere about how when it arrives, we'll have asked for it, which may provide some clarity, but it slips my mind at the moment.
|
On July 11 2016 08:47 GGTeMpLaR wrote:I love the media trying to paint the narrative that 'educated vote for Hillary' and 'uneducated vote for Trump'. ... Interestingly, from that same article - Show nested quote +Romney drew support from 56 percent of white voters with college degrees, according to 2012 exit polls. Obama notched just 42 percent, but still cruised to a second term. That's an even bigger gap than polls show between Trump and Clinton currently. I didn't vote in 2012 I was pretty jaded with the choices but if forced to would have selected Obama over Romney at the time.
To be fair, more highly educated people have increasingly tended to vote Democrat even if that's not true for whites with college degrees. But I agree that the "Democrats are more highly educated" theme is overwrought. Education has very little to say about many electoral issues.
|
A lot of the time, "well educated" people are better off than average and will vote for the candidate that is better for those who are better off. Not always a matter of "stupid people support this candidate."
|
On July 11 2016 09:37 zf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2016 08:47 GGTeMpLaR wrote:I love the media trying to paint the narrative that 'educated vote for Hillary' and 'uneducated vote for Trump'. ... Interestingly, from that same article - Romney drew support from 56 percent of white voters with college degrees, according to 2012 exit polls. Obama notched just 42 percent, but still cruised to a second term. That's an even bigger gap than polls show between Trump and Clinton currently. I didn't vote in 2012 I was pretty jaded with the choices but if forced to would have selected Obama over Romney at the time. To be fair, more highly educated people have increasingly tended to vote Democrat even if that's not true for whites with college degrees. But I agree that the "Democrats are more highly educated" theme is overwrought. Education has very little to say about many electoral issues.
The thrust of the article is that Trump is alienating the very demographics that win general elections. And this come on top of the GOP meeting here he defensive and did not really win anyone over. Many of the people that he has to work with also have to do their jobs after the election, no matter who wins. And Trump is doing very little to assure tehm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
