police shootings

wired · Jul 25, 2016

People come into your home to kill you and steal your stuff because the drugs are illegal and the price inflated a hundred times over what they would be in the free market. Prohibition of alcohol didnt work. Prohibition of drugs doesnt work. The whole drug thing should be treated like the Dutch do it. Its a public heath issue and the people who abuse drugs and cause societal problems while on them get treatment and yes jail time if they cause harm to others. Intoxication of any kind while driving being strictly illegal and heavily enforced

bmtm09 · Jul 25, 2016

wired said:
People come into your home to kill you and steal your stuff because the drugs are illegal and the price inflated a hundred times over what they would be in the free market. Prohibition of alcohol didnt work. Prohibition of drugs doesnt work. The whole drug thing should be treated like the Dutch do it. Its a public heath issue and the people who abuse drugs and cause societal problems while on them get treatment and yes jail time if they cause harm to others. Intoxication of any kind while driving being strictly illegal and heavily enforced

Without cops how would it be enforced?

wired · Jul 25, 2016

I'm not the one saying we shouldnt have cops. I just think they should b use deadly force as the absolute last resort AFTER exhausting other alternatives..

I understand hiring good people is difficult and training to kill if given the slightest provocation is easier and cheaper than the alternative.

PaulB47 · Jul 25, 2016

No, I don't believe arresting drunk drivers (however you want to define that) until there is a victim. Then punish them for negligence the same way you would punish someone texting while driving, or adjusting the radio, or any other thing that caused a death. The real crime is the harm caused, not some petty dictate violated.

This is exactly the same as gun control. Your position is that of Kate Brown. You don't think she believes drunk drivers should be arrested?

Punishing people where there is no victim, is the opposite of liberty. It doesn't appear you understand liberty. You need to do some reading. Here is a good start:

Lots of other sources available on the Internet about liberty.

If you think all 2.3 million Americans in jail belong there, you are very foolish. This is a rate of imprisonment even exceeding communist China. Most of these are political prisoners.

ROL is a dangerous world too, when it becomes the police state. Every dictator has always had plenty of laws. Be careful what you wish for.

bmtm09 · Jul 25, 2016

Not saying I want absolute rule of law Either! that's why this country was set up on checks and balances.....Don't appreciate being called a fool either...in wrol that would be a punishable offence....

bmtm09 · Jul 25, 2016

If someone is stopped before committing a crime ...but evidence is there that his intent was to commit a crime then he shouldn't be arrested...So someone is on their way to your mothers house to break in and kill her.A map in hand that shows your moms house highlighted and it says destination below it. Offender has a knife in his possession and a note that says I am going to kill mrs ..so and so...and he gets stopped by the police for having a fender bender and damaging someone else's property ....your train of thought... just let him go and finish what he is doing because he hasn't committed the crime yet?????

BTW I worked as a correctional officer... Everyone is innocent....Again..dont know how to make this any clearer to you... System = flawed Until we get it fixed its going to stay that way but by no means should we do away with LEO's thats cutting off your head because a hair is out of place

PaulB47 · Jul 26, 2016

If someone is stopped before committing a crime ...but evidence is there that his intent was to commit a crime then he shouldn't be arrested...So someone is on their way to your mothers house to break in and kill her.A map in hand that shows your moms house highlighted and it says destination below it. Offender has a knife in his possession and a note that says I am going to kill mrs ..so and so...and he gets stopped by the police for having a fender bender and damaging someone else's property ....your train of thought... just let him go and finish what he is doing because he hasn't committed the crime yet?????

This technique you are using could be called, "your system ain't perfect". It's common in debates such as this. Each side concocts some ridiculous scenario that is not handled well in a given system.

Yes, it's not perfect. Nothing created by fallible human beings is perfect. It doesn't have to be. All it has to be, is better than what we have now - and that is a very low bar to surpass.

The problem with your example here is that "the cure is worse than the disease". Arresting people who might cause crime ends up in the police state and 2.3 million Americans in jail, their lives ruined, and a huge financial burden for everybody else. Anyway 99.999% of the time cops don't really know who is going to commit a crime prior to the crime. They are the clean-up crew when a murder happens.

Murders are going to happen no matter what. If mom is worried about it, she should arm herself. If she doesn't and gets murdered, oh well. That's right, when there is no victim, there should be no prosecution. That notion will not end up in the police state.

The fact is, this country was best, most livable, most safe, most free, early on when there were no cops.