When I was in high school, back in the ancient bygone days of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan was in office in the White House, America was sending money and weapons to a tiny band of Islamic extremists called the “Taliban” in Afghanistan, and a young wealthy Saudi by the name of Osama bin Laden was using American money to help recruit Islamic Jihadist fighters to repel the Soviets from Afghanistan.
During that time, I was living in Florida, which had a law on its books requiring all high school students to take a state-mandated course called “Americanism vs. Communism” before they could graduate.
“Americanism vs. Communism” was pure indoctrination, straight out of George Orwell. The purpose of the class, which counted as a “history” credit on high-school transcripts, was to show students how the American way of life was superior to the brutal Communists; the man who developed the state-mandated curriculum, Fred Turner, won a Freedoms Foundation Award for his efforts.
The premise and conclusion of the Americanism vs. Communism class was that the Russians were evil, baby-killing monsters who lived under the bed seeking the time to devour the United States and all that we hold dear, and that anything we do to stop these evil fiends was justified. To be fair, this pretty much summed up the politics of the time; America committed quite an astonishing number of atrocities, and supported quite a number of impressively brutal dictators (men like Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Augusto Pinochet, and Alfredo Cristiani), all because Americanism Is Good and Communism Is Bad.
My teacher for Americanism vs. Communism was a very interesting man. He was a World War II veteran who saw combat in the Philippines and was captured by the Japanese. He survived the Bataan Death March and spent time as a Japanese POW in the Japan mainland, where he was transported in the cargo hold of a hell ship. As an American POW, he was tortured and used for forced labor, before the end of WWII brought his release and that of the other people who survived.
These experiences made a true believer out of him; he was quite passionate about his love for this country, but not in the mindless, tribalistic “My country, right or wrong, love it or leave it, you pinko punk!” kind of way. He did not become a jingoist; instead, he internalized the core values he believed made this country better than others.
And he was appalled by the state-developed “Americanism vs. Communism” class he was told to teach.
On the first day of class, he made it very, very clear that he despised the curriculum and everything it stood for, and that he would not be teaching from the textbook the state required. Instead, he said, as far as he was concerned, this class was a class in Russian history, period. Almost everything I know about Russian history, I learned in that high school class.
So, fast forward a few decades. Communism fizzled like a damp firecracker, and our former allies in the Taliban and our former friend (in the sense of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”) Osama have turned into rather more of a problem than we’d anticipated. Today, the idea of teaching a state-developed class in “Americanism vs. Communism” seems quaintly retro, like those 1950s-era books on home economics telling women that the highest duty they could serve was making sure that dinner was on the table promptly when their husbands came home from work, and making sure they had a smile on their face and subservience in their heart at all times.
And yet, I wonder…
…when do you suppose we will see the first state-mandated class in “Americanism vs. Islam”? Anyone care to make any bets as to what state will be the first to impose this requirement?
It won’t be “Americanism vs Islam” because people are very careful to avoid saying that “Islam” is the enemy. Instead it will be “America and the Global War Against Terror”; it will just coincidentally have a lot of anti-Islamic content.
Ah, yes. “Americanism vs. Terrorism.” Because even though this whole thing really is about “Jesus=Good, Islam=Bad,” we don’t want to say that, right?
In fairness, I’ve encountered a few non- or only nominally Christian folks who’re still fairly rabid about the whole War on Terror thing (Eric Raymond being a prime example). Usually the justification given is that Islam is significantly more repressive than the available alternatives.
I’m not sure that assertion is wrong, although the example of Turkey seems to prove that a secular majority-Muslim society is possible. The more extreme claims about global dhimmitude, et cetera still seem ludicrous, though.
Dead on. You get a sammich.
It won’t be “Americanism vs Islam” because people are very careful to avoid saying that “Islam” is the enemy. Instead it will be “America and the Global War Against Terror”; it will just coincidentally have a lot of anti-Islamic content.
Slightly left of topic..
I’ve wonder…
It’s quite the long shot, but did your instructor ever tell you stories about a woman named Claire Phillips or “High Pockets”?
I’ve been researching her for a piece, and you’re the closest I’ve come to anyone who might have talked to someone who knew her or was directly affected by her efforts.
Thanks!
Re: Slightly left of topic..
Nope, not to my recollection. He rarely talked in detail about that part of his past. Sorry!
Slightly left of topic..
I’ve wonder…
It’s quite the long shot, but did your instructor ever tell you stories about a woman named Claire Phillips or “High Pockets”?
I’ve been researching her for a piece, and you’re the closest I’ve come to anyone who might have talked to someone who knew her or was directly affected by her efforts.
Thanks!
on topic
Sadly, I don’t think you’re far off the mark.
on topic
Sadly, I don’t think you’re far off the mark.
Re: Slightly left of topic..
Nope, not to my recollection. He rarely talked in detail about that part of his past. Sorry!
Ah, yes. “Americanism vs. Terrorism.” Because even though this whole thing really is about “Jesus=Good, Islam=Bad,” we don’t want to say that, right?
We’re already in the classroom, we’re already being taught the curriculum. If you do not comply, then you fail the course.
Interesting thing, though, about a surveillance society that George Orwell ever saw coming: the technology of surveillance can be used by citizens against the government, as well as by the government against civilians.
The link you pointed to is a great example. The fact that most people walk around with cell phone cameras all the time, and the fact that places like YouTube allow us to put movies in front of millions of people instantly and anonymously, means that when cops try to pull shit like that, someone is always watching.
In the past, abuses by government and law enforcement largely went unknown and unacknowledged. Nowadays, any cop who pulls out his nightstick and beats the holy living hell out of someone, or who Tasers someone in a library, is likely to get filmed doing it, and end up on leave (or fired, or even prosecuted) faster than he can say “YouTube”. That, in my book, is a good thing. 🙂
Good point. And the government knows that it’s being watched, too.
That’s why they’ve been trying — and have recently succeeded thanks to internet gambling regulations — to reign in the internet. Concepts like YouTube are the internet’s golden age, soon to be followed by the dark age of censorship, i.e., like China and North Korea, if government continues to have its way.
I can’t name one cop, judge, politician, etc. who has been properly prosecuted because of their abuse of power. None of those people in those videos got in any trouble — they were “just doing their job.” George W. Bush and the Federal Congress who authorized his war of terror in Iraq aren’t going to get into any trouble for violating the Constitution. Those people are an appendage of the leviathan, why would the government sever its own arm?
I would love it if those in government were held accountable for their actions. When that day comes, I will rejoice.
Stun gun? GOOD.
I watched your video. The guy deserved to be hit.
Foul language aside, why wouldn’t he just show his ID? He just wanted to whine, and protest.
He got what he deserved. Foul mouthed punk…I love it when kids are held accountable for acting up.
Who does he think he is? He found out…nobody special.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
You do not need to identify yourself to a police officer or any government minister in the United States of America. A police officer cannot compel you to identify yourself, his doing so is stepping beyond his granted authority from any state and federal constitution.
Show me where in any constitution and/or show me the state or federal statute that authorizes a police officer to compel a stranger to identify himself — furthermore, show me the constitutional provision or the statute that abridges the right to freedom of speech (which includes the right to be silent).
“Who does he think he is?” He is a sovereign individual with rights and liberties, one who need not show his papers on command. Who do the police think they are? Police are supposed to be servants of the people, not aggressors against peaceful protestors. And as they show time and time again, police are the last people I trust to hold anyone accountable for anything.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Who does he think he is?
A citizen of the United States, that’s who he thinks he is.
In the United States, citizens do not have to identify themselves to the police. I think you’re thinking of Communist China or the old Soviet Union. Under the laws of those places, yes, he got what he deserved. Under the laws of the United States, that police officer should be relieved of his duty, and prosecuted for breaking the law.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Citizens of the United States can legally (but unconstitutionally) be classified as ENEMY COMBATANTS, thanks to the federal congress and the president.
Since unconstitutional laws are being enforced, the constitution is de facto null and void and no longer the supreme law of the land.
We’re looking more and more like a communist country every day. 🙂
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
The constitution was written by a bunch of rich politicians and land-owners who were thinking of one thing only…how to get away from a king. They knew they wouldn’t write everything into it that needed to be covered, so they left ways of getting around it. They incorporated methods by which it could be changed. They put things in like how it takes congress to declare war but the president could still move troops…just in case congress was ever taken over by idiots and pansys.
I doubt that they ever figured that some day, people would use the constitution as a weapon to snipe at each other, or use it as a shield for illicit activities. Because that’s how it’s being used. I’m sure that more evil has been accomplished under the guise of “privacy rights”…things like child porn. But I don’t hear you crying about how people’s houses are busted into so that this evil can be snuffed out. Or who knows, maybe you don’t want them doing that. It fits with your stance.
By the way, I don’t consider that a personal attack…since you obviously don’t want to see people getting arrested on suspicion of anything, you probably would want that pervert to be unharmed and undisturbed, so he could go on with his evil.
Or have I misjudged you? Because you can’t have it both ways. Which is it?
BTW, which would you rather? A corrupt communism, or a corrupt Democracy?
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
I doubt that they ever figured that some day, people would use the constitution as a weapon to snipe at each other, or use it as a shield for illicit activities. Because that’s how it’s being used. I’m sure that more evil has been accomplished under the guise of “privacy rights”…things like child porn.
That’s remarkably poor reasoning.
The Constitution is not used as a shield for illegal activities. On the contrary; it clearly spells out how law enforcement can investigate, arrest, and prosecute wrongdoers. No reading of Constitutional defense of privacy protects child pornographers. The Constitution explicitly says that law enforcement can come into people’s homes; it just says they can not do it without judicial oversight, that’s all.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Are you telling me that there has never been an instance where a conviction was thrown out, despite the person being guilty, because of failure to follow procedure?
“Remarkably poor reasoning”…pfft.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
That works both ways. There have also been instances of people who are innocent being convicted and kept in jail, even after their innocence as been established, because of failure to follow procedure.
But that’s not relevant. The procedures are there for a reason. We have those procedures because we have decided that police do not and should not have ultimate, unlimited power. This is not a police state.
I do not doubt that there are people who would be happier living in a police state. I’m not one of them.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Well, then I rest my case.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Communism abolishes property rights. Democracy grants or revokes property privelages at the whim of a majority. I would rather live under a republic that respected property rights.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Have you ever read the paper by Mary Croft? Look it up sometime. This woman is absolutely right and absolutely batty. But what she says reminds me a LOT of what you say.
And while you’re at it, have you ever seen Loose Change or 911 Mysteries? You would LOVE these.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
I’ve seen Loose Change. I thought it was bunk. I don’t think 9/11 was an “inside job.” What’s your point? Do you want to insult or do you want to debate?
We’re already in the classroom, we’re already being taught the curriculum. If you do not comply, then you fail the course.
Interesting thing, though, about a surveillance society that George Orwell ever saw coming: the technology of surveillance can be used by citizens against the government, as well as by the government against civilians.
The link you pointed to is a great example. The fact that most people walk around with cell phone cameras all the time, and the fact that places like YouTube allow us to put movies in front of millions of people instantly and anonymously, means that when cops try to pull shit like that, someone is always watching.
In the past, abuses by government and law enforcement largely went unknown and unacknowledged. Nowadays, any cop who pulls out his nightstick and beats the holy living hell out of someone, or who Tasers someone in a library, is likely to get filmed doing it, and end up on leave (or fired, or even prosecuted) faster than he can say “YouTube”. That, in my book, is a good thing. 🙂
Dead on. You get a sammich.
Good point. And the government knows that it’s being watched, too.
That’s why they’ve been trying — and have recently succeeded thanks to internet gambling regulations — to reign in the internet. Concepts like YouTube are the internet’s golden age, soon to be followed by the dark age of censorship, i.e., like China and North Korea, if government continues to have its way.
I can’t name one cop, judge, politician, etc. who has been properly prosecuted because of their abuse of power. None of those people in those videos got in any trouble — they were “just doing their job.” George W. Bush and the Federal Congress who authorized his war of terror in Iraq aren’t going to get into any trouble for violating the Constitution. Those people are an appendage of the leviathan, why would the government sever its own arm?
I would love it if those in government were held accountable for their actions. When that day comes, I will rejoice.
Stun gun? GOOD.
I watched your video. The guy deserved to be hit.
Foul language aside, why wouldn’t he just show his ID? He just wanted to whine, and protest.
He got what he deserved. Foul mouthed punk…I love it when kids are held accountable for acting up.
Who does he think he is? He found out…nobody special.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
You do not need to identify yourself to a police officer or any government minister in the United States of America. A police officer cannot compel you to identify yourself, his doing so is stepping beyond his granted authority from any state and federal constitution.
Show me where in any constitution and/or show me the state or federal statute that authorizes a police officer to compel a stranger to identify himself — furthermore, show me the constitutional provision or the statute that abridges the right to freedom of speech (which includes the right to be silent).
“Who does he think he is?” He is a sovereign individual with rights and liberties, one who need not show his papers on command. Who do the police think they are? Police are supposed to be servants of the people, not aggressors against peaceful protestors. And as they show time and time again, police are the last people I trust to hold anyone accountable for anything.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Who does he think he is?
A citizen of the United States, that’s who he thinks he is.
In the United States, citizens do not have to identify themselves to the police. I think you’re thinking of Communist China or the old Soviet Union. Under the laws of those places, yes, he got what he deserved. Under the laws of the United States, that police officer should be relieved of his duty, and prosecuted for breaking the law.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
OM> “Who does he think he is?” He is a sovereign individual with rights and liberties, one who need not show his papers on command. Who do the police think they are? Police are supposed to be servants of the people, not aggressors against peaceful protestors. And as they show time and time again, police are the last people I trust to hold anyone accountable for anything.
Who he is, is a punk kid, who’s “sovereign individual rights” were a shield he was hiding behind while he threw rotten tomatoes at the cops. His “individual rights and liberties” had been waived (along with every other student in that room) when accepted that ID WHICH HE SHOULD HAVE SHOWN TO START WITH. And I don’t think his “protest” was “peaceful” at all. In fact, he was attempting to incite room, and could have caused a riot. Just because he had an attitude. If you ask me, that kid should be BEATEN, not just shocked, and then thrown out. It’s too late for you, your attitude is not American, you and your family can go back to the middle east. (Let’s see your “peaceful protest” there.)
The cops singled him out, we don’t know why. Maybe it was because someone saw him hitting on a female student who was just trying to get her Chem-Bio homework done, and called the cops. Maybe that school has a problem with illegals who try to hide out on campus. Maybe the cops just are bigoted pigs who don’t like anyone except whites. Maybe it was a ROUTINE patrol, AFTER 11PM and cops are JUST DOING THEIR JOB.
If I had a kid on that campus, I’d be damned glad because these Rent-a-cops, despite being brutal arrogant pigs, would at least keep CONTROL. I’d be glad to know that MY kid, who was disciplined and respectful of authority, would not find himself/herself in this situation. If I were that kid’s parents, I’d be ASHAMED of his conduct. Instead, I’m willing to put money on it: these parents, who never taught this kid how to be a RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING instead of a WHINY BRAT, are gonna raise a fuss…when they should be apologizing for him.
OM, it’s people like these (and you) who are responsible for our society’s decay. They sue over the slightest offense, oblivious to Common Sense. You are why doctors can’t afford to keep their practices, because you would sue for far more than a simple “botch” was worth. You are the type who takes the power out of the police’ hands because you’re more concerned about that common criminal’s rights than his victims. You are the old lady who sued McDonalds because her coffee was hot and burned her, despite the fact that it was COFFEE. (Duh, it’s gonna be HOT, careful how you handle it!)
You are symptomatic of how “loophole”-centric this country has become, and it’s going down the tubes.
Yes, OM. You have your rights. Everyone does. But they have their responsiblities too, and all I see is people demanding their rights without undertaking the obligations of responsibility.
Skunks have the right to be out in the park, but I’ve never seen them welcome at a picnic.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
If rights and liberties are a shield to hide behind, then without those, what do you have?
I hold liberty and responsibility as twin pillars of a civilized society; you cannot have one without the other. I demand liberty and I demand responsibility. I also demand to be left alone from intruding government. I did not ask for their “protection” so I expect to be left the fuck alone.
You do not know me, so instead of attacking me stick to debating the issue.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
OM> If rights and liberties are a shield to hide behind, then without those, what do you have?
The point was, they aren’t. The point was that the kid was using them as such.
Yes…an American is entitled, as a human being, to have “inalienable rights and liberties”, and those DO include not being questioned at gunpoint or intruded on, all of these things I’m not disagreeing with you. That kid had the right to not be stopped and questioned by a police officer, on the street or in a shopping mall or anywhere else. But when he signed on to that campus, he waived his rights and it was his RESPONSIBLITY to ABIDE BY THE RULES. In exchange, he got the privledge of attending classes; that was the deal. I realize that for some people (note, I’m not attacking you specifically) this is a null concept…waiving your rights in favor of the “larger picture”. For this kid, he obviously forgot he was a GUEST, and didn’t have the RIGHT to be there.
OM> I hold liberty and responsibility as twin pillars of a civilized society; you cannot have one without the other. I demand liberty and I demand responsibility. I also demand to be left alone from intruding government. I did not ask for their “protection” so I expect to be left the fuck alone.
This is where it seems to me that you contradict yourself. If you believe in personal responsiblity, it seems that you would understand that it extends further than just ones self. Otherwise, one would just be a selfish bastard, unconcerned about one’s community. Responsibilities, for instance, like stopping at a red light, as to not run into the guy who’s crossing. RULES. Rules for a working society, and these rules include duly appointed people who enforce them. If one breaks the rules, then one should not expect those who are confronting them about it to follow them either.
BTW, whether or not you specifically asked for their protection is irrelevant. You should know this by now. The fact is, you live in a country of majority, and that means decisions are made FOR you. As an American, this both to your benefit and to your detriment, and it applies to the smallest thing (local sherrif) all the way up to the President of the United States. Lawfully elected, and your personal permission is not necessary for them to do their jobs, once the majority has spoken. (Although, if you were in that majority, I guess they might pay more attention…however, I doubt you ever will be.) At any rate, I’m sure you wouldn’t expect them to ask permission to do their jobs…and don’t say you would, I’m sure if you were being jacked by a common criminal on the street, you would scream bloody murder if they took the time to wait for that criminal to finish before they came over to ask “Should we have stopped him?”
But then again, if they roughed him up arresting him, you’d probably insist they let him go.
You claim to uphold your responsiblity but you flout people who would hold you to that. You claim you don’t need them…well, clearly, based on this little incident (the issue we’re debating) they ARE needed, because there are people out there like this brat who can’t follow rules.
Further (based on your comments and this thread) you do not seem to want to uphold your responsiblities, because you can’t seem to see that this kid was not following rules. This is no different than if this kid ran a red light and then wouldn’t pay the insurance bills. Break the rules, face the consequences. You seem to want to take the side of someone who ran the light and then tried to blame the cop for pulling them over. Further, it sounds like you’d tie the cops hands when that same miscreant attacked him for PRESUMING to “voilate his right” to run a red light!
OM> You do not know me, so instead of attacking me stick to debating the issue.
Apologies. I make presumptions based on what you say. However, I don’t think that pointing out that you are wrong constitutes an attack.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
I live in a country of a majority who speak for me?
Maybe you haven’t heard of the story about two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. You mean to tell me that it’s okay for a group of people to steal from me or kill me or revoke my rights if a majority says it’s okay? Is this the kind of democracy you support? I thought we lived in America, a republic where (ideally) no majority had any power to rob from you, kill you, or render you subject to the whims of others.
As an American, the government should be bending over backwards to uphold and defend my (and every other American’s) right of INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. How do you know without a doubt that this kid did something deserving of such an attack? You don’t. You just assume he did something because some cops were zapping the shit out of him. The logic goes: if our lawfully elected and appointed representatives are doing this or that to somebody, then they must’ve deserved it! Rarely does anyone say, “Hm, I think I’ll investigate to find some proof before I judge him/her guilty.”
As far as my alleged “contradictions” go, you misunderstand me.
The government goes out of its way to remove responsibility from people. Examples are public education, welfare, and taxes. This personal responsibility, once removed, is replaced with an elusive “social” responsibility. I’m not responsible to society at large, I am responsible only for myself and my actions. Do not interpret this to mean I am not responsible for doing wrong to another — no — by my definition, I am responsible for doing wrong to another if it was my action that was the cause. But should I give up half of my hard earned paycheck to fund public education, welfare, and military exploits out of a “responsibility to society?” Absolutely no. I can do a much better job at taking care of my health, education, and safety — as can everyone else — than could some group of thugs calling themselves my representatives.
Should someone be accused of doing wrong to another person, then by all means, put the man on trial before attacking him. But, as is the case with this student, he harmed NOBODY, so there was no need to whip out the stun guns. If he violated a contract, as you allege, then even that is hardly a case where violence is necessary.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
That’s cute, you totally ignored all the things I was trying to say.
I’ll sum them up for you, and you can try that again.
1. The kid was not cooperating with the cops.
2. He got punished for it.
3. The cops don’t need your permission or my permission to do their job.
4. They were doing their job. In fact, they were going above and beyond their job.
5. Your claim to uphold your own personal responsiblity has nothing to do with this case…as this kid was not.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
1. There was no warrant or probable cause.
2. He was the victim of violence.
3. Government rests on the consent of the government. Ergo, cops need your permission to do their “job”.
4. They were going above and beyond their function which is unconstitutional.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
OM> “Who does he think he is?” He is a sovereign individual with rights and liberties, one who need not show his papers on command. Who do the police think they are? Police are supposed to be servants of the people, not aggressors against peaceful protestors. And as they show time and time again, police are the last people I trust to hold anyone accountable for anything.
Who he is, is a punk kid, who’s “sovereign individual rights” were a shield he was hiding behind while he threw rotten tomatoes at the cops. His “individual rights and liberties” had been waived (along with every other student in that room) when accepted that ID WHICH HE SHOULD HAVE SHOWN TO START WITH. And I don’t think his “protest” was “peaceful” at all. In fact, he was attempting to incite room, and could have caused a riot. Just because he had an attitude. If you ask me, that kid should be BEATEN, not just shocked, and then thrown out. It’s too late for you, your attitude is not American, you and your family can go back to the middle east. (Let’s see your “peaceful protest” there.)
The cops singled him out, we don’t know why. Maybe it was because someone saw him hitting on a female student who was just trying to get her Chem-Bio homework done, and called the cops. Maybe that school has a problem with illegals who try to hide out on campus. Maybe the cops just are bigoted pigs who don’t like anyone except whites. Maybe it was a ROUTINE patrol, AFTER 11PM and cops are JUST DOING THEIR JOB.
If I had a kid on that campus, I’d be damned glad because these Rent-a-cops, despite being brutal arrogant pigs, would at least keep CONTROL. I’d be glad to know that MY kid, who was disciplined and respectful of authority, would not find himself/herself in this situation. If I were that kid’s parents, I’d be ASHAMED of his conduct. Instead, I’m willing to put money on it: these parents, who never taught this kid how to be a RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING instead of a WHINY BRAT, are gonna raise a fuss…when they should be apologizing for him.
OM, it’s people like these (and you) who are responsible for our society’s decay. They sue over the slightest offense, oblivious to Common Sense. You are why doctors can’t afford to keep their practices, because you would sue for far more than a simple “botch” was worth. You are the type who takes the power out of the police’ hands because you’re more concerned about that common criminal’s rights than his victims. You are the old lady who sued McDonalds because her coffee was hot and burned her, despite the fact that it was COFFEE. (Duh, it’s gonna be HOT, careful how you handle it!)
You are symptomatic of how “loophole”-centric this country has become, and it’s going down the tubes.
Yes, OM. You have your rights. Everyone does. But they have their responsiblities too, and all I see is people demanding their rights without undertaking the obligations of responsibility.
Skunks have the right to be out in the park, but I’ve never seen them welcome at a picnic.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Show me the papers he signed.
Are you a racialist?
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
OM> Show me the papers he signed.
Why would you ask me for this? Do you actually expect me to travel to California, enter the admissions office and request his paperwork? Or did you do it for the express purpose of saying, “Ha, ha! You can’t produce that paperwork, therefore your arguement holds no water!” I suspect the latter.
Obviously, I don’t have that paperwork…but somehow, I still suspect that even if I was able to cut and paste it into this message chain, you still would not admit that you were wrong. You’d probably accuse me of fabricating it, or say something like, “Well, it’s still null and void because the constitution says…”, etc etc.
So if I did produce these papers, would you admit that I was right? I doubt it.
OM> Are you a racialist?
What is that? Hmm….lessee. Racialist: a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others.
No.
Again, why would you ask me this? Would it make you feel any better to label me? What if you didn’t like racialists? It seems to me that you’d actually feel worse to lose an arguement to one. What relevance does this have to debating the issue?
Was that an ad-hominem attack?
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
If he did in fact sign papers waiving certain rights, then he in fact waived certain rights. Showing said papers would be irrefutable evidence. But since you cannot produce said papers, and your argument is based on an assumption that there were papers signed. What holds more weight in a court of law: assumption or evidence?
“…your attitude is not American, you and your family can go back to the middle east.”
Racialist: An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events.
Liberty. Limited government. My attitude is American. And ironically, so is your antiquated attitude of racialism.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Your attitude was not what I was referring to. I was referring to his. Yours is a separate, if equally useless, attitude.
The child in question was a spoiled brat, and I have no sympathy for him.
I am not a racist, and I resent that classification. But if it helps you to label me, go for it. You cannot change anything by labeling me except to make yourself feel better about your willful anti-society attitudes.
Your “I have my own responsibility” is absolute horse-hockey, because anyone who understands responsiblity understands their responsiblity to the whole, not just their own self-absorbed self.
Your resentful attitude about paying taxes or falling under anyone else’s juristiction reminds me of my 6 year old daughter’s stubborn, you-ain’t-the-boss-of-me immature attitude. My advice to you…grow up.
I never said that people spoke for you…I said that decisions were made for you. You’d better get used to it because, FACT: you don’t have the means to change it. I’m not saying that you can’t, I’m not saying that the means don’t exist. I’m saying that you’re the type who pisses and moans, but does nothing useful. I think it’s your “personal responsiblity” attitude getting in the way; you assume that everyone should have it and therefore it lets you out of having to do anything about anything. You’re too damn selfish to help anyone or join in any causes…therefore *you*, junior, will effect no changes. (And that’s kind of funny, in a way.)
Since you seem to be ignorant about it, I’m going to remind you that Middle Eastern Cultures *do* put emphasis on rearing the male children, and spoil them to the point of making them think they are Alah’s gift to the earth. That’s not racist. That’s an observation. This kid was spoiled, didn’t like being told what to do. Well, not being able to play by the rules isn’t helpful in society, and if you can’t get along then by God you deserve to be tazed. Maybe it’ll bring him down a few notches, and teach some humility. (This is an Rx I’d recommend for a LOT of people.)
I also have heard stories from people who object to Middle Easterners’ bodily hygiene habits, their mannerisms and arrogant attitudes. Also not racist, but observations and valid complaints. If you don’t take a shower, don’t expect me to want to sit next to you and make chit-chat. If you think you’re God’s gift, I’m not required to oblige your idiotic attitude. And if it was my daughter, in college and trying to get her bio-chem homework done, I certainly don’t think that she should have to endure either of those things.
I really don’t give a damn if you think I’m racist, and I don’t particularly care if you think I give in to stereotypes. They’re called stereotypes for a reason, and all your “you should be nice to people” light and sunshine BS doesn’t change that. “Racialist”? Bah. I’ve been called far worse by far more intelligent people (like Turtle). Your slurs mean nothing to me, as I consider the source.
I am an American. I pay my taxes, I observe the laws…I support the collective AND I have my own personal responsiblity. So where does that mean you lack?
If you don’t know, re-read.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
WHICH, by the way, you should be thankful you can, since they demanded you go to school and learn, PAID for by taxes. If you woke up in a country where nobody was bulldozing down houses around you, be thankful you have national defense (PAID for by taxes). I am an American, I PAY my fair share of taxes to defend the right of ungreatful immature selfish children to spout hateful garbage on sites like this.
I don’t even want to think about what kind of chaos your world would contain, if you had your “personal responbility rules”. People NEED rules and regulations, and that takes taxes to pay for. “Personal responsiblity”…what BS! You think that without police out there, ready to do the dirty work, that your “personal responsiblity” would stop your neighbor from robbing your house?
“Personal responsibility”…NOBODY has it, and NOBODY is capable of policing themselves. It is NOT human nature. Everybody needs watching. If you don’t need any, then congratu-damn-lations. You are the only human on this planet who doesn’t. Or maybe you’re delusional. I think I know which it is.
I am an American. I see the need for the police, and rules, and regulations, and yes, even taxes to support it. And I contribute towards it.
I am an American. I served in the Army, ready to defend this country, and yes, even your sorry ass, so that you had the RIGHT to post nonsense.
So make the most of it. Your LIBERTY. Pfah. I hope you appreciate it.
Oh, and by the way…”antiquated attitude of racialism”? “New” does not always equate with “better”, junior.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Fine. Have your police state. I won’t participate. You cannot make me feel guilty because I choose not to participate in a system of coersion. I don’t need policing and I know thousands of other competent people who do believe in such a novel concept as personal responsibility. It’s called the Free State Project. Maybe some day you can visit us here and see what liberty is all about.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Who will police the police if the police have no personal responsibility?
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
I never called you a racist, I asked if you were a racialist.
At any rate, you’re not a racist or a racialist. You’re a statist. You believe that force and coersion is better than voluntary mutual exchange. You would force me to pay taxes to and to obey laws that sacrifice my individuality, health, and safety. Feel free to pay your taxes and obey your laws, but have the decency to leave me alone from those things since I am hurting no one.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Show me the papers he signed.
Are you a racialist?
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
If rights and liberties are a shield to hide behind, then without those, what do you have?
I hold liberty and responsibility as twin pillars of a civilized society; you cannot have one without the other. I demand liberty and I demand responsibility. I also demand to be left alone from intruding government. I did not ask for their “protection” so I expect to be left the fuck alone.
You do not know me, so instead of attacking me stick to debating the issue.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Citizens of the United States can legally (but unconstitutionally) be classified as ENEMY COMBATANTS, thanks to the federal congress and the president.
Since unconstitutional laws are being enforced, the constitution is de facto null and void and no longer the supreme law of the land.
We’re looking more and more like a communist country every day. 🙂
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Oh, I forgot to mention, I’ve refused to show my ID to police officers on several occassions. They knew the law — and so did I — and they knew they couldn’t do a goddamned thing to compel me to identify myself.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
So?
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
So I never got tased or arrested. It upset the cops because they couldn’t boss me around without exceeding their lawful authority. They would’ve loved for an opportunity (such as a law, like the PATRIOT Act) to tase, arrest, beat, or even kill me for such a stupid reason as defending my right to privacy.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Again, so?
You make it sound like you were some badass who told the cop to shove it up his sphincter…but I bet it was more like, “No, officer, I forgot it” or some other lame excuse.
But, so what? Are you saying you wish you’d been tasered like that? So do I! I’d love to see what your “personal responsiblity” ™ would have done in that case….
(Reply to this)(Parent)
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
I told him I didn’t have to show him anything, asked him if he had any probable cause to be talking to me, and when he said no, I told him I was leaving now, and left. No bad-ass-ness, just knowledge of the law.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Oh, I forgot to mention, I’ve refused to show my ID to police officers on several occassions. They knew the law — and so did I — and they knew they couldn’t do a goddamned thing to compel me to identify myself.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
OM> If rights and liberties are a shield to hide behind, then without those, what do you have?
The point was, they aren’t. The point was that the kid was using them as such.
Yes…an American is entitled, as a human being, to have “inalienable rights and liberties”, and those DO include not being questioned at gunpoint or intruded on, all of these things I’m not disagreeing with you. That kid had the right to not be stopped and questioned by a police officer, on the street or in a shopping mall or anywhere else. But when he signed on to that campus, he waived his rights and it was his RESPONSIBLITY to ABIDE BY THE RULES. In exchange, he got the privledge of attending classes; that was the deal. I realize that for some people (note, I’m not attacking you specifically) this is a null concept…waiving your rights in favor of the “larger picture”. For this kid, he obviously forgot he was a GUEST, and didn’t have the RIGHT to be there.
OM> I hold liberty and responsibility as twin pillars of a civilized society; you cannot have one without the other. I demand liberty and I demand responsibility. I also demand to be left alone from intruding government. I did not ask for their “protection” so I expect to be left the fuck alone.
This is where it seems to me that you contradict yourself. If you believe in personal responsiblity, it seems that you would understand that it extends further than just ones self. Otherwise, one would just be a selfish bastard, unconcerned about one’s community. Responsibilities, for instance, like stopping at a red light, as to not run into the guy who’s crossing. RULES. Rules for a working society, and these rules include duly appointed people who enforce them. If one breaks the rules, then one should not expect those who are confronting them about it to follow them either.
BTW, whether or not you specifically asked for their protection is irrelevant. You should know this by now. The fact is, you live in a country of majority, and that means decisions are made FOR you. As an American, this both to your benefit and to your detriment, and it applies to the smallest thing (local sherrif) all the way up to the President of the United States. Lawfully elected, and your personal permission is not necessary for them to do their jobs, once the majority has spoken. (Although, if you were in that majority, I guess they might pay more attention…however, I doubt you ever will be.) At any rate, I’m sure you wouldn’t expect them to ask permission to do their jobs…and don’t say you would, I’m sure if you were being jacked by a common criminal on the street, you would scream bloody murder if they took the time to wait for that criminal to finish before they came over to ask “Should we have stopped him?”
But then again, if they roughed him up arresting him, you’d probably insist they let him go.
You claim to uphold your responsiblity but you flout people who would hold you to that. You claim you don’t need them…well, clearly, based on this little incident (the issue we’re debating) they ARE needed, because there are people out there like this brat who can’t follow rules.
Further (based on your comments and this thread) you do not seem to want to uphold your responsiblities, because you can’t seem to see that this kid was not following rules. This is no different than if this kid ran a red light and then wouldn’t pay the insurance bills. Break the rules, face the consequences. You seem to want to take the side of someone who ran the light and then tried to blame the cop for pulling them over. Further, it sounds like you’d tie the cops hands when that same miscreant attacked him for PRESUMING to “voilate his right” to run a red light!
OM> You do not know me, so instead of attacking me stick to debating the issue.
Apologies. I make presumptions based on what you say. However, I don’t think that pointing out that you are wrong constitutes an attack.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
OM> Show me the papers he signed.
Why would you ask me for this? Do you actually expect me to travel to California, enter the admissions office and request his paperwork? Or did you do it for the express purpose of saying, “Ha, ha! You can’t produce that paperwork, therefore your arguement holds no water!” I suspect the latter.
Obviously, I don’t have that paperwork…but somehow, I still suspect that even if I was able to cut and paste it into this message chain, you still would not admit that you were wrong. You’d probably accuse me of fabricating it, or say something like, “Well, it’s still null and void because the constitution says…”, etc etc.
So if I did produce these papers, would you admit that I was right? I doubt it.
OM> Are you a racialist?
What is that? Hmm….lessee. Racialist: a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others.
No.
Again, why would you ask me this? Would it make you feel any better to label me? What if you didn’t like racialists? It seems to me that you’d actually feel worse to lose an arguement to one. What relevance does this have to debating the issue?
Was that an ad-hominem attack?
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
So?
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
The constitution was written by a bunch of rich politicians and land-owners who were thinking of one thing only…how to get away from a king. They knew they wouldn’t write everything into it that needed to be covered, so they left ways of getting around it. They incorporated methods by which it could be changed. They put things in like how it takes congress to declare war but the president could still move troops…just in case congress was ever taken over by idiots and pansys.
I doubt that they ever figured that some day, people would use the constitution as a weapon to snipe at each other, or use it as a shield for illicit activities. Because that’s how it’s being used. I’m sure that more evil has been accomplished under the guise of “privacy rights”…things like child porn. But I don’t hear you crying about how people’s houses are busted into so that this evil can be snuffed out. Or who knows, maybe you don’t want them doing that. It fits with your stance.
By the way, I don’t consider that a personal attack…since you obviously don’t want to see people getting arrested on suspicion of anything, you probably would want that pervert to be unharmed and undisturbed, so he could go on with his evil.
Or have I misjudged you? Because you can’t have it both ways. Which is it?
BTW, which would you rather? A corrupt communism, or a corrupt Democracy?
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
I doubt that they ever figured that some day, people would use the constitution as a weapon to snipe at each other, or use it as a shield for illicit activities. Because that’s how it’s being used. I’m sure that more evil has been accomplished under the guise of “privacy rights”…things like child porn.
That’s remarkably poor reasoning.
The Constitution is not used as a shield for illegal activities. On the contrary; it clearly spells out how law enforcement can investigate, arrest, and prosecute wrongdoers. No reading of Constitutional defense of privacy protects child pornographers. The Constitution explicitly says that law enforcement can come into people’s homes; it just says they can not do it without judicial oversight, that’s all.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
What I will show you are standard campus admission papers where that student (and other students) sign their “state or federal constitution” rights away in favor of a disciplined and ordered atmosphere. If a student signs such a paper, he is legally obligated to follow the rules which he said he would follow.
False.
In every single state in the United States, without exception, consent is not an affirmative defense against a charge of assault or battery. Every state holds that certain rights may not be signed away under any circumstances.
If a college student explicitly signs a paper saying “all college students who do not show ID may be beaten,” then that paper is not legally binding anywhere in the United States, because consent is not an affirmative defense against a charge of assault or battery.
You’re also incorrect in the facts. The Rent-a-cops were supported by real police. The campus security asked for the student’s ID; when he did not present it, the campus security left the library, and returned with police.
When another student not involved in the incident asked one of the present law enforcement officers for his name and badge number, the officer threatened her. This is a clear and direct violation of the law. The law requires that any officer under any circumstances to give his name and badge number to anyone who asks for it. Since the officer in this case violated the law, there is no reason for him to expect anyone else to obey it either. The moment the police become above the law, law becomes worthless.
You may be interested to know that the officer who used the taser, Terrence Duren, has been investigated for violence several times in the past, has been disciplined for shooting an unarmed homeless man twice and for assaulting a group of fraternity students on campus, and has been recommended for dismissal from the police force in previous job evaluations. He was also fired from the police force in Long Beach for poor performance. Before the tasering incident, he had been suspended from the force for attacking another college student with his nightstick.
You may also be interested to know that the university library’s policy of asking its users for identification violates the American Library Association’s policies, and that the ALA has told the university library to change its policy.
The officer’s claims that the tasering was justified are undermined by the fact that the student was handcuffed before he was tasered. That, combined with Officer Duren’s past use of excessive force and past disciplinary problems, have led the LAPD to launch an investigation into his actions.
Being a cop is hard. Cops are charged with upholding the law in situations that are often dangerous. A police officer needs to be a person who can keep his cool even when he is being challenged, and who can obey the law even when he is dealing with people who do not. If Officer Duren is not up to that challenge, he shouldn’t be doing that job.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
I still stand on my original point. That if the student would have shown his ID, instead of confronting the cops, he would not have been tasered.
I still maintain my opinion that this kid got what he deserved. He’s a whiny, foul-mouthed brat who should learn to follow rules.
Whether or not I can convince anyone else is immaterial. If the kid would have cooperated, none of this would have happened, and that is a FACT and I’m not incorrect in that.
All the rest of this is mental masturbation.
For the record, I do think that this cop is a brute and should be dismissed, tho.
And one more thing, I was interested to find out that there is a very dangerous attitude from the ALA on “free dissemination of information”. Some people should not be provided with the plans to bombs, for instance.
Finally, I’m wondering how the ALA would go about finding out if someone belonged in a private library…without checking their ID?
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
T> When another student not involved in the incident asked one of the present law enforcement officers for his name and badge number, the officer threatened her. This is a clear and direct violation of the law. The law requires that any officer under any circumstances to give his name and badge number to anyone who asks for it. Since the officer in this case violated the law, there is no reason for him to expect anyone else to obey it either. The moment the police become above the law, law becomes worthless.
The student was intefering with the cop doing his job. His threat was a whole lot better than just slapping her, don’t you think? By law you are allowed to OBSERVE the cops doing their duty, you’re not allowed to INTERFERE, and that’s what that student was doing. Therefore, it was HER who was in direct violation of the law. And as far as who is the one who determines what is interference, if the cop can’t continue what he’s doing, then that’s interference.
But your point is still valid. If someone voilates the law, why should anyone else have to follow it? To which I would ask…why didn’t the kid show his id? Why did he become confrontational, requiring the law to be enacted?
Why did the cop have to ask for the ID to start with? Because that was her job.
Why did the campus cop go fetch the police? Because the kid got confrontational.
Why did the kid get confrontational? Because he was a spoiled brat.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
What I will show you are standard campus admission papers where that student (and other students) sign their “state or federal constitution” rights away in favor of a disciplined and ordered atmosphere. If a student signs such a paper, he is legally obligated to follow the rules which he said he would follow.
False.
In every single state in the United States, without exception, consent is not an affirmative defense against a charge of assault or battery. Every state holds that certain rights may not be signed away under any circumstances.
If a college student explicitly signs a paper saying “all college students who do not show ID may be beaten,” then that paper is not legally binding anywhere in the United States, because consent is not an affirmative defense against a charge of assault or battery.
You’re also incorrect in the facts. The Rent-a-cops were supported by real police. The campus security asked for the student’s ID; when he did not present it, the campus security left the library, and returned with police.
When another student not involved in the incident asked one of the present law enforcement officers for his name and badge number, the officer threatened her. This is a clear and direct violation of the law. The law requires that any officer under any circumstances to give his name and badge number to anyone who asks for it. Since the officer in this case violated the law, there is no reason for him to expect anyone else to obey it either. The moment the police become above the law, law becomes worthless.
You may be interested to know that the officer who used the taser, Terrence Duren, has been investigated for violence several times in the past, has been disciplined for shooting an unarmed homeless man twice and for assaulting a group of fraternity students on campus, and has been recommended for dismissal from the police force in previous job evaluations. He was also fired from the police force in Long Beach for poor performance. Before the tasering incident, he had been suspended from the force for attacking another college student with his nightstick.
You may also be interested to know that the university library’s policy of asking its users for identification violates the American Library Association’s policies, and that the ALA has told the university library to change its policy.
The officer’s claims that the tasering was justified are undermined by the fact that the student was handcuffed before he was tasered. That, combined with Officer Duren’s past use of excessive force and past disciplinary problems, have led the LAPD to launch an investigation into his actions.
Being a cop is hard. Cops are charged with upholding the law in situations that are often dangerous. A police officer needs to be a person who can keep his cool even when he is being challenged, and who can obey the law even when he is dealing with people who do not. If Officer Duren is not up to that challenge, he shouldn’t be doing that job.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
If he did in fact sign papers waiving certain rights, then he in fact waived certain rights. Showing said papers would be irrefutable evidence. But since you cannot produce said papers, and your argument is based on an assumption that there were papers signed. What holds more weight in a court of law: assumption or evidence?
“…your attitude is not American, you and your family can go back to the middle east.”
Racialist: An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events.
Liberty. Limited government. My attitude is American. And ironically, so is your antiquated attitude of racialism.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
I live in a country of a majority who speak for me?
Maybe you haven’t heard of the story about two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. You mean to tell me that it’s okay for a group of people to steal from me or kill me or revoke my rights if a majority says it’s okay? Is this the kind of democracy you support? I thought we lived in America, a republic where (ideally) no majority had any power to rob from you, kill you, or render you subject to the whims of others.
As an American, the government should be bending over backwards to uphold and defend my (and every other American’s) right of INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. How do you know without a doubt that this kid did something deserving of such an attack? You don’t. You just assume he did something because some cops were zapping the shit out of him. The logic goes: if our lawfully elected and appointed representatives are doing this or that to somebody, then they must’ve deserved it! Rarely does anyone say, “Hm, I think I’ll investigate to find some proof before I judge him/her guilty.”
As far as my alleged “contradictions” go, you misunderstand me.
The government goes out of its way to remove responsibility from people. Examples are public education, welfare, and taxes. This personal responsibility, once removed, is replaced with an elusive “social” responsibility. I’m not responsible to society at large, I am responsible only for myself and my actions. Do not interpret this to mean I am not responsible for doing wrong to another — no — by my definition, I am responsible for doing wrong to another if it was my action that was the cause. But should I give up half of my hard earned paycheck to fund public education, welfare, and military exploits out of a “responsibility to society?” Absolutely no. I can do a much better job at taking care of my health, education, and safety — as can everyone else — than could some group of thugs calling themselves my representatives.
Should someone be accused of doing wrong to another person, then by all means, put the man on trial before attacking him. But, as is the case with this student, he harmed NOBODY, so there was no need to whip out the stun guns. If he violated a contract, as you allege, then even that is hardly a case where violence is necessary.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Communism abolishes property rights. Democracy grants or revokes property privelages at the whim of a majority. I would rather live under a republic that respected property rights.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
So I never got tased or arrested. It upset the cops because they couldn’t boss me around without exceeding their lawful authority. They would’ve loved for an opportunity (such as a law, like the PATRIOT Act) to tase, arrest, beat, or even kill me for such a stupid reason as defending my right to privacy.
In fairness, I’ve encountered a few non- or only nominally Christian folks who’re still fairly rabid about the whole War on Terror thing (Eric Raymond being a prime example). Usually the justification given is that Islam is significantly more repressive than the available alternatives.
I’m not sure that assertion is wrong, although the example of Turkey seems to prove that a secular majority-Muslim society is possible. The more extreme claims about global dhimmitude, et cetera still seem ludicrous, though.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
The campus cops in the UC system are real police, with a jurisdiction separate from that of the city and covering the campus to which they are attached. I don’t know what the implications of that are w.r.t. asking for ID, though; it seems reasonable to ask someone in a campus-owned building to show ID or leave, but I don’t remember signing anything that required me to present ID upon request when I went to UCSC. A number of services did require identification up front.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
In the specific case of libraries, the American Library Association guidelines prohibit asking library patrons for identification, or from engaging in any activity that might infringe the privacy of the patrons. The idea behind that is that libraries represent a bulwark of free and open exchange of ideas, and asking for identification from library patrons could have a chilling effect on that free and open exchange, especially if someone were to do so based on the material the patron is reading.
Since the library at which the tasering occurred is a member of the American Library Association, and the library violated ALA guidelines by implementing policies making presentation of identification on demand mandatory, the ALA is currently taking action against the university library.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
What a sad, sad commentary on the power of the ACLU. I didn’t realize it was this bad.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
The campus cops in the UC system are real police, with a jurisdiction separate from that of the city and covering the campus to which they are attached. I don’t know what the implications of that are w.r.t. asking for ID, though; it seems reasonable to ask someone in a campus-owned building to show ID or leave, but I don’t remember signing anything that required me to present ID upon request when I went to UCSC. A number of services did require identification up front.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
In the specific case of libraries, the American Library Association guidelines prohibit asking library patrons for identification, or from engaging in any activity that might infringe the privacy of the patrons. The idea behind that is that libraries represent a bulwark of free and open exchange of ideas, and asking for identification from library patrons could have a chilling effect on that free and open exchange, especially if someone were to do so based on the material the patron is reading.
Since the library at which the tasering occurred is a member of the American Library Association, and the library violated ALA guidelines by implementing policies making presentation of identification on demand mandatory, the ALA is currently taking action against the university library.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
That’s cute, you totally ignored all the things I was trying to say.
I’ll sum them up for you, and you can try that again.
1. The kid was not cooperating with the cops.
2. He got punished for it.
3. The cops don’t need your permission or my permission to do their job.
4. They were doing their job. In fact, they were going above and beyond their job.
5. Your claim to uphold your own personal responsiblity has nothing to do with this case…as this kid was not.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Are you telling me that there has never been an instance where a conviction was thrown out, despite the person being guilty, because of failure to follow procedure?
“Remarkably poor reasoning”…pfft.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
That works both ways. There have also been instances of people who are innocent being convicted and kept in jail, even after their innocence as been established, because of failure to follow procedure.
But that’s not relevant. The procedures are there for a reason. We have those procedures because we have decided that police do not and should not have ultimate, unlimited power. This is not a police state.
I do not doubt that there are people who would be happier living in a police state. I’m not one of them.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
I still stand on my original point. That if the student would have shown his ID, instead of confronting the cops, he would not have been tasered.
I still maintain my opinion that this kid got what he deserved. He’s a whiny, foul-mouthed brat who should learn to follow rules.
Whether or not I can convince anyone else is immaterial. If the kid would have cooperated, none of this would have happened, and that is a FACT and I’m not incorrect in that.
All the rest of this is mental masturbation.
For the record, I do think that this cop is a brute and should be dismissed, tho.
And one more thing, I was interested to find out that there is a very dangerous attitude from the ALA on “free dissemination of information”. Some people should not be provided with the plans to bombs, for instance.
Finally, I’m wondering how the ALA would go about finding out if someone belonged in a private library…without checking their ID?
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Your attitude was not what I was referring to. I was referring to his. Yours is a separate, if equally useless, attitude.
The child in question was a spoiled brat, and I have no sympathy for him.
I am not a racist, and I resent that classification. But if it helps you to label me, go for it. You cannot change anything by labeling me except to make yourself feel better about your willful anti-society attitudes.
Your “I have my own responsibility” is absolute horse-hockey, because anyone who understands responsiblity understands their responsiblity to the whole, not just their own self-absorbed self.
Your resentful attitude about paying taxes or falling under anyone else’s juristiction reminds me of my 6 year old daughter’s stubborn, you-ain’t-the-boss-of-me immature attitude. My advice to you…grow up.
I never said that people spoke for you…I said that decisions were made for you. You’d better get used to it because, FACT: you don’t have the means to change it. I’m not saying that you can’t, I’m not saying that the means don’t exist. I’m saying that you’re the type who pisses and moans, but does nothing useful. I think it’s your “personal responsiblity” attitude getting in the way; you assume that everyone should have it and therefore it lets you out of having to do anything about anything. You’re too damn selfish to help anyone or join in any causes…therefore *you*, junior, will effect no changes. (And that’s kind of funny, in a way.)
Since you seem to be ignorant about it, I’m going to remind you that Middle Eastern Cultures *do* put emphasis on rearing the male children, and spoil them to the point of making them think they are Alah’s gift to the earth. That’s not racist. That’s an observation. This kid was spoiled, didn’t like being told what to do. Well, not being able to play by the rules isn’t helpful in society, and if you can’t get along then by God you deserve to be tazed. Maybe it’ll bring him down a few notches, and teach some humility. (This is an Rx I’d recommend for a LOT of people.)
I also have heard stories from people who object to Middle Easterners’ bodily hygiene habits, their mannerisms and arrogant attitudes. Also not racist, but observations and valid complaints. If you don’t take a shower, don’t expect me to want to sit next to you and make chit-chat. If you think you’re God’s gift, I’m not required to oblige your idiotic attitude. And if it was my daughter, in college and trying to get her bio-chem homework done, I certainly don’t think that she should have to endure either of those things.
I really don’t give a damn if you think I’m racist, and I don’t particularly care if you think I give in to stereotypes. They’re called stereotypes for a reason, and all your “you should be nice to people” light and sunshine BS doesn’t change that. “Racialist”? Bah. I’ve been called far worse by far more intelligent people (like Turtle). Your slurs mean nothing to me, as I consider the source.
I am an American. I pay my taxes, I observe the laws…I support the collective AND I have my own personal responsiblity. So where does that mean you lack?
If you don’t know, re-read.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
WHICH, by the way, you should be thankful you can, since they demanded you go to school and learn, PAID for by taxes. If you woke up in a country where nobody was bulldozing down houses around you, be thankful you have national defense (PAID for by taxes). I am an American, I PAY my fair share of taxes to defend the right of ungreatful immature selfish children to spout hateful garbage on sites like this.
I don’t even want to think about what kind of chaos your world would contain, if you had your “personal responbility rules”. People NEED rules and regulations, and that takes taxes to pay for. “Personal responsiblity”…what BS! You think that without police out there, ready to do the dirty work, that your “personal responsiblity” would stop your neighbor from robbing your house?
“Personal responsibility”…NOBODY has it, and NOBODY is capable of policing themselves. It is NOT human nature. Everybody needs watching. If you don’t need any, then congratu-damn-lations. You are the only human on this planet who doesn’t. Or maybe you’re delusional. I think I know which it is.
I am an American. I see the need for the police, and rules, and regulations, and yes, even taxes to support it. And I contribute towards it.
I am an American. I served in the Army, ready to defend this country, and yes, even your sorry ass, so that you had the RIGHT to post nonsense.
So make the most of it. Your LIBERTY. Pfah. I hope you appreciate it.
Oh, and by the way…”antiquated attitude of racialism”? “New” does not always equate with “better”, junior.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Again, so?
You make it sound like you were some badass who told the cop to shove it up his sphincter…but I bet it was more like, “No, officer, I forgot it” or some other lame excuse.
But, so what? Are you saying you wish you’d been tasered like that? So do I! I’d love to see what your “personal responsiblity” ™ would have done in that case….
(Reply to this)(Parent)
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
What a sad, sad commentary on the power of the ACLU. I didn’t realize it was this bad.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Well, then I rest my case.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Have you ever read the paper by Mary Croft? Look it up sometime. This woman is absolutely right and absolutely batty. But what she says reminds me a LOT of what you say.
And while you’re at it, have you ever seen Loose Change or 911 Mysteries? You would LOVE these.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
T> When another student not involved in the incident asked one of the present law enforcement officers for his name and badge number, the officer threatened her. This is a clear and direct violation of the law. The law requires that any officer under any circumstances to give his name and badge number to anyone who asks for it. Since the officer in this case violated the law, there is no reason for him to expect anyone else to obey it either. The moment the police become above the law, law becomes worthless.
The student was intefering with the cop doing his job. His threat was a whole lot better than just slapping her, don’t you think? By law you are allowed to OBSERVE the cops doing their duty, you’re not allowed to INTERFERE, and that’s what that student was doing. Therefore, it was HER who was in direct violation of the law. And as far as who is the one who determines what is interference, if the cop can’t continue what he’s doing, then that’s interference.
But your point is still valid. If someone voilates the law, why should anyone else have to follow it? To which I would ask…why didn’t the kid show his id? Why did he become confrontational, requiring the law to be enacted?
Why did the cop have to ask for the ID to start with? Because that was her job.
Why did the campus cop go fetch the police? Because the kid got confrontational.
Why did the kid get confrontational? Because he was a spoiled brat.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
1. There was no warrant or probable cause.
2. He was the victim of violence.
3. Government rests on the consent of the government. Ergo, cops need your permission to do their “job”.
4. They were going above and beyond their function which is unconstitutional.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
I never called you a racist, I asked if you were a racialist.
At any rate, you’re not a racist or a racialist. You’re a statist. You believe that force and coersion is better than voluntary mutual exchange. You would force me to pay taxes to and to obey laws that sacrifice my individuality, health, and safety. Feel free to pay your taxes and obey your laws, but have the decency to leave me alone from those things since I am hurting no one.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Fine. Have your police state. I won’t participate. You cannot make me feel guilty because I choose not to participate in a system of coersion. I don’t need policing and I know thousands of other competent people who do believe in such a novel concept as personal responsibility. It’s called the Free State Project. Maybe some day you can visit us here and see what liberty is all about.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
I told him I didn’t have to show him anything, asked him if he had any probable cause to be talking to me, and when he said no, I told him I was leaving now, and left. No bad-ass-ness, just knowledge of the law.
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
I’ve seen Loose Change. I thought it was bunk. I don’t think 9/11 was an “inside job.” What’s your point? Do you want to insult or do you want to debate?
Re: Stun gun? GOOD.
Who will police the police if the police have no personal responsibility?