• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

ImTheCaptain said:
I guess I don't understand.

What do you think the Law Enforcement's role is in society. Practically, what do you think police should be doing day-day to support/execute that role? What does policing look like in your minds?
Click to expand...
Not to be a smart ass, but I think their purpose is to enforce laws through the following:
- catching and arresting people in the act of law breaking,
- using their presence as a deterrent
- arresting people who have been accused of committing an arrest-worthy crime
- designated detectives doing detective work in open criminal cases.

What they should not be doing is hassling people just because they deem them suspicious. If they don't see someone commit a crime, if they haven't been told that person committed a crime, and they aren't participating in an investigation, then they shouldn't hassle that person
 
MysteryMen said:
Oh for the love of Christ. Strike the word only. I think we can all agree that police ask for ID from black people more than white people right? You saw the stop-and-frisk stats that were posted a few pages ago.

So I ask again, if policing are using the color of a person's skin to determine what action they take against the person, don't you think that's a problem?
Click to expand...

Requoting this because SCDeac never addressed it
 
ImTheCaptain said:
you can refuse and then go before a judge with representation; that's what makes america america
Click to expand...

No dude. Can you imagine the Founding Fathers saying this? "Hey, it's cool if you quarter troops in my house for now, as long as I can get a hearing about it in a few months before a judge"

What makes America America is that the government isn't supposed to overstep its bounds in the first place. Not that you might have some form of redress if it does


PS: Is ITC just trolling here? Because I never would have thought he would be taking this point of view
 
MysteryMen said:
No dude. Can you imagine the Founding Fathers saying this? "Hey, it's cool if you quarter troops in my house for now, as long as I can get a hearing about it in a few months before a judge"

What makes America America is that the government isn't supposed to overstep its bounds in the first place. Not that you might have some form of redress if it does


PS: Is ITC just trolling here? Because I never would have thought he would be taking this point of view
Click to expand...

That's exactly what the Founding Fathers' envisioned. You were supposed to have redress for violations in the form of a jury trial. Obviously given the size and scope of our country and police powers things have changed, but that was the original plan. You should read some of Professor Amar's work. What we see in the interpretation of the Constitution bares in some cases, very little resemblance to the original ideas. The evolution and incorporation of rights is pretty fascinating.

And no, I'm not advocating for this as a sole means of redress or the sole means to curb abuses of power, so don't give me the straw man act. I'm not even part of either of the sides in this insanely long thread and am not arguing with any of you. History is history, numbers are numbers, write your own research, make your own conclusions.

If you do, to find good information on actual numbers, broken down by geography, race, armed/unarmed, type, etc..., The Guardian runs an excellent database called The Counted regarding police related deaths.
 
Last edited:
MysteryMen said:
No dude. Can you imagine the Founding Fathers saying this? "Hey, it's cool if you quarter troops in my house for now, as long as I can get a hearing about it in a few months before a judge"

What makes America America is that the government isn't supposed to overstep its bounds in the first place. Not that you might have some form of redress if it does

PS: Is ITC just trolling here? Because I never would have thought he would be taking this point of view
Click to expand...

I never troll.

The "government" isn't a person, it's a collection of bureaucratic bodies and individuals making decisions. The constitution provides the framework of "rights" that are "protected" insofar that if the Government tries to affect and enforce laws counter to those fundamental "rights", the citizen has a course of action to fight those actions.

Interpreting as "AMERICA IS ABOUT FREEDOM" is totally meaningless. Being basically all lawyers, the founders understood well that the basis for the "democracy" was a flexible, transparent and fair legal process. That's what America is about: equality before the law, regardless of station, income, etc.

And yes, to answer your next tangent, in practice we've never achieved this state of equality, even from Day 0. And probably never will.

I'm pretty flabbergasted that people have some sort of simplistic view that America was founded on the principle that people can just do whatever you want/fight the man! That makes zero sense.
 
MysteryMen said:
Requoting this because SCDeac never addressed it
Click to expand...

Regarding that second paragraph, agreed. But wouldn't that also be true if they are deciding whether or not to proceed with an action if they are taking the color of skin into account to make sure some arbitrary quota is met to even out some statistic?

Look, my opinion is that the color of skin shouldn't be a factor at all. Something that sticks in mind is the South Park episode where they are debating whether or not to change the town's flag which has a depiction of a lynching. The adults have a fierce, racially charged argument about history and slavery. And the school has a debate about it. They end up debating about whether or not it's right to depict someone being killed on the flag. Chef interjects saying that's not a person being hanged, it's a black man. Then he realizes that the kids are completely immune to racism and didn't see race in it all.

All jokes about it being South Park aside, I think it makes a few good points about my stance. In my experience, the older generation that grew up during and before the civil rights movement are far more racist than the younger generation. Those older generations will be gone soon enough, so the emphasis should be on ensuring the younger generations don't share those same beliefs. When you make everything about race, you are teaching them that the skin color matters. That may be viewed as too pie in the sky by some, which likely has some validity, but that is the approach I support. People should be fighting injustice without making it solely about race. Don't like the video posted recently about a passenger being asked for an ID? Then fight the laws that allow it, and strip the police of the opportunities to abuse power. That is why BLM is totally off in my opinion. They should be fighting injustice by targeting actions and legislation aimed at reducing the opportunities for abuse and police violence, without making race the focal point. They can still have their self interests in mind by supporting things like legalizing marijuana that would disproportionately benefit their community, but do so by arguing why it should be legal and don't make it about race. Many of those things can be widely supported and put into action, but by making it racially charged they are dividing people.
 
Last edited:
TownieDeac said:
Are the machinists the Courts or the Police in this analogy?

I think a lot of this thread's thrust is about law enforcement shooting first and the courts failing to ask questions later.
Click to expand...

yeah, it is; I'm sorry for the diversion from the pissing match but I was bored.
 
SCDeac13 said:
Regarding that second paragraph, agreed. But wouldn't that also be true if they are deciding whether or not to proceed with an action if they are taking the color of skin into account to make sure some arbitrary quota is met to even out some statistic?

Look, my opinion is that the color of skin shouldn't be a factor at all. Something that sticks in mind is the South Park episode where they are debating whether or not to change the town's flag which has a depiction of a lynching. The adults have a fierce, racially charged argument about history and slavery. And the school has a debate about it. They end up debating about whether or not it's right to depict someone being killed on the flag. Chef interjects saying that's not a person being hanged, it's a black man. Then he realizes that the kids are completely immune to racism and didn't see race in it all.

All jokes about it being South Park aside, I think it makes a few good points about my stance. In my experience, the older generation that grew up during and before the civil rights movement are far more racist than the younger generation. Those older generations will be gone soon enough, so the emphasis should be on ensuring the younger generations don't share those same beliefs. When you make everything about race, you are teaching them that the skin color matters. That may be viewed as too pie in the sky by some, which likely has some validity, but that is the approach I support. People should be fighting injustice without making it solely about race. Don't like the video posted recently about a passenger being asked for an ID? Then fight the laws that allow it, and strip the police of the opportunities to abuse power. That is why BLM is totally off in my opinion. They should be fighting injustice by targeting actions and legislation aimed at reducing the opportunities for abuse and police violence, without making race the focal point. They can still have their self interests in mind by supporting things like legalizing marijuana that would disproportionately benefit their community, but do so by arguing why it should be legal and don't make it about race. Many of those things can be widely supported and put into action, but by making it racially charged they are dividing people.
Click to expand...

But the laws already say you cannot demand ID from the passenger unless there is reasonable suspicion that they are committing or have committed a crime. The law is already in place. The problem is bully cops who either don't know the law or flaunt it just to harass and scare people - and the fact that the people they are harassing and scaring are, more often than not, minorities and other disadvantaged groups. Before camera phones, the cops could get away with it all the time. Now people can actually see it happening.
 
scooter84 said:
But the laws already say you cannot demand ID from the passenger unless there is reasonable suspicion that they are committing or have committed a crime. The law is already in place. The problem is bully cops who either don't know the law or flaunt it just to harass and scare people - and the fact that the people they are harassing and scaring are, more often than not, minorities and other disadvantaged groups. Before camera phones, the cops could get away with it all the time. Now people can actually see it happening.
Click to expand...

I am not sure your interpretation of the law is accurate or comprehensive. I believe they are given some leeway when conducting an "investigation".
 
Yeah these cases are heavily fact specific, but the underlying premise in a lot of these cases has been directly addressed by the courts already and the question has been answered. Cops cannot detain someone if they do not have reasonable suspicion that they committed a crime and this includes forcing someone to identify themselves. It seems that some believe cops should be able to just scoop up anyone who refuses to show ID when asked and the recourse for the person arrested is to challenge it in court later. This, to me, is a waste of resources and efficiency where the underlying question is already settled. The failure to provide ID when asked, absent any other specific facts that the police can articulate believing that the individual committed a crime, has been answered.
 
Last edited:
olddke said:
I am not sure your interpretation of the law is accurate or comprehensive. I believe they are given some leeway when conducting an "investigation".
Click to expand...

If police are conducting an investigation and need someone to identify themselves in order to further the investigation, they likely already have particularized facts that the person may have committed a crime giving rise to reasonable suspicion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top