Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
dadmonson

What is the Objectivist Answer to Police Brutality?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

 

I also don't know how to assess your statement that this "disproves the claim that the justified police killing stats are influenced by prosecutors who are in collusion with cops, and allow them to get away with crimes."  I don't know who has made that claim, or again, how the statistics you've provided would "disprove" it.

I assume Nicky was responding to me, in part. If not, I'll at least own up to making the claim. I'm actually extremely surprised that anyone would balk at the notion of prosecutor/judicial/LEO collusion. I suppose that's why we have these discussions.

Nicky, we've heard Don Athos's alternate interpretation of the stats you mentioned. Ultimately I couldn't say for sure, but I have a third interpretation. I'll start by conceding a lower conviction rate could indicate overzealous prosecutors who target police. But only in some jurisdictions. So that in and of itself does not dispel "Blue Culture," because it's likely that different jurisdictions have different relationships with their prosecutors. Please also consider that police almost always have access to view the evidence against them prior to trial - in many cases they have access to handle that evidence. Also consider that their training and career require regular trips to the witness stand, which leads to skilled testimony that is far more helpful to them than your average defendant's.

Edit: I meant that police have access to the evidence against them before providing a statement.

Edited by FeatherFall
Edited on May 5th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume Nicky was responding to me, in part. If not, I'll at least own up to making the claim. I'm actually extremely surprised that anyone would balk at the notion of prosecutor/judicial/LEO collusion. I suppose that's why we have these discussions.

Hmm... I find the word "collusion" to be pretty powerful.  It implies to me that there's a conscious choice to work in concert -- here, against justice, on behalf of the police.  I'd guess that happens sometimes, but it's a pretty serious charge.

 

Could there be a culture, however, that produces many of the same sorts of results -- though without explicit agreement or even conscious recognition?  That seems more likely to me.  If you tend to believe that police are a force for good and justice, fighting against the forces of evil/chaos/whatever, then that might shade opinions and decisions throughout the entire process of investigating a claim of police brutality, or prosecuting it, or trying it in court.

 

I'll start by conceding a lower conviction rate could indicate overzealous prosecutors who target police.

 

Interesting.  Given that "cops who kill someone in the line of duty are very rarely charged with manslaughter or murder," I'd guess that prosecutors tend to avoid bringing charges against the police unless the evidence is unusually strong... though I recognize that this interpretation remains highly speculative ("lies, damned lies, and statistics").  To me, the fact that conviction rates thereafter are so rare, speaks to the increased difficulty in the justice system of finding a police officer guilty of a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that most people who commit moral wrongs tend to think of themselves as good people and rationalize their actions. So there is certainly a continuum of cooperation. Evil "Collusion" would be on one end, like the Wisconsin John Doe investigations. On the other end you'd have prosecutors giving cops the benefit of the doubt, refusing to investigate beyond a cursory glance (like what I suspect would have happened with Walter Scott were there no video). Now, keep in mind that last parenthesized bit is on the extreme end of the spectrum. A cursory investigation may be forgivable if a prosecutor doesn't have video of the cop (presumably) moving the tazer, didn't have non-autopsy evidence of rear-entry bullet wounds, etc. In the middle you have borderline cases that we'd argue about here, like the Eric Garner case. But yes, I think collusion happens often enough that it's a widespread problem. By the way, have you heard about the secret detention centers in Chicago? That police brutality was so widespread that it required infrastructure. Of course, it was discovered and is being dealt with on some level. But in order for things like that to happen you need a police/civic culture that accepts things like that as normal.

Edit: There are other indications that "culture" is at play. It is widely speculated that Freddie Gray was the victim of a "rough ride." I'm told that in Philadelphia they call it a "Nickle Ride." Whether or not that happened matters in the Freddie Gray investigation. But put that aside for a moment. What sort of police culture do we have when there are slang terms for handcuffing someone and having the driver of a van slam them around in the back?

Edited by FeatherFall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that most people who commit moral wrongs tend to think of themselves as good people and rationalize their actions.

 

Agreed.

 

So there is certainly a continuum of cooperation. Evil "Collusion" would be on one end, like the Wisconsin John Doe investigations. On the other end you'd have prosecutors giving cops the benefit of the doubt, refusing to investigate beyond a cursory glance (like what I suspect would have happened with Walter Scott were there no video). Now, keep in mind that last parenthesized bit is on the extreme end of the spectrum. A cursory investigation may be forgivable if a prosecutor doesn't have video of the cop (presumably) moving the tazer, didn't have non-autopsy evidence of rear-entry bullet wounds, etc.

 

I can't say what kind of investigation would or would not be warranted in the Walter Scott case, sans video or otherwise, but I don't know whether the fact that it's a police-involved shooting should change the nature of that investigation.  If I would be investigated, for instance, with a greater level of scrutiny than a police officer in the same situation, then I don't know whether I find that forgivable.  (We may agree that a police officer ought to have a greater latitude in which methods he employs, but if there are standards for law enforcement -- and I think that there must be standards -- then we must ensure that our officers adhere to those standards, whatever level of scrutiny that reasonably requires.  We do not give anyone a pass.)

 

In the middle you have borderline cases that we'd argue about here, like the Eric Garner case. But yes, I think collusion happens often enough that it's a widespread problem. By the way, have you heard about the secret detention centers in Chicago?

 

I had not heard about that.

 

That police brutality was so widespread that it required infrastructure. Of course, it was discovered and is being dealt with on some level. But in order for things like that to happen you need a police/civic culture that accepts things like that as normal.

Edit: There are other indications that "culture" is at play. It is widely speculated that Freddie Gray was the victim of a "rough ride." I'm told that in Philadelphia they call it a "Nickle Ride." Whether or not that happened matters in the Freddie Gray investigation. But put that aside for a moment. What sort of police culture do we have when there are slang terms for handcuffing someone and having the driver of a van slam them around in the back?

 

Yes, I agree.

 

What's more, and the more I've given thought to this topic -- in large part through conversation with you -- the less I find it surprising.  Through a number of bad laws (and poor cultural philosophy, generally), it seems to me that we've set up something like a war zone in several of our communities.  We have set the police up against a good deal of the population, many of whom are guilty of no crime (in reason), and likewise have driven a number of that same population to greater criminality to protect themselves in endeavors which ought not be illegal, such as the drug trade.  So the police enforce that which no man ought to enforce, the communities resent and resist that ongoing violation of their individual rights, and the police respond by girding themselves against these communities which have arrayed against them.

 

That's not a healthy culture for anyone involved, and those who are charged with keeping "law and order" when the laws themselves are immoral, and aimed against the innocent... well, the police can hardly be expected to come out from such a thing unscathed, either individually or institutionally.

 

Any individual claim of police brutality ought to be investigated individually, as with any other crime, but in general I think that this is one corner of a far larger tragedy of our age.

Edited by DonAthos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume Nicky was responding to me, in part. If not, I'll at least own up to making the claim. I'm actually extremely surprised that anyone would balk at the notion of prosecutor/judicial/LEO collusion. I suppose that's why we have these discussions.

Nicky, we've heard Don Athos's alternate interpretation of the stats you mentioned. Ultimately I couldn't say for sure, but I have a third interpretation. I'll start by conceding a lower conviction rate could indicate overzealous prosecutors who target police. But only in some jurisdictions. So that in and of itself does not dispel "Blue Culture," because it's likely that different jurisdictions have different relationships with their prosecutors. Please also consider that police almost always have access to view the evidence against them prior to trial - in many cases they have access to handle that evidence. Also consider that their training and career require regular trips to the witness stand, which leads to skilled testimony that is far more helpful to them than your average defendant's.

Everyone has access to the evidence against them, before the trial. There have also been studies that prove that the juries in the US are generally quite objective.

 

Anyway, I was responding to a question about the justness of a set of actions. Looking at the decisions of juries selected from everyday Americans who have been presented with the facts, following a procedure that has been tested by time and created to be as fair and as objective as possible, is the best method I have available to me, to determine the justness of that set of actions.

 

If you don't accept the results of criminal trials and the decisions of American juries, than what is YOUR alternative method for determining what is and what isn't just? Please keep in mind that we are talking about more cases than you could possibly research yourself. You have to trust others to some extent, to reach a conclusion on this. So who do YOU trust, if it's not judges, juries, and the procedures being used in trials in the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: There are other indications that "culture" is at play. It is widely speculated that Freddie Gray was the victim of a "rough ride." I'm told that in Philadelphia they call it a "Nickle Ride." Whether or not that happened matters in the Freddie Gray investigation. But put that aside for a moment. What sort of police culture do we have when there are slang terms for handcuffing someone and having the driver of a van slam them around in the back?

A 250 year old one. Those terms were created before Freddie Gray was even born. They don't prove anything about current police culture.

Edit: Actually, from what I can tell this is not being dealt with. It's just on our radar. :Edit

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site

What exactly is THAT? I mean, what is it, beyond just allegations of police misconduct?

If it's just allegations of police misconduct, then it's nothing. There isn't a single cop, honest or corrupt, that hasn't at some point been accused of misconduct by someone they arrested. Every criminal thinks they're being mistreated, and most bend the facts to try and convince others of it.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have also been studies that prove that the juries in the US are generally quite objective.

I'm genuinely curious, what studies prove that? I want to look them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone has access to the evidence against them, before the trial. There have also been studies that prove that the juries in the US are generally quite objective.

 

Eiuol's interest in seeing these studies aside (and there's often much to be learned about a study in the details), that "juries in the US are generally quite objective" does not necessarily speak to the possibility of a bias where the police are concerned.  Any given person -- or group -- can be "generally quite objective" and also carry a heavy bias on some particular subject.

 

Anyway, I was responding to a question about the justness of a set of actions. Looking at the decisions of juries selected from everyday Americans who have been presented with the facts, following a procedure that has been tested by time and created to be as fair and as objective as possible, is the best method I have available to me, to determine the justness of that set of actions.

 

If you don't accept the results of criminal trials and the decisions of American juries, than what is YOUR alternative method for determining what is and what isn't just? Please keep in mind that we are talking about more cases than you could possibly research yourself. You have to trust others to some extent, to reach a conclusion on this. So who do YOU trust, if it's not judges, juries, and the procedures being used in trials in the US?

 

Whether or not someone believes that "trial by jury" is the best method for resolving cases does not mean committing to the position that 1) any given outcome is correct (meaning: that some specific jury came to the proper conclusion, or acted properly), or 2) that there cannot be a larger problem in the culture which influences a group of juried decisions.

 

A 250 year old one. Those terms were created before Freddie Gray was even born. They don't prove anything about current police culture.

 

What police do/say today doesn't say anything about "current police culture"?  If that's the case, it would be hard to ever assess such a thing... or impossible.  Even when we carry on practices which predate us, that still speaks to our current culture.

 

What exactly is THAT? I mean, what is it, beyond just allegations of police misconduct?

If it's just allegations of police misconduct, then it's nothing. There isn't a single cop, honest or corrupt, that hasn't at some point been accused of misconduct by someone they arrested. Every criminal thinks they're being mistreated, and most bend the facts to try and convince others of it.

 

If it is allegations of police misconduct, then it's not "nothing" -- it is allegations of police misconduct.  Sometimes those allegations are true, regardless of whether or not they are also sometimes false.

 

The idea that these sorts of allegations ought not be taken seriously, because "every criminal thinks they're being mistreated, and most bend the facts to try and convince others of it" (which itself sounds like a highly dubious proposition) is indicative of the very kind of bias under discussion.*

 

 

___________

 

* I anticipate that you might say that you didn't intend to dismiss these allegations, as such, just to throw them out as demonstrating anything about current police culture... until, presumably, this situation goes through the system you endorse and is officially pronounced wrong in some fashion, at which point it would be deemed "an aberration," not reflective of any greater problem, and corrected as you believe the system is already set up to do.

 

Edited to add: Thus there are no remaining means of demonstrating a supposed problem with the culture.  Allegations are regarded as meaningless; dismissals, whether before or after a trial, are regarded as proof that the allegations have/had no merit; convictions are regarded as exceptions, and proof that "the system works."  It is an insulated and unassailable view.

 

Yet if there are many people, especially within the system (including jurors), who hold the belief that "every criminal thinks they're being mistreated, and most bend the facts to try and convince others of it," I anticipate that this would tend to skew results over time, importantly against those "criminals" (including those who have not actually committed any crime) who have been mistreated.

Edited by DonAthos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus there are no remaining means of demonstrating a supposed problem with the culture.

Except for proof. You could always try finding proof to demonstrate whatever you want to demonstrate. If you do, I won't dismiss it. If you don't, I will dismiss it. Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except for proof. You could always try finding proof to demonstrate whatever you want to demonstrate. If you do, I won't dismiss it. If you don't, I will dismiss it.

 

But what are we willing to accept as evidence (or "proof")?  You were seemingly dismissive of the terminology/practice FeatherFall brought up (i.e. "rough ride"/"nickel ride"/whatever), but that's the very sort of thing that can give us an insight into the "culture" we're talking about.  It ought not be dismissed.

 

There are many individual items which, each taken separately, might not amount to very much, but taken together begin to paint a picture.  So an isolated event happens in Baltimore where a guy is thrown around inside of a car, big deal, that doesn't say anything about the culture.  So one rogue cop decides to shoot a guy in the back, then (maybe) plant his taser and make up a story, who cares, every profession has its bad apples.  So there's perhaps a facility in Chicago that's not strictly above board, that doesn't mean anything even if so, and its not established that there's any real problem here yet anyways.  But if we see similar events elsewhere and over time, then I think we have to start taking them as evidence that these events are indicative of a more widely spread or "cultural" issue.

 

Note that I don't suggest we stop there, in counting up incidents (which may otherwise be seen as isolated) without trying to understand them in context.  I think that there are good reasons, which I've made a brief beginning in trying to describe, as to why there may be cultural problems within the police force.  Namely that the police are being asked routinely (daily) to initiate the use of force against innocents -- that is, to act immorally.  I think that it is sensible that there are deeply negative consequences to this, in terms of individual psychology, in terms of institutional policy, and yes, in terms of culture.  I think that these kinds of problems are to be expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should.

So how do you expect me to find the title of the study you're thinking of? Citing unnamed studies isn't objectivity, it only makes your claims dubious. It's a sign of bias and intuition to just mention a fact, then act as though the other person must be stupid if they don't take your word for it. You mentioned "studies", so I want to know which studies. I can't read your mind, I don't know what search terms you used, I don't know who did the studies, if the studies are good, or anything else. If I was taking a criminology class, and the professor said "I won't tell you how I got my facts - but there are studies", I'd have -no- way to sort through -all- the criminology studies to find his single fact. Or if it was easy to find, he'd say what book or journal without any effort.

 

On top of that, you're begging the question at stake, i.e. what is the evidence that the decisions regarding supposed police brutality were objective? The study, by your words, didn't focus on those type of cases. For all I know, whatever these mythical studies are, juries are on average objective - except for when cops are involved.  If there is no study you can show me, then any reader should find your thoughts on the matter questionable. Hold onto your judgment about me, and consider that it's a normal question to ask for more details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicky, you've had a lot of questions directed toward you. I understand the difficulty in responding fully to everyone. I'm sorry I couldn't be more brief with my own response.
 

Everyone has access to the evidence against them, before the trial. There have also been studies that prove that the juries in the US are generally quite objective.

 

I'm sorry, I misstated my point. Police have access to the evidence against them prior to providing a statement. I don't know what the objectivity of juries has to do with this issue. If you'd like to explain further, please do. Perhaps pointing us toward the studies in question will help to illuminate your thoughts on the matter.

 

Looking at the decisions of juries selected from everyday Americans who have been presented with the facts, following a procedure that has been tested by time and created to be as fair and as objective as possible, is the best method I have available to me, to determine the justness of that set of actions.

 

If you don't accept the results of criminal trials and the decisions of American juries, than what is YOUR alternative method for determining what is and what isn't just? Please keep in mind that we are talking about more cases than you could possibly research yourself. You have to trust others to some extent, to reach a conclusion on this. So who do YOU trust, if it's not judges, juries, and the procedures being used in trials in the US?

 

Based on what you've said (and omitted) about the system, it appears you believe that the system begins and ends with a trial. I don't have a comprehensive list of alternative methods for distributing justice, but I do have some suggestions for where we can direct our attention. States' attorneys routinely overcharge suspects in the hopes that they plead to lesser charges; I'm inclined to regard this as extortion. It seems to me that this method is not used with the same frequency on police officers. In so far as this method is at play against the six officers entrusted with Freddie Gray's safety, it is also wrong. We have technology now that allows us to record all aspects of custody. I think that is a meager investment considering how much easier it would be to determine justice and how it would alter immoral police behavior. Please also consider that a prosecutor needs police cooperation in convicting a subject; that means police hold power over prosecutors, which ensures a level of cooperation other people simply won't get. I don't know how to begin to address that problem. I don't even know if addressing it is possible, but it nevertheless remains a serious problem. There also seems to be a revolving door between  the law firms that argue in front of a court and the judicial appointments on the court. Again, I don't know how to address this issue, but it bears some measure of attention. 

Please take a moment to remember that my contention was about a culture that exists among law enforcement and prosecutors. My above suggestions were merely procedural. But I'm a little jealous of Don Athos for thinking of a good point at the end of his last post. Police are pressured into immoral behavior on a daily basis. I don't know how strong the influence is between such behavior and the different category of immoral behavior that includes brutality and evidence manipulation. But I suspect there is an important link. This particular influence exists for prosecutors as well. It also is the easiest problem to find a solution for; just change the laws so they are moral. Of course, a solution easily found is not necessarily a solution easily implemented. 

 

A 250 year old one. Those terms were created before Freddie Gray was even born. They don't prove anything about current police culture.
 

 

I don't know that it "proves" anything. "Evidences" may be a better word. If the term is as old as you say, it seems to me that it evidences the historical context of current police culture. It helps us figure out how we got to where we are today. It shows us that this culture isn't new. But it has become easier to see with modern recording equipment and social media. 
 

[Note from Featherfall: The following is in response to my link to the Harmon Square detention facility]
What exactly is THAT? I mean, what is it, beyond just allegations of police misconduct?

If it's just allegations of police misconduct, then it's nothing. There isn't a single cop, honest or corrupt, that hasn't at some point been accused of misconduct by someone they arrested. Every criminal thinks they're being mistreated, and most bend the facts to try and convince others of it.

 

Credible allegations. These aren't criminals resisting handcuffs while screaming "you're hurting me." These are multiple lawyers alleging routine and extremely serious criminal misconduct on the behalf of a large number of police. Denying access to a lawyer while erasing the custody record strikes at the very heart of the "system" you hold so much faith in.

Edited by FeatherFall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to thank the OP and everyone else. This discussion has lead me to be more interested in the history of policing. This article is written with some heavy bias, but it nevertheless makes some good points. Among other things, it traces modern police forces back to a convergence between occupied Northern Ireland and southern US slave patrols.

People interested in researching occurrences of police misconduct more thoroughly may want to start with the Cato Institute's police misconduct website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, modern public policing was not imposed on the United States and Britain until the late 19th century, and even then it was not at all like its current post 1970's form, and even back then it was met by widespread citizen resistance. Classical liberals opposed the creation of nationalized police and widely supported the cause of police abolition.

Voluntary associations, arbitration, community policing, insurance groups, professional detectives, and mutual aid groups were prevalent in the criminal law sector, and commercial law was largely a separate realm developed by the European merchant law.

Anyone who takes modern police forces as an axiomatic given needs to check their premises and inform themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But what are we willing to accept as evidence (or "proof")?

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/proof.html

 

So how do you expect me to find the title of the study you're thinking of?

I don't expect you to find anything. I expect you to keep doing what you usually do: put zero effort into your posts, and expect others to take you seriously anyway.

Citing unnamed studies isn't objectivity, it only makes your claims dubious. It's a sign of bias

No, it's not. It was a throwaway remark, in a conversation you weren't a part of. If the person I was talking to (who isn't you) decided to take up a position against the US jury system, I might very well have engaged him and argued my case with appropriate links.

Me being short with you is not a sign of anything except my belief that spending time talking to you is time wasted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Credible allegations. These aren't criminals resisting handcuffs while screaming "you're hurting me." These are multiple lawyers alleging routine and extremely serious criminal misconduct on the behalf of a large number of police. Denying access to a lawyer while erasing the custody record strikes at the very heart of the "system" you hold so much faith in.

Yes, there is credible evidence that lawyers are only allowed access to their clients after they are transferred out of this covert site, and to an overt Police facility. I buy that, sure.

But that's not abuse. Why would cops let lawyers stroll into a covert facility at will? The writer of the article seems to be suggesting that there's a constitutional right to a lawyer visit right after arrest. There's not. People under arrest have the right to see a lawyer before an interrogation (stemming from the right to be protected from self incrimination) and to prepare for a trial, not whenever they (or their lawyers) want. If some asshole went out to "protest" NATO with Molotov cocktails in his bag, got picked up by SWAT and deposited in a "metal cage" for a while (because he wasn't the only asshole in need of policing at the time), so what? Is the author of this article really expecting an informed audience to believe that the Police are constitutionally obligated to make sure mommy and daddy and their team of lawyers are kept up to date with his whereabouts and allowed to visit right away, in the middle of a riot? Since when?

 

The article uses a classic propaganda tactic, by inter-weaving harmless truths (all harping on the supposed right to a lawyer/right to the family/lawyer being informed of the person's whereabouts right away) with severe but unfounded claims like beatings, people being made to disappear, illegal interrogations.

 

It's not even the beatings or the "cages" that I find most incredible. It's the illegal interrogations that supposedly take place at this site. Why on Earth would cops interrogate suspects at a secret facility? Are we supposed to also believe that judges then allow the results of those interrogations to be used as evidence at a trial?

 

How would that work? Cop takes the stand, prosecutor asks him about how the suspect confessed to the crime, then the defense attorney cross examines and what? Forgets to ask about where this confession took place? Also forgets to ask about proof that his client was mirandized and waved his right to an attorney before confessing?

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't expect you to find anything. I expect you to keep doing what you usually do: put zero effort into your posts, and expect others to take you seriously anyway.

Let's aim for discussion and informing people about the ideas here. Or you can choose to be biased and not present some information fairly or objectively. A conversation on a forum is open to anyone, and it's a simple citation request.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have more to add to this, later; I'm short on time. However, I doubt this will take very long:

 

On 5/2/2015 at 3:52 AM, 2046 said:

CDw6cU-WoAAlXuR.jpg

This thread pretty much gets a Bingo.

 

Only missing one for "But the media has an agenda"

 

  • Life isn't fair
  • Whites are the real victims

I'll give you those points, fair and square. I couldn't defend them.

 

  • Isolated incident
  • Everyone has these problems
  • Not about race
  • Racism exists, but not this time
  • Fatherlessness

  • "Both sides do it"

  • Black on black crime

  • Questionable family history

  • You don't have all the facts
  • White victims underreported
  • "Race card"
  • Race-baiting

Do you have all the facts?

I have one: The fact that you chose to express your disagreement as a drive-by style of smear, without any attempt to justify your insinuations (nor even the courage to say them explicitly).

This fact leads me to doubt whether or not you actually have the relevant information. If you don't then what are you doing, if not race-baiting?

I'll give you those points too, since I don't have the time to prove them. I have removed one from that section, though...

  • "Why do you hate white people?"

... So that you can take note of it.

 

  • They need education
  • Culture of dependency

Don't both of those apply to every single altruist (which means, basically, everyone)???

 

---

 

  • Questionable personal history
  • Self-destructive behavior
  • Self-Defense
  • Inappropriate behavior of victim

You're right; we keep hearing those allegations, every time this happens!

 

That's very good! You made an observation, which is the very first step of doing science! Now, we just need a hypothesis...

Let's see... Why would a police officer, who ends up shooting someone, claim that it was a necessary part of their job/survival? 

If it's true, then they'd say it because it's true. If it's false... Um... Wait... Um... Wait - if it's false then they'd say it because it what would make their actions moral and legal! But then, that would mean that whether it's the truth or a lie is exactly what this entire thing has always been about, which would mean that...

Um.......

 

No; you're right; every time a cop happens to shoot a black man, we just need to hang him. Science can hurt people's feelings, and a man's life just isn't worth that.

What jerks every other participant here must be, to not understand that.

 

  • Don't blame me for my ancestors
  • I don't see race
  • Dr. King would agree with me

 

What actually baffles me about these last few is why you put them up on an Objectivist website. Not only do they practically refute themselves, but they also lend some plausibility to the question of "why do you hate white people"?

 

I won't go into it any further. However, I will let Binswanger and Yaron Brook explain the necessity of this post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly can't figure out your post. 2046 was hasty I think to accuse others of bad thinking, but I don't understand if you're saying the other parts of the Bingo board are actually -good- arguments. ALL of them are false, or bad arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Craig24 said:

A National Review article on the Philando Castile Case.  David French disagrees with the verdict.

From the article: "At that point, Castile is operating under two commands. Get his license, and don’t reach for his gun."

 

That's the big argument this guy thinks could convince a jury to send a cop to prison? What a joke. What kind of an idiot doesn't realize that once you mention that you have a thing that can kill everybody...that's the new topic of conversation. We're no longer talking about the license...now we're talking about the deadly weapon.

If you decide to be a gun owner, it's your responsibility to handle it, and yourself, properly. If you're not prepared to handle a routine encounter with a cop calmly, without creating the impression that you're about to pull your gun on him, don't be a gun owner.

How 'bout running through this exact scenario ahead of time, in your head? Figure out that once you mention your gun, there's no further reaching into anywhere, until the cop has time to think the situation through and tell you what to do next?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×