RationalBiker

Sorry, Mnrchst, I've reached the limits of my stamina. Good luck to you and the rest in coming to an accord on this matter. I've just got one more thing to say before I stop writing here (I'll probably still read). It pertains to two of your statements. Here is the first:



And, the response I expected from a personal inquiry:



I'd call someone who is "guilty of doing something bad" (everytime he violates the nonlegal, but moral, aspects of copyright by downloading gigs of ill-gotten music and video files) an untrustworthy a-hole. If he also acknowledged the fact that lying to gain a value from someone without the other's consent was immoral, I'd call him a hypocrite. He'd still be an untrustworthy hypocrite if he torrented the file from other untrustworthy, hypocritical a-holes, instead of engaging in the deception first-hand. The degree of such a man's dishoner could be measured by the number of KBs occupied by his digital skeletons. Everytime he checked his hard drive space he'd have to reconcile what he found with his self-image. But there is good news for people like him: redemption can be found, beginning with deleting those KBs and tossing out the burned CDs.

Yes I do. There is NO ACTUAL LAW. It was an arbitrary judge ruling extended arbitrarily. Why is the judge being appointed god-like authority in this instance when we are well aware of, and can point to numerous, numerous instances of where they have made grossly unethical or unlawful rulings?

From an earlier post:



To answer the earlier question, I am upset becaues it seems like Objectivists sometimes care about the constitution as much as the liberals do. Regardless of whatever else happened, they were required by law to state which law they were violating that justified the action that was about the be taken, and they refused to do this multiple times.

I would also like to see a proper refutation of what Louie said, of which CapitalistSwine quoted in his last post. I think this is a key element of this and I won't be satisfied with the position of the others here until a good answer is given on that point. It graetly disturbs me how often Objectivists seem to want to justify the governments actions whenever crack downs happen, or with the New York Mosque (when clearly, according to our laws, nothing could be done at that time) because it fits their own little wishes, but then they condemn to the highest order almost everything else the government does, it's almost like some Objectivists have an inner power-trip that gets set off when these things happen. I just don't get it, and it is frustrating.

I watched another video featuring the organizer of this protest, and by listening to him it clearly is a protest, and he described what he thought the purpose of the police was in America.

Starting at about 1:12;

http://dmvallaccess....source=activity

Now, however noble he may be in his fight against the unjust banning of dancing in a public place, he clearly has a distorted aim at who is at fault. He's blaming the police as if they passed the laws against public dancing. Then he claims that only 5% of the police force are "good" people who image is tainted by the brutal thugs that make up the other 95%. His views of policing in America are nothing short of moronic.

For those that may doubt where I stand outside of what I have already said, I think the law about requiring a permit to peacefully demonstrate on public property is improper. What I have been addressing so far is whether or not the police were acting within the province of the existing law and whether or not their uses of force were acceptable based on what I saw in the video and what I understand of the use of force continuum. I'm not spending a lot of time arguing about the theory of what is right or wrong here, primarily on the actual situation as it is at the moment.

Do you have all the necessary facts to determine that? Don't we appoint judges and/or select juries for the purpose of determining whether laws were broken or not?

No, no, no. A police officer does not get to decide what laws are just or unjust. He is sworn to do his duty in upholding the laws of the land and that means that he is supposed to be absolutely and completely impartial as to the efficacy, legitimacy or application of any and all laws.

You are confusing the role of police officer with the role of legislators and the courts who's job it is to ensure laws enacted are just.

Simply reviewing the use of force, assuming a lawful arrest, here is how I see it. When an officer gives the order to submit to arrest, anyone who is not fully compliant is going to be met with SOME level of force used against them. There are varying levels of resistance in the video, but most of the people being arrested full into the category of "active resisters", in terms of the use of force parameters. By this I mean, they are actively, physically opposing the arrest, short of assaulting the officer (pulling arms away, walking away, etc.). Passive resistance refers to a person who is not moving or pulling away, but simply remaining stiff or tense to avoid arrest. Aggressive resistance is when a person is attacking or assaulting the officer in an attempt to avoid arrest.

In the case of the active resisters, the use of "soft control" techniques is appropriate. "Soft control" techniques involve grabbing, applying pressure points, bending joints, etc. in an effort to affect physical control of the resisting subject. In addition, many jurisdictions and courts recognize the deployment of chemical (pepper spray) or electrical devices (TASERS) as appropriate responses to active resisters. Jurisdictions and courts recognize that while officers are expected to some degree to be exposed to physical hazards in the performance of their duty, they do not necessarily have to place themselves in jeopardy in these situations when circumstances allow them to use tools at the appropriate force level.

The major use of force problem I see in this video occurs when the one officer is arresting the guy in the white "Disobey" shirt at 3:00. I reasonably certain that while the "body slam" will likely be deemed an appropriate use of force by existing standards for arresting an "active resister", the chokehold is a problem in my opinion. Chokeholds are banned from use (except in exigent circumstances) by many departments. Additionally, a "carotid chokehold" is considered to be a lethal use of force by many jurisdictions and departments. I would be willing to bet the chokehold as used is not consistent with their use of force policy.

However, I would echo Dante's concern for the police bashing that typically follows an event like this. In particular I would add the tendency to view the officer as acting maliciously in the use of force as opposed to considering ignorance of policy or poor training.

I watched another video featuring the organizer of this protest, and by listening to him it clearly is a protest, and he described what he thought the purpose of the police was in America.

Starting at about 1:12;

http://dmvallaccess....source=activity

Now, however noble he may be in his fight against the unjust banning of dancing in a public place, he clearly has a distorted aim at who is at fault. He's blaming the police as if they passed the laws against public dancing. Then he claims that only 5% of the police force are "good" people who image is tainted by the brutal thugs that make up the other 95%. His views of policing in America are nothing short of moronic.

Simply reviewing the use of force, assuming a lawful arrest, here is how I see it. When an officer gives the order to submit to arrest, anyone who is not fully compliant is going to be met with SOME level of force used against them. There are varying levels of resistance in the video, but most of the people being arrested full into the category of "active resisters", in terms of the use of force parameters. By this I mean, they are actively, physically opposing the arrest, short of assaulting the officer (pulling arms away, walking away, etc.). Passive resistance refers to a person who is not moving or pulling away, but simply remaining stiff or tense to avoid arrest. Aggressive resistance is when a person is attacking or assaulting the officer in an attempt to avoid arrest.

In the case of the active resisters, the use of "soft control" techniques is appropriate. "Soft control" techniques involve grabbing, applying pressure points, bending joints, etc. in an effort to affect physical control of the resisting subject. In addition, many jurisdictions and courts recognize the deployment of chemical (pepper spray) or electrical devices (TASERS) as appropriate responses to active resisters. Jurisdictions and courts recognize that while officers are expected to some degree to be exposed to physical hazards in the performance of their duty, they do not necessarily have to place themselves in jeopardy in these situations when circumstances allow them to use tools at the appropriate force level.

The major use of force problem I see in this video occurs when the one officer is arresting the guy in the white "Disobey" shirt at 3:00. I reasonably certain that while the "body slam" will likely be deemed an appropriate use of force by existing standards for arresting an "active resister", the chokehold is a problem in my opinion. Chokeholds are banned from use (except in exigent circumstances) by many departments. Additionally, a "carotid chokehold" is considered to be a lethal use of force by many jurisdictions and departments. I would be willing to bet the chokehold as used is not consistent with their use of force policy.

However, I would echo Dante's concern for the police bashing that typically follows an event like this. In particular I would add the tendency to view the officer as acting maliciously in the use of force as opposed to considering ignorance of policy or poor training.

Do you have all the necessary facts to determine that? Don't we appoint judges and/or select juries for the purpose of determining whether laws were broken or not?

Simply reviewing the use of force, assuming a lawful arrest, here is how I see it. When an officer gives the order to submit to arrest, anyone who is not fully compliant is going to be met with SOME level of force used against them. There are varying levels of resistance in the video, but most of the people being arrested full into the category of "active resisters", in terms of the use of force parameters. By this I mean, they are actively, physically opposing the arrest, short of assaulting the officer (pulling arms away, walking away, etc.). Passive resistance refers to a person who is not moving or pulling away, but simply remaining stiff or tense to avoid arrest. Aggressive resistance is when a person is attacking or assaulting the officer in an attempt to avoid arrest.

In the case of the active resisters, the use of "soft control" techniques is appropriate. "Soft control" techniques involve grabbing, applying pressure points, bending joints, etc. in an effort to affect physical control of the resisting subject. In addition, many jurisdictions and courts recognize the deployment of chemical (pepper spray) or electrical devices (TASERS) as appropriate responses to active resisters. Jurisdictions and courts recognize that while officers are expected to some degree to be exposed to physical hazards in the performance of their duty, they do not necessarily have to place themselves in jeopardy in these situations when circumstances allow them to use tools at the appropriate force level.

The major use of force problem I see in this video occurs when the one officer is arresting the guy in the white "Disobey" shirt at 3:00. I reasonably certain that while the "body slam" will likely be deemed an appropriate use of force by existing standards for arresting an "active resister", the chokehold is a problem in my opinion. Chokeholds are banned from use (except in exigent circumstances) by many departments. Additionally, a "carotid chokehold" is considered to be a lethal use of force by many jurisdictions and departments. I would be willing to bet the chokehold as used is not consistent with their use of force policy.

However, I would echo Dante's concern for the police bashing that typically follows an event like this. In particular I would add the tendency to view the officer as acting maliciously in the use of force as opposed to considering ignorance of policy or poor training.

What you can or can't say about the film's detractors is probably very limited and largely uninformed outside of their participation on this forum so it's probably best not to embarrass yourself with such inane commentary.

Bah dum bah! Thanks everyone, you've been a great crowd, I'm here until Tuesday... or am I?

Most people on this forum don't think with their nuts anyway.

Most people on this forum don't think with their nuts anyway.

Most people on this forum don't think with their nuts anyway.

Most people on this forum don't think with their nuts anyway.

Notice the title of the thread: 'How would this be handled in an Objectivist Society?' This thread is not about 'the actual.'

I had the procedure which involved cutting the 'flap' opening it and applying the laser directly to the cornea for reshaping. I experienced no pain during the procedure, and only very slight discomfort afterwards for a couple hours (felt like I had something in my eyes). Within hours I could already tell my vision was better. I had to take antibiotic eyedrops for a week or two after but I was back to work in two days.

My vision improved to about 20/15 for a long time, but I lost some of my close vision resulting in having to wear reading glasses a little sooner than normal. I did experience a slightly more noticeable halo effect around lights at night. For awhile after the surgery I could see very slight disturbances where the flap cuts were but that went away as they healed.

For me, as a cop, it was well worth the procedure to have much better distance vision without having to wear glasses.

I think this illustrates my point. They were "damaged" by the real sexual assault not the TSA pat down. Most people do not suffer years of sexual emotional trauma from a TSA pat down whereas people who are subjected to a real sexual assault often suffer years of emotional trauma.

Please understand the distinction that I'm not defending TSA or government involvement in airline security. Rather I"m making a distinction between a vicious, violent attack involving malice and an intent to hurt and defile from an administrative pat down for security reasons from a person who in all likelihood is not intending to hurt or defile, has no malice, and is not doing it for some twisted sexual gratification. I think the comparison undermines the seriousness of a real attack.

No, it doesn't. What is important is to recognize what they are actually doing, not exaggerating it something that it is not to appeal to emotion.



Straw man. I didn't say that it was not important. I said the comparison trivializes actual sexual assaults. I'm calling BS if you say that you would be just as fine being held done, punched, kicked and forcibly anally sodomized as you would be having the back of someone hand brush your outer clothing while checking for weapons.

No, it doesn't. What is important is to recognize what they are actually doing, not exaggerating it something that it is not to appeal to emotion.



Straw man. I didn't say that it was not important. I said the comparison trivializes actual sexual assaults. I'm calling BS if you say that you would be just as fine being held done, punched, kicked and forcibly anally sodomized as you would be having the back of someone hand brush your outer clothing while checking for weapons.

?? I haven't seen a fly yet on FB. Not even picture of a fly yet, though there is bound to be one.

I'm confused at the point you are trying to make here... are you saying that FB isn't useful to anyone or just not to you? Are you saying that all 600+ million users are wrong, that FB isn't useful to them any of them other than for childish antics?






I've used FB for a while now and it has never chosen a friend for me, I've always chosen my friends myself too.


I see this whole dislike of FB thing as not liking hammers over screwdrivers. It's a tool, there are other tools, and you can choose to use the tools that are most effective for you needs. If FB isn't the tool for you, great, but for other folks it is the best tool for their needs. But disliking the tool because it doesn't fit your needs just doesn't make much sense to me.

No, there are two people posting in this tread, alone, not on facebook.

You presume, and arrogantly insist on it when called on it. Go to Hell.

To discount any number of specifically posited gods, one need only look at the evidence of how such gods contradict the evidence we have of physics.