Tazed!

[biohazerd87]

dude has any seen that video where that guys tells the cop to fuck off... omg it is so funny... just cause the cop pulls out his night stick and beats the piss out of the guy lol

[Zacker]

That was indeed an ugly video to watch. Thank god we got proper policemen here in DK.

[HangFire]

I've seen a lot of videos of cops beating the crap out of guys. It wouldn't surprise me in least if most of them deserved what they got.

[Exilibur]

interesting post, botmeister.

You have some very good points about personal freedom, but i can't quite follow you though.

You see society as a controlling instant... I don't know wether i agree or disagree, since i basicly think the society is us. Wether we are oppressing ourselves is another question, but irrelevant to the topic.

But taken the actual society, what role would you prefer the policeman to take?
This lady has obviously broken the law (if you disagree, then let's assume she has). This law should, from a liberalistic point of view, be there because it protects the freedom of other indivuals. I mean, if everybody was driving insanely fast, more people would probably get handicapped or die. To make this illegal, we restrict a little in the freedom of everybody to prevent that a lot of freedom is lost in an accident.

So since this lady has broken the law she is stopped by the cops, who are there to make sure nobody does anything illegal. To make sure anybody doesn't do something illegal, the cops has the right to punish persons by restricting their personal or monetary freedom (which is pretty much two sides of the same thing nowadays). This lady refuses to accept the punishment for her crime.

Now what would you propose the cops should do?

I should probably note that i don't believe the current liberalistic democracy is any good... I'm just trying to understand your way of thinking.

[von Ryan]

Originally Posted by Whitman82

[...]
And wow, i'm giving facts here and your just talking crap.....shows how grown up you are.....really, it does. Oh and it was September 11, not 11 September. It was the day that the deaths of thousands of innocents marked the end of Terrorism, so if you are going to say it, say it right at least.

[...]

If U2 told you that having sex with your sister is cool, would you start having more sex with your sister?

Now, just for the record, I didn't want to get back at this.

1- You say that you went to Iraq to help people who were suffering under Saddam. But the only reason I recall Bush said was that Iraq had wapons of mass destruction. And IF it was a truly humanitarian mission, I'm sure the UN wouldn't be against the war. IF it was a truly humanitarian mission, I'm sure France, Germany and the others that opposed the war would be the first ones to jump in your "coalition".

2- I am WRITING it right. You guys write it right, in your opinion. The international convention for dates is Day-Month-Year. If you want to scramble that around, it's up to you. But don't come over here and oblige me to write the way you want, because you are a superpower and have infinite nuclear warheads aimed at my forehead right now. That kind of intimidation just doesn't work with me.

3- I have never, in my arguments, insulted you in particular. Now, you reply here insulting me, telling I'm immature. I will not dignify that with an agressive reply. Generally, people who don't have any arguments to justify their acts or opinions tend to inslut others. IF you people ARE the most important country in the world (which you aren't), you should practice some of the ancient greek art of debating. Inside AND outside the UN.

4- Luckly, I'm not brainwashed, so I know how to distinguish right and wrong by myself. I'm catholic, but if Benedict XVI gets up tomorrow and say: "I hereby declare a Holy War against the US", then he better have some good reasons to do that, because I don't see a point in following anyone blindly. Many of mankind's biggest tragedies started like that (Hitler, for example).

And, just remember: YOU started all this, by putting here a link to a repugnant video. I suggest you remember next time you want to post something here that not everyone here comes from a culture that glorifies violence in the TV. Using your own argument: would you find it funny if it was you in that driver's seat?

[botmeister]

@Exilibur

There is a lot to discuss and debate of the issue of freedom. Note that I'm still learning about this stuff and my opinions change over time.

The key point is that I believe in the rights of the individual above all else.

This does not mean that the individual can do whatever he(she) pleases. The main thing is that we as free people should be able to do whatever we please so long as it is not at the undue expense of others. There's a lot of subjectivity in there, and common law has evolved over hundreds of years to determine what is acceptable over what is not.

The main issue I have, is that common law has been tossed aside in favor of civil law, where we've all been turned into miniature corporations without us even knowing it.

For example, it should not be against the law to take recreational drugs. To disallow someone the right to abuse his or her body (which is a matter of opinion depending on the drug and so on) is a clear violation of a fundamental freedom.

Now having said all that, governments trick us into accepting a huge loss of personal feedom through contract law. For example, if you have a "social insurance number" then you have agreed to pay taxes, accept government handouts, and as a result have agree to a lot of other things without even knowing it, such as wearing a seat belt when driving.

That is fine so long as we're being informed of the consequences in agreeing to the various contracts that are handed out to us.

More often then than not we have no idea we are agreeing to, or have been forced into agreeing through coercion and other methods (signing the traffic ticket for example).

Now in the cae of the woman who was stopped by the police, the questions I have under common law is:

Who is making a complaint against the woman?
Who is the injured party?
What harm has the woman done to anyone?

Under comman law, if there's no injured party and no compaint, then there is no crime.

The woman was stopped under a "preemtive law" for commiting a potential crime - a crime she may of commited but did not actually commit through her actions of driving faster than the posted speed limit.

You may recall the scifi movie Minority Report (2002) where arrest of murderes are made before they actually kill anyone, well that's what is happening already.

The thing is, when we start accepting preemtive laws, there's no end in sight to what limits will be placed on our ability to act and think for ourselves.

Another point, is that punishing people through fines means that the rich get punished far less than the poor, and taking money as punishment is open to plenty of abuse, such as speed traps on safe areas with lots of speeders, while speed traps in unsafe school zones with few speeders is ignored.

As I said we can discuss this for a long time, so I'd better stop here.

[Whitman82]

Yep, you sure are right. If it was a humanitarian mission the UN would be quick to jump in just like that always do, being the almighty all knowing batch of pussies they are. Don't you get it, thats the problem. The UN doesn't understand that in the process of ridding the world of evil people die, ours and theirs. Thats why they sit back and let America take care of everything, taking credit when things go right, and blaming us when things go wrong.

And what do you mean you wouldn't do something if a "famous" person said to, thats completly what you said with the U2 example: "Oh ya, U2 said the US is bad.....so the US is bad......because U2 said so.......ya.....". That was a completely worthless thing to add to this discussion. You think any actor or singer has a higher say in these things, as if their point makes a difference? Their point makes as much of a difference as yours and mine.

And I'm sorry but I still find that movie hilarious. The woman broke the law by driving around even though she had her licsence taken away, and when she pushed that cop away and ignored his commands, she got what she deserved. I enjoy any movie were a scum like that gets zapped, i simply love it.

And how in the hell is Bush like Hitler. Bush is killing terrorists, Hitler killed innocent jews for simply practicing a different religion, theres a major difference. Are you trying to tell me that everyone in the Middle East is good? That we should just leave them alone and let them kill as many people of a different church as they want? Wake up buddy. Look at them, they are filthy animals. They kidnap innocent Americans that are trying to rebuild their shithole country, and cut their heads off. Which you know, I believe is ok, because everytime i see a picture of terrorists burning an american flag, i just run out and cut off some innocent muslim's head......oh wait, no I don't, because i'm a GOD DAMN HUMAN BEING!

[HangFire]

Theres a whole pile of topics going on in just one thread here.

Originally Posted by Botmeister

For example, it should not be against the law to take recreational drugs. To disallow someone the right to abuse his or her body (which is a matter of opinion depending on the drug and so on) is a clear violation of a fundamental freedom.

I disagree with that. What about the guy who gets high on crack then kills someone, without even knowing what hes doing?

Some drugs can be allright, and are about as harmful as alcohol can be, but most are illegal for a damn good reason.

To Whitman:
You're obviously a supporter of the invasion of Iraq, so what good do you think can come of it? Making the area stable again is going to be nearly impossible, the US cannot hope to end the constant flow of insurgents into the territory. Some good may in theory come out of turning it into another democracy, and ending an unjust dictatorship, but I believe the cost is too great. The US is currently spending on a massive defeceit, and the maintaining the occupation of Iraq is only wasting billions of US dollars.

Thats my main problem with it, its a war that cannot be won by either side. Its only going to perpetually waste resources and lives.

[sPlOrYgOn]

Originally Posted by Whitman82

And how in the hell is Bush like Hitler. Bush is killing terrorists, Hitler killed innocent jews for simply practicing a different religion, theres a major difference. Are you trying to tell me that everyone in the Middle East is good? That we should just leave them alone and let them kill as many people of a different church as they want? Wake up buddy. Look at them, they are filthy animals. They kidnap innocent Americans that are trying to rebuild their shithole country, and cut their heads off. Which you know, I believe is ok, because everytime i see a picture of terrorists burning an american flag, i just run out and cut off some innocent muslim's head......oh wait, no I don't, because i'm a GOD DAMN HUMAN BEING!

Whitman.. you're basicly saying anyone in the middle east is evil.. by saying that you are becoming what the terrorists are. They say everyone in the US is evil. So right now US would be considered the Terrorists to them.
You can't consider everyone from such I wide area all agree unanimously. It's like sterotypes, "All of [some group of people] are [adjective]." The "terrorists" uses sterotypes such as "All of the people from the US are evil" as a reason to kill us. By using the same reason they used to kill us to kill them makes us just as bad as the "terrorists." And as Hangie said.. The war is just wasting money which the US doesn't have.

[Pierre-Marie Baty]

Now that I'm calm I can perhaps afford to give my point.

A tazer is not a toy.

A tazer(tm) is a coercition weapon that inflicts pain. Just like a bludgeon. Only difference is that, as botmeister pointed out, with a bludgeon, there are body marks. With a tazer, nothing.

Now imagine the cop was not holding a Tazer but a bludgeon.

"get out of that car or I hit you"

*22-year old girl panicks and refuses*

"get out of the car or I hit you"

*girl reaches her cell phone and starts typing a number*

*policeman draws the girl out and beats the crap outta her*

*girl screams*

"stop it or I beat you again"

"I can't it's too painful"

*policeman beats the crap outta her again*

The only difference with this story and the story in the video was that here the policeman was using a bludgeon whereas in the video he's using a Tazer.

When you're hit by a Tazer, about 1 minute after the shock the pain becomes tolerable again.
When someone punchs you in the face, about 1 minute after you stop feeling the intensive pain too.
The only difference is that it bleeds.

Now will someone here realize that a 50.000 Volt discharge IS NOTHING BUT A WEAPON ?

Wouldn't it have been sufficient to grab this 22-year old girl by the shoulder, pull her out of the car and *eventually*, if the cop is feeling aggressive throw her on the ground and lock her wrists ? In France when something like this happens it happens in 3 seconds. I know it, for a fact. No cop ever yells. You're simply forced out of the car, bent over the hood and the cop shackles your wrists in your back. 3 seconds. You DO NOT have the time to reach for a gun.

No. Harm. Done.

Now if you think the cop did not over react you've got a serious problem. These guys are no cops but stupid cowboys.

This is what I, myself, would have done if I had been that cop.

Now on the "america saves the world" stuff.

*breathe*

1. This has nothing to do in this thread

2. When someone says that any country, any person, any group of people in the world calls America for help, I'd enjoy this affirmation to be backed up with a FACT. For example, an open letter, a petition, a public demonstration, a radio broadcast, anything, that shows that America has, indeed, been asked for help.

3. When someone says that any country, any organization, any person in the world is a pussy, I'd also enjoy this affirmation to be backed up with a FACT. Not a messy rant without any historical pertinence (when it's not blatantly wrong, when it's not -frankly insulting- !).

4. When someone says that any country in the world is the strongest, militarily speaking, I'd enjoy:

a) people to consider this in regard of the strike potential/destruction capability ratio. For example, if ONE strike from a 'Typhoon' ex-USSR submarine is able to turn the whole US land upside down (check it for yourself for THIS is a fact), one nation's hundreds of nuclear warheads won't be of much use. Similarily, a group of ten "terrorists" could very well go to America with a payload of Mad Cow virus, and disseminates it at random all over the country... say, with Tazers, for example. Your economy would be on the knees in NO TIME, and your $billion-a-day army of cowboys wouldn't be of much use in that case either.

b) people to consider this in regard of the efficience of its military operations regarding the claimed goals. In Somalia, people are still starving to death, the dictatorship is even harder, and since the instauration of the free market, the peasant's production gains have been halved, leaving them not even enough for one meal a day. Meanwhile, a pipeline is being built. In Afghanistan, the warlords are terrorizing the countryland, the opium production has been multiplied by ten, the taliban rule a half of the country again, and the status of the women has been improved by this simple fact: with a smaller burka, they find the summer heat a little more supportable. Meanwhile, a pipeline is being built. In Iraq, check out for yourself. Now locate Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan on a map, you americans. See what's in the middle ? Iran. And what's the fuss about Iran these days ? Does that start to ring a bell now ?

5) When anybody invocates the 11/09/2001 plane crashes (by terrorists that are yet to be undisputably identified) to justify a military operation against other countries, there I'd enjoy FACTS as well. Like, for example :

- why the first eyewitnesses, as well as the first news reports at the Pentagon strike reported NO EVIDENCE OF A PLANE but rather a whoosh of a powder-propelled engine
- how, according to the official version of the crashes, a transcontinental plane could have flown at 850 KPH at 1 meter height from the ground, crossing a highway without making any turbulence on the traffic
- how that airplane could simply "volatilize" in thin air
- and foremost, how this 30-meter wide plane could pierce 5 successive rows of buildings with a hole of 2 meters width.

I also recall how someone put the Reichstag afire, back in the thirties, to put the responsibility on the communists.

Where are Iraq's weapons of mass destruction ?

Where is Osama Bin Laden ?

Is there MORE, or LESS, violence and terrorism in the world since the beginning of this "war on terror" show ?

Has terrorism gone WORSE, or BETTER ?

Is america a safer place ? Is the REST OF THE WORLD a safer place, or has it become more dangerous ?

Are there MORE, or LESS, terrorists today ?

And now, read on.

http://www.newamericancentury.org

If you don't see anything dangerous here let me tell you that we'll probably be at war, a real war with weapons and bullets, where the goal is to find ways to put metal into live flesh, against each other in one decade or two. Mark my words.

I told it and I repeat myself : great things will happen in this century.