# Words of Wisdom from this Retired Marine Colonel



## Sukerkin (Aug 17, 2013)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...e-warning-about-u-s-building-a-domestic-army/

Good words and good points very well made without being too strident about it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 17, 2013)

"More Mayberry.  Less Fallujah."

That is a good slogan.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 17, 2013)

I suggest more people go on ride-a-longs or attend citizen police academies before they buy into this "standing army crap". 



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Aug 17, 2013)

Hmmm...the Blaze...ins't that Glenn Beck's site...the dark side of the force is strong in you Sukerkin...

Although if the force was a little stronger in you the link would come up...right now it isn't going through...I'll try later...


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 17, 2013)

Tgace said:


> I suggest more people go on ride-a-longs or attend citizen police academies before they buy into this "standing army crap".



Then what is all the military hardware for, mate?  I know it's not your experience but there is no denying the stuff is there.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 17, 2013)

billc said:


> Hmmm...the Blaze...ins't that Glenn Beck's site...the dark side of the force is strong in you Sukerkin...
> 
> Although if the force was a little stronger in you the link would come up...right now it isn't going through...I'll try later...



Stronger than you might think, Bill .  The link works fine for me ... obviously .


----------



## billc (Aug 17, 2013)

I'm sorry, if the "Bearcat," vehicle is an example they are using, then it is a pretty weak example.  I would like to see exactly what they mean by Military gear before I get into a panic.  What exactly are we talking about here? AR-15s, body armor, face sheilds, 30 round magazines...?


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 17, 2013)

Ask the Colonel, Bill - he'll know better than me what he's talking about.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 17, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Then what is all the military hardware for, mate?  I know it's not your experience but there is no denying the stuff is there.



I don't know why this wasn't just kept in this thread Suk...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...e-land-of-SWAT/page9?highlight=militarization

Why did the cops in the early 1900's have this?

View attachment 18236

Why did the police have armored cars as far back as the 1940's?

View attachment $Police-history-1.jpg

Does anyone even know what a Bearcat is? It's an armored car...it has no "main gun"...it has no coaxial...it's not a tank.

What do we need one for? Well how would you like to deal with (for example) a gunman who just killed four people who is holed up in a basement taking shots at you? Having an armored vehicle available and some body armor to do what we are paid to do is asking too much? Better I or one of my co-workers catch a bullet?

My team doesn't own one...too expensive...but our Sheriffs dept has one if we need it and Im glad they do. It's far easier to watch a SWAT situation on TV and imagine what YOU would do than it is walking up to the location of a barricaded gunman on foot.

Ive said it before..and I guess I have to say it again...it's not gear that "militarizes" police. Its their action with or without the gear. If I kick down your door and storm your house in street clothes and a revolver it's not legally different than if Im wearing a helmet and carrying a subgun. The overkill stories being bandied about are ALL about police leadership decision making. The trappings are just a diversion from the fact that storming an office building for wood importation records would be overkill if it was done by uniformed patrolmen.

If anyone it truly interested in the roots of SWAT teams "gearing up" (instead of just yelling "militarization!!" and posting links) needs to look into the after action analysis of the Mumbai attack and police preparation for mass shooting attacks.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/...=display_arch&article_id=1945&issue_id=112009

even though "all yall" seem to have forgotten Mumbai, that attack (in conjunction with domestic mass shootings) plays a LARGE role in US police forces trying to prepare themselves to deal with such situations. As the Bank of America incident illustrated:






Two domestic bank robbers outgunned cops with nothing but pistols and shotguns. What would 4 dedicated attackers with AK's be able to do in your Town/City with officers restricted to Barney Fife equipment?

This is not to say that cops should be walking the streets CARRYING rifles..and they really don't, they are just kept in cars in case of need...or doing routine patrol in Bearcats. But we need to balance preparedness with departmental policies of use. Which is the REAL issue here IMO....if you have issue with what your cops have then the real thing to accomplish is to sit down and hammer out policy, NOT eliminate hardware that could possibly save your life in an emergency.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 17, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Ask the Colonel, Bill - he'll know better than me what he's talking about.



The unidentified man who claimed he was a USMC Colonel you mean? And I run a SWAT Team as part of my job Suk..where do I rate in comparison to him?

I've always found it odd that if I were to say "Im a cop Im right" its an appeal to authority (and It would be). But if a guy claiming to be a USMC Colonel makes statements like this it's used as "evidence" to support an opinion.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 17, 2013)

I apologise.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 17, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> I apologise.



Now now Suk...is this supposed to be a "match" or just a platform? No reason to apologize. My blows are meant to be "in the ring" punches...not "in the street and to the death" shots. 

Sorry if I came across too harshly...it just seems like nobody has listened to or debated any of the points I have tried to make on this issue. All anyone seems to want to do is yell "militarization" and plug their ears to anything an officer may have to say on the subject.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 17, 2013)

I'd be willing to wager LARGE sums of cash that police leaders during the Boston Marathon manhunt said the word "Mumbai" on more than one occasion.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 17, 2013)

At the same time, we have had a succession of presidents who have shredded the bill of rights. We even have an ex president, Jimmy Carter, who claims that the US isn't a functioning democracy. Yes, Tgace, the cops may have always worn jackboots and had military equipment, but the difference now is that the culture HAS shifted. It's going to be hard for people in it to see it because every step on the incremental slippery slope has been rationalized.

I think the truth can be summed up in the recent Gaurdian article where Glen Grenwald reports on just how fast local police agencies gobbled up the NSA data they were fed. There is literally no respect for American traditions anymore. The Constitution might as well be TP.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 17, 2013)

I should have been a bit more loquacious in my reply above, *TG*; I relied on your telepathy a bit too much there .  If it wasn't 1:30 and I wasn't in a bit of an emotional state I'd've said (ooh double contraction ) that I was sorry I started a seperate thread on an issue that had already been covered elsewhere - I haven't read that other thread, tho' I had noted it existence.  I was also sorry that I seemed to have touched a nerve, with people who I hold in good esteem, where I intended no such thing.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 17, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I think the truth can be summed up in the recent Gaurdian article where Glen Grenwald reports on just how fast local police agencies gobbled up the NSA data they were fed. There is literally no respect for American traditions anymore. The Constitution might as well be TP.



The DEA are not local police. If a DEA agent calls me and states he has information that a person in my jurisdiction is moving kilos of Coke, of course Im going to investigate that. Am I supposed to grill him for his sources now?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 17, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> I should have been a bit more loquacious in my reply above, *TG*; I relied on your telepathy a bit too much there .  If it wasn't 1:30 and I wasn't in a bit of an emotional state I'd've said (ooh double contraction ) that I was sorry I started a seperate thread on an issue that had already been covered elsewhere - I haven't read that other thread, tho' I had noted it existence.  I was also sorry that I seemed to have touched a nerve, with people who I hold in good esteem, where I intended no such thing.



No problem Suk..I do admit that I don't appreciate the implication that I or my department would willingly operate as a "military" against the people I live with. My friends, my neighbors and the people I swore an oath to. I find it a personal insult. 

What other departments may be doing is NOT the experience I have had during my career. 

An anecdote: It's "funny" (in a non-humorous sense) how a family I dealt with last week wanted us to search their drug addicted relatives room without a warrant...or make up a reason to arrest him and get him out of their hair. I had to explain the 4th Amendment to them. At the same time people are accusing my profession of trampling the Constitution.






:boing2:


----------



## Tgace (Aug 17, 2013)

If you are really interested in the topic..read this officers opinion. Which is more eloquent than mine. 

http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Sa...e-militarization-and-one-cops-humble-opinion/


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 17, 2013)

That is a really good (and blessedly short at this hour ) article, my friend.  Well deserving of being more widely disseminated.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 17, 2013)

Tgace said:


> The DEA are not local police. If a DEA agent calls me and states he has information that a person in my jurisdiction is moving kilos of Coke, of course Im going to investigate that. Am I supposed to grill him for his sources now?



Honestly, yes. Either the Constitution means something or it doesn't. I think that in our post 9/11 world, the sentiment you expressed clearly shows how American cops view the Constitution. It's just a hurdle.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 17, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Honestly, yes. Either the Constitution means something or it doesn't. I think that in our post 9/11 world, the sentiment you expressed clearly shows how American cops view the Constitution. It's just a hurdle.




******** opinion based on ignorance on the subject. So if a anonymous person calls my desk phone stating "Joe Blow" is dealing Heroin from his house means I shouldn't look into it...because I don't know where the info came from?

The idea that locals (like me) have access to NSA files is pure fantasy.

http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Sa...e-militarization-and-one-cops-humble-opinion/



> The most vitriolic commentary regarding &#8220;militarization&#8221; is based on deeply flawed thinking by emotional people who tend to believe everything they read. These are the hardcore believers who cannot be bothered to verify the facts reported by their favorite authors. People who read only those sources they agree with (and the sources those sources agree with) can be easily led down a false intellectual path. That&#8217;s how otherwise normal people end up believing with all their heart that their local police officer is an agent of the New World Order, the U.N., or President Obama&#8217;s shadowy &#8220;National Defense Force.&#8221;


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 17, 2013)

Tgace said:


> The DEA are not local police. If a DEA agent calls me and states he has information that a person in my jurisdiction is moving kilos of Coke, of course Im going to investigate that. Am I supposed to grill him for his sources now?





Makalakumu said:


> Honestly, yes. Either the Constitution means something or it doesn't. I think that in our post 9/11 world, the sentiment you expressed clearly shows how American cops view the Constitution. It's just a hurdle.



I agree, to a point.  If a DEA agent gives me intel, I want to know enough about his source that I feel safe acting on the info.  Maybe my view is tainted by experience with federal agencies... but I don't trust their say-so without some supporting information.  Hell... I want some details from our own narcs before I make a stop.  I don't need the CI's name, I don't need too much -- but before I run on the info, I want something to let me know it's valid and worth running on.  I've seen too much crap come from CIs and from "friendly feds" to trust it automatically.

But, at the same time, if a fellow LEO -- whether state, local, or fed -- gives me info, it does start at a higher level of credibility than if it's just someone on the street or an anonymous tip.

And investigate is not the same as make an arrest or even do a search.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 17, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> I agree, to a point.  If a DEA agent gives me intel, I want to know enough about his source that I feel safe acting on the info.  Maybe my view is tainted by experience with federal agencies... but I don't trust their say-so without some supporting information.  Hell... I want some details from our own narcs before I make a stop.  I don't need the CIs name, I don't need too much -- but before I run on the info, I want something to let me know it's valid.



Acting on info and opening an investigation are two entirely different things....the story quoted makes a tenuous connection from the NSA to the DEA to Locals via the DEA giving tips to locals based on their data sources to initiate investigations. This also assumes that the DEA agents *know *that the data they get back through their database came from NSA sources. An unproven assumption. Do YOU "really" know the ultimate data source of any "hits" you get via an NCIC check JK? 

Unless my case depends on that data to win in court it's just data like it would be from any other source. What matters is if *MY *investigation and case was proper and constitutional. If I see "Joe Blow" make a sale on a street corner and build my own case...or an agent calls me and tells me to take a look at "Joe Blow" the end result in either case is entirely Constitutional from my end. I didn't read anywhere that locals were busting down doors based solely on a DEA tip.

Of course what any of this has to do with Bearcats and militarization has gone over my head.....


----------



## granfire (Aug 17, 2013)

Tgace said:


> I don't know why this wasn't just kept in this thread Suk...
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sh...e-land-of-SWAT/page9?highlight=militarization
> 
> ...



Hmm...I guess I am pretty strange...but having seen police patrol FRA international airport with sub-machine guns on their hips....leftovers from the 'good old days' of battling it out with the RAF. Not Suke's guys...but the terrorist group of the 70s...yep, they found themselves outgunned a few times, having the body count to show for it back then...


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 17, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Honestly, yes. Either the Constitution means something or it doesn't. I think that in our post 9/11 world, the sentiment you expressed clearly shows how American cops view the Constitution. It's just a hurdle.


How is starting an investigation  a violation of the constitution?


----------



## granfire (Aug 17, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> How is starting an investigation  a violation of the constitution?



you hurt their feelings and make them feel bad about themselves...I am sure it's in the 4rth somewhere.



of course:
</sarcasm>


----------



## Tgace (Aug 18, 2013)

Armchair Constitutional lawyers......

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 18, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> How is starting an investigation  a violation of the constitution?



http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805



> A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.
> Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.
> The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.
> "I have never heard of anything like this at all," said Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011. Gertner and other legal experts said the program sounds more troubling than recent disclosures that the National Security Agency has been collecting domestic phone records. The NSA effort is geared toward stopping terrorists; the DEA program targets common criminals, primarily drug dealers.
> "It is one thing to create special rules for national security," Gertner said. "Ordinary crime is entirely different. It sounds like they are phonying up investigations."



The Feds train their agents to feed data to local sources and "launder" the source so their "powerful too" can remain secret.



> The two senior DEA officials, who spoke on behalf of the agency but only on condition of anonymity, said the process is kept secret to protect sources and investigative methods. "Parallel construction is a law enforcement technique we use every day," one official said. "It's decades old, a bedrock concept."
> A dozen current or former federal agents interviewed by Reuters confirmed they had used parallel construction during their careers. Most defended the practice; some said they understood why those outside law enforcement might be concerned.
> "*It's just like laundering money - you work it backwards to make it clean*," said Finn Selander, a DEA agent from 1991 to 2008 and now a member of a group called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which advocates legalizing and regulating narcotics.



Experts who look at this practice see it as gaming the system.  The Constitution is just a piece of paper, easily sidestepped through secrecy.  



> "That's outrageous," said Tampa attorney James Felman, a vice chairman of the criminal justice section of the American Bar Association. "It strikes me as indefensible."
> Lawrence Lustberg, a New Jersey defense lawyer, said any systematic government effort to conceal the circumstances under which cases begin "would not only be alarming but pretty blatantly unconstitutional."
> Lustberg and others said the government's use of the SOD program skirts established court procedures by which judges privately examine sensitive information, such as an informant's identity or classified evidence, to determine whether the information is relevant to the defense.
> "You can't game the system," said former federal prosecutor Henry E. Hockeimer Jr. "You can't create this subterfuge. These are drug crimes, not national security cases. If you don't draw the line here, where do you draw it?"
> ...



Even this article is a pile a ****.  The whole second part equivocated and backtracked based on the opinions coming from the very agencies have very recently been proven to have lied to us.  The bottom line is that this data is going to any cop who wants it.  All of the data is being gathered in an illegal warrantless Constitution killing search mission that makes the US no better than East Germany.  But this is what is now considered acceptable by cops, feds, and other agents in charge of "public safety".  And I'm sure there are a lot of cops who will look at all of this and say, "this is wrong, this is violating the citizens rights," but for everyone of those guys, there will be a dozen others who will simply pick up the pay check and look the other way.  

The culture of limited government, of limiting the force the government can exert, of limiting it's power, is slowly been ground away.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 18, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Even this article is a pile a ****.  The whole second part equivocated and backtracked based on the opinions coming from the very agencies have very recently been proven to have lied to us.  The bottom line is that this data is going to any cop who wants it.


What data?  What data can I get that you disagree with?


> All of the data is being gathered in an illegal warrantless Constitution killing search mission that makes the US no better than East Germany.  But this is what is now considered acceptable by cops, feds, and other agents in charge of "public safety".  And I'm sure there are a lot of cops who will look at all of this and say, "this is wrong, this is violating the citizens rights," but for everyone of those guys, there will be a dozen others who will simply pick up the pay check and look the other way.


even if the Feds call and tell me bob smith from 123 main st is selling 3 kilos of coke every Tuesday I cant just go kick in his door.  I still investigate the info to verify its correct and then need to get a signed warrant.  Im not sure what you think is happening?  Secondly I was on a federal drug task force and I never saw any of the above your saying is going on.  I cant just access your phone records, track your phone, or mine any data thats not generally available to anyone else with out warrants or court orders.  Maybe someone out there can but I dont know them and the normal everyday officers on the streets dont have access.  


> The culture of limited government, of limiting the force the government can exert, of limiting it's power, is slowly been ground away.


I dont disagree with that but I think your exaggerating the claims


----------



## Tgace (Aug 18, 2013)

There's no point in discussing this with him anymore...he knows what he thinks he knows based on sources that support his preconceptions. People with firsthand information are trumped by internet articles in this world....

"This data is going to any cop who wants it"...right...proof? 

What do you know about cops? What do you have to support those assumptions?

You need to step away from the internet for a while.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 18, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I don't disagree with that but I think your exaggerating the claims



Honestly, this is what I would expect people who draw a paycheck from the government to say.  Unconsciously, they know the system is out of control, but their livelihood is dependent upon serving it.  What I think people need to realize is that this system will betray you in the end.  You'll get paid now, but it will come at the expense of freedom in the future.  You'll get promises of retirement and pensions now, but those will get confiscated and you'll be paid in inflated dollars on whatever you do collect in the future.  You can get some undue respect now for wearing a uniform now, but in the future anyone who still believes in freedom is going to see you as the agent who helped take that away.  I know this sounds harsh, but I'm getting really tired of all the rationalization and dissembling on the part of people in the enforcer class.  All governments who follow the path that the US government is following right now basically end the same way.  It's a well established historical cycle.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 18, 2013)

Tgace said:


> You need to step away from the internet for a while.



I went to the store this morning and purchased some food to cook breakfast for my family.  Along the way, I took a phone call and sold some old kid stuff and will take some (evil) cash later this afternoon.  If you've been following the NSA story that Greenwald has been publishing, you know that the government collected all of that data.  They track my cell phone's location.  They record every conversation.  They collect electronic banking information.  And now we find out that they've been trickling this information down to the local arms of the enforcer class for years.  And now we find out that the government has been working with all of the big tech companies to build backdoors into all of their operating systems so they can gobble up all of your private computer data.  And now we find out that the government is building giant data collection points in Utah and other places around the country where they can collect information on a worldwide scale.

For those of you who think I'm exaggerating, I think you better get your mind around all of this.  A few years ago, if I would have typed that the government was doing all this, the same people who are screaming exaggeration now would be howling "conspiracy theory" and "nutter" and "paranoid". 

All this really shows is a lack of imagination and a refusal to look at the truth of the situation.  If cops don't have a version of Google where they can type in your name and keywords and find anything out about you that they want, it's coming.  That will be the future.  This country has a larger prison population than Communist China.  This country arrests 1 in 25 of it's citizens.  This country has hundreds and thousands of pages of laws and there is no way to know this all.  This information collection system the government has set up will turn everyone into a potential criminal.  The system is out of control and I think people on the outside of it can see where it's going.  For example, in the near future, if I decide to go out with my buddies after a night of jujutsu, the cops are going to know that I went to a bar and that I spent an hour and a half there.  Some cop is going to get a little red flag on their screen and potentially be able to come in and collect some revenue.  

This is what America bought when it decided to trade freedom for security.  Enjoy.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 18, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Honestly, this is what I would expect people who draw a paycheck from the government to say.  Unconsciously, they know the system is out of control, but their livelihood is dependent upon serving it.  What I think people need to realize is that this system will betray you in the end.  You'll get paid now, but it will come at the expense of freedom in the future.  You'll get promises of retirement and pensions now, but those will get confiscated and you'll be paid in inflated dollars on whatever you do collect in the future.  You can get some undue respect now for wearing a uniform now, but in the future anyone who still believes in freedom is going to see you as the agent who helped take that away.  I know this sounds harsh, but I'm getting really tired of all the rationalization and dissembling on the part of people in the enforcer class.  All governments who follow the path that the US government is following right now basically end the same way.  It's a well established historical cycle.


First my respect was earned and it does not come from a uniform.  People know me and respect me because I'm fair and honest to them.  I treat them with respect until they show me they don't deserve it.  So you can shove the unearned respect comment where the sun don't shine.  

I'm still waiting for you to answer the rest of my post.  What data do I have access to that you disagree with?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 18, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> First my respect was earned and it does not come from a uniform.  People know me and respect me because I'm fair and honest to them.  I treat them with respect until they show me they don't deserve it.  So you can shove the unearned respect comment where the sun don't shine.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to answer the rest of my post.  What data do I have access to that you disagree with?



I'm glad you earn respect the old fashioned way, but from the outside looking in, there is a culture of worship that has developed around government "servants" that truly is undue. 

As far as the data you have access to...how about all of it. I don't think governments should keep any records on citizens, much less be able to search them.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 18, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I'm glad you earn respect the old fashioned way, but from the outside looking in, there is a culture of worship that has developed around government "servants" that truly is undue.
> 
> As far as the data you have access to...how about all of it. I don't think governments should keep any records on citizens, much less be able to search them.


Like what? Driving records and criminal records?  That's about all I can access without a court order and even that data is audited and if I'm found to not have a reason to request that info I can be fired or arrested


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 18, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Like what? Driving records and criminal records?  That's about all I can access without a court order and even that data is audited and if I'm found to not have a reason to request that info I can be fired or arrested



The government shouldn't have anyone's data. There is no real pressure that curbs abuse or curbs the collection of increasing amounts.

I would be more comfortable with a privatized police force because then you'd have market pressure to use people's data justly. If a business is perceived to have used data improperly, they can be sued and you can stop paying for their service.

But, hey, that's just another issue with socialism. Lol.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 18, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> ...
> 
> I think the truth can be summed up in the recent Gaurdian article where Glen Grenwald reports on just how fast local police agencies gobbled up the NSA data they were fed. There is literally no respect for American traditions anymore. The Constitution might as well be TP.



How can any rational person think the NSA is feeding all its secret, make that top secret, information to lowly local police.  It is a very sad fact of life that there are too many careless people, much less the few like Snowden, to keep secrets if you have thousands of cops across the land with that information.  Really?



Tgace said:


> The DEA are not local police. If a DEA agent calls me and states he has information that a person in my jurisdiction is moving kilos of Coke, of course Im going to investigate that. Am I supposed to grill him for his sources now?



Note he said "he" will investigate.  If he makes a case, he _may attempt_ to keep the source of the information from the defendant to protect an informant.  But he may not be successful.  If a judge orders the source be revealed, the prosecution as only two options, tell the local cop to reveal his source (under oath), or drop the charges.  That's the way it works everywhere I know of, but maybe where you are it is different?



Makalakumu said:


> Honestly, yes. Either the Constitution means something or it doesn't. I think that in our post 9/11 world, the sentiment you expressed clearly shows how American cops view the Constitution. It's just a hurdle.



You know, there are a lot of cops in this country; federal civilian, federal military, state and local.  I don't know the exact number.  But you will always get a few bad apples.  Most however, even those who might wish they could do it otherwise when the see a really bad lawbreaker get off, are required to follow the constitution and the orders of the courts where they have jurisdiction.  Again, I can't account for where you live since I don't live there.



Makalakumu said:


> Honestly, this is what I would expect people who draw a paycheck from the government to say.  Unconsciously, they know the system is out of control, but their livelihood is dependent upon serving it.  What I think people need to realize is that this system will betray you in the end.  You'll get paid now, but it will come at the expense of freedom in the future.  going to see you as *You'll get promises of retirement and pensions now, but those  will get confiscated and you'll be paid in inflated dollars on whatever  you do collect in the future.  You can get some undue respect now for  wearing a uniform now, but in the future anyone who still believes in  freedom is*the agent who helped take that away.  I know this sounds harsh, but I'm getting really tired of all the rationalization and dissembling on the part of people in the enforcer class.  All governments who follow the path that the US government is following right now basically end the same way.  It's a well established historical cycle.



Where do you get this great insight into the future?    And your use of the words "undue respect" has already been commented on above.  But personally I think you should apologize to other police, as whether or not you intended it so, you have insulted a lot of good policemen.



Makalakumu said:


> I went to the store this morning and purchased some food to cook breakfast for my family.  Along the way, I took a phone call and sold some old kid stuff and will take some (evil) cash later this afternoon.  If you've been following the NSA story that Greenwald has been publishing, you know that the government collected all of that data.  They track my cell phone's location.  They record every conversation.  They collect electronic banking information.  And now we find out that they've been trickling this information down to the local arms of the enforcer class for years.  *And now we find out that the government has been working with all of the big tech companies to build backdoors* into all of their operating systems so they can gobble up all of your private computer data.  And now we find out that the government is building giant data collection points in Utah and other places around the country where they can collect information on a worldwide scale.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Makalakumu said:


> I'm glad you earn respect the old fashioned way, but from the outside looking in, there is a culture of worship that has developed around government "servants" that truly is undue.
> 
> As far as the data you have access to...how about all of it. I don't think governments should keep any records on citizens, much less be able to search them.



Well, now you are attacking people like me.  I am a government servant.  I work for the federal government.  But I am happy to let you know, no one worships me.  

I do think I have respect from people where I work.  Many people I know, who have nothing to do with where I work, seem not to disrespect me because I work for the government.  But of course, there are people like you.  Especially on Capitol Hill.

You can read in newspapers and federal reports that there are people who don't deserve respect.  But I truly believe they are in a very small minority.

As to keeping records on its citizens, I agree that it can be carried to a dangerous extreme.  But do you think it wrong for a cop to be able to learn that someone he has just stopped as a suspect for something has a record of assaulting police any time he is stopped?  How about if a suspect meets a description of a murder suspect, would it be worthwhile knowing he has been in and out of prison for violent assaults?  Would you like your descendants to know anything about you from public records?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, for whatever reason they may have it.  But I really think you are ill informed in some of your opinions.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 18, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> The government shouldn't have anyone's data. There is no real pressure that curbs abuse or curbs the collection of increasing amounts.


What data your still not telling me what data you think I have or can access.  


> I would be more comfortable with a privatized police force because then you'd have market pressure to use people's data justly. If a business is perceived to have used data improperly, they can be sued and you can stop paying for their service.


Problem is the people that use our services the most cant afford them.  We spend more time in the poor areas then we ever do in the rich areas.  And what happens when someone becomes a victim of a crime thats behind on their police payments?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 18, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> ...
> 
> Problem is the people that use our services the most cant afford them.  We spend more time in the poor areas then we ever do in the rich areas.  And what happens when someone becomes a victim of a crime thats behind on their police payments?



Quite so.  more importantly, I think a check might reveal more individual police, police departments, and municipalities are sued that big corporations.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 18, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> What data your still not telling me what data you think I have or can access.
> 
> Problem is the people that use our services the most cant afford them.  We spend more time in the poor areas then we ever do in the rich areas.  And what happens when someone becomes a victim of a crime thats behind on their police payments?



The reason they can't afford them is because they are socialized. There is no way 90% of the laws we have now get enforced if people have to directly pay for the service. Private police in poor areas would be very different than what exists now.

And who would pay for this service anyway? Imagine a companu advertising crime that clearance rates and response times that exist in modern metro areas now? Not going to happen. The market would serve people better and more fairly.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 18, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> What data your still not telling me what data you think I have or can access.



Because he is clueless.

I'm guessing we cant take reports now because that's maintaining records?

Whatever...

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 18, 2013)

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3764951

How many ways can we show cops that there is a serious problem with how they operate before they actually listen? Does the opinion of average people even count anymore? People ask me what kind of data I want the cops to be able to collect and I say none, I don't trust the government. Well, here's why. Here's what they do with the damn data. The SWAT team organic farms and rip out their Okra. Is this the Amerika you people want? When do the cops stand up and say I'm not going to Swat team farmers for this stuff and simply go home?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 19, 2013)

Confirmation bias.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

Nothing to see here. Move along.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Nothing to see here. Move along.



If they had a signed warrant by a Judge for a marijuana grow operation we use swat as well.  Mainly because grow operations normally have bobbytraps to keep people from stealing the crop.  Our Swat guys have explosive disposal training.  So I'm not sure what your issue is here.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> If they had a signed warrant by a Judge for a marijuana grow operation we use swat as well.  Mainly because grow operations normally have bobbytraps to keep people from stealing the crop.  Our Swat guys have explosive disposal training.  So I'm not sure what your issue is here.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayerthorpe_tragedy 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

Tgace said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayerthorpe_tragedy
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Impossible nobody kills for marijuana.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Impossible nobody kills for marijuana.



How about when a gang of armed men invade your property with a proven track record of using deadly force and a proven intent to steal and destroy property?

Sure, this gang has all the official insignias to say that they have the right to initiate force against this property owner, but this doesn't change the objective fact that these armed men are invading another property owner's land over a plant that another group of people doesn't like.

If you look at it objectively, it's insane that our society allows this to occur. It's also amazing that more incidents like the one detailed above don't happen. I really hope we can all be more rational in the future and realize what a huge waste of resources and lives all this drug war stuff causes. 

Believe it or not, just because one group of people says another group of people are bad, they may not be right.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Believe it or not, just because one group of people says another group of people are bad, they may not be right.



Right back atcha dude.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> How about when a gang of armed men invade your property with a proven track record of using deadly force and a proven intent to steal and destroy property?
> 
> Sure, this gang has all the official insignias to say that they have the right to initiate force against this property owner, but this doesn't change the objective fact that these armed men are invading another property owner's land over a plant that another group of people doesn't like.


So because YOU like the plant these "gang" members should ignore the legal warrant issues and signed by the judge?  They should just ignore the laws (a law that this gang had no part in making)  because you don't like the law?  So what other laws should we ignore?  And because you like the plant its ok for people to shoot and kill police officers 


> huge waste of resources and lives all this drug war stuff causes.


Yep tell that to the mother of a crack addict.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Right back atcha dude.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



There is a huge difference in power that needs to be taken into account. One group is officially sanctioned with the power to initiate force against individuals. This tips the scales of societal impact towards them. It makes what "they" believe more important than what normal people believe because their actions carry big consequences for people.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So because YOU like the plant these "gang" members should ignore the legal warrant issues and signed by the judge?  They should just ignore the laws (a law that this gang had no part in making)  because you don't like the law?  So what other laws should we ignore?  And because you like the plant its ok for people to shoot and kill police officers
> 
> Yep tell that to the mother of a crack addict.



I think you missed the point. Let's look at it objectively. One gang of people says a plant is bad. Another gang of people has costumes and has official jewelry and they believe they can initiate force against another group of people who wants to grow a plant. If one group resists and attempts to protect their property, they get a bullet to the neck...over a plant. 

Most people don't realize that they are one or two decisions away from getting killed by a cop. You can get killed for attempting to grow a plant and protect your investment. If you look at it objectively, doesn't it strike you as strange? Doesn't it strike you tyrannical?

I know you didn't make the system and aren't in charge, but simply look at the facts of the matter. People are killing each other for growing the wrong plants and not actually using reason and evidence to figure this out. It's barbaric.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I think you missed the point. Let's look at it objectively. One gang of people says a plant is bad. Another gang of people has costumes and has official jewelry and they believe they can initiate force against another group of people who wants to grow a plant. If one group resists and attempts to protect their property, they get a bullet to the neck...over a plant.
> 
> Most people don't realize that they are one or two decisions away from getting killed by a cop. You can get killed for attempting to grow a plant and protect your investment. If you look at it objectively, doesn't it strike you as strange? Doesn't it strike you tyrannical?
> 
> I know you didn't make the system and aren't in charge, but simply look at the facts of the matter. People are killing each other for growing the wrong plants and not actually using reason and evidence to figure this out. It's barbaric.



You know who MAKES laws....don't you? You know the difference between the legislative and the executive right? My "gang" didn't procalim anything as "bad".



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Aug 19, 2013)

And when we don't enforce someones "pet legislation" we are accused of not doing our jobs....write a ticket for driving on the cell you are a tax collecting jackboot...don't write someone and have someone complain to your supervisor....

Yadda..yadda...yadda...

Ill forward all the "my neighbor uses\sells drugs" complaints I receive from the "customers who employ me" to your house if you like.....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

Tgace said:


> You know who MAKES laws....don't you? You know the difference between the legislative and the executive right? My "gang" didn't procalim anything as "bad".
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



True, but you show your agreement with the "gang" who made the laws through your actions.  If you say you don't mind if someone makes raw milk or grows a certain plant and then go and put a gun in someone's neck for doing that, people can see how you really feel about it.

That said, it's not so much a particular plant or raw milk that has me looking askance as society.  It's the fact that I'm surrounded by so many people who hate my freedom so much that they'll kill me if I perform any number of non-violent actions...like grow a particular plant or make raw milk and attempt to protect my property.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 19, 2013)

The gang that makes the laws do so to appease their "customers"...the public.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Aug 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> True, but you show your agreement with the "gang" who made the laws through your actions.  If you say you don't mind if someone makes raw milk or grows a certain plant and then go and put a gun in someone's neck for doing that, people can see how you really feel about it.
> 
> That said, it's not so much a particular plant or raw milk that has me looking askance as society.  It's the fact that I'm surrounded by so many people who hate my freedom so much that they'll kill me if I perform any number of non-violent actions...like grow a particular plant or make raw milk and attempt to protect my property.



Who's been killed for growing plants? That guy was killed for killing people...actually he killed himself for killing people. Who's been killed for raw milk? I don't think a SWAT raid should be the first LE option...but your hyperbole is showing here.


Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> There is a huge difference in power that needs to be taken into account. One group is officially sanctioned with the power to initiate force against individuals. This tips the scales of societal impact towards them. It makes what "they" believe more important than what normal people believe because their actions carry big consequences for people.



Here is the thing you seem to forget.  We have a system in place where the PEOPLE (thats you and I)  elect people to form a society that we want to live in.  Right now the people decided we dont want crackheads roaming the streets so we Banned it.  We banned alot of things like Drunk driving, Murder, texting while driving, ect.  So when you know the law and choose to violate it the PEOPLE (thats you and I again) decided we needed someone to enforce that law.  You dont like the law thats fine but its isnt a reason to not follow it.  If you willfully choose to not follow it then your also willfully agreeing to except the consequences of that action.  You dont like the law find more people that dislike the law and have it changed.  We have the ability here to change all laws.  We could make Murder legal and ban bubble gum if you got enough people to agree with you.  So until you can convince enough people that your "plant" should be legal its not and no amount of whining or crying is going to change that.  You dont like the way the system is set up then again find more people and change it or move.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I think you missed the point. Let's look at it objectively. One gang of people says a plant is bad. Another gang of people has costumes and has official jewelry and they believe they can initiate force against another group of people who wants to grow a plant. If one group resists and attempts to protect their property, they get a bullet to the neck...over a plant.


The gang of people saying its bad is the PEOPLE.  We could easily change it if enough people wanted it changed but they dont.


> Most people don't realize that they are one or two decisions away from getting killed by a cop. You can get killed for attempting to grow a plant and protect your investment. If you look at it objectively, doesn't it strike you as strange? Doesn't it strike you tyrannical?


BS I deal with thousands of people a year and nobody gets killed.  Thats just BS fear mongering.  OH no the big bad police man will shot you blah blah blah.  Your as bad as the parent that tells their 3 year old to behave or the police man will put you in jail.  I totally hate that and always tell the parents thats not appropriate you want your kids to like the police not fear them so when they get lost of something happens they can ask the police for help.


> I know you didn't make the system and aren't in charge, but simply look at the facts of the matter. People are killing each other for growing the wrong plants and not actually using reason and evidence to figure this out. It's barbaric.


So maybe the people GROWING the plant should GROW UP and realize its illegal and get over the 70's fantasy of free love and rock and roll.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

Tgace said:


> ...but your hyperbole is showing here.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



I understand most people are going to think this sounds crazy, but lets re-frame the issue.

This is the "Against Me" argument, a famous philosophic construct designed to reveal the violence at the root of our societal structure.  Let's say you and I are equal in all ways and I decide to grow a particular plant that you think is unhealthy or bad for people in some way.  If we're equal in all ways, you don't have the right to initiate force against me in order to stop me from doing anything with my property.  We have to talk it out and attempt to understand each other using reason and evidence.

In our REAL society, we pay lip service to being equals, because the reality is that some people BELIEVE they can initiate force Against Me in order to make me do what they want.  My actions do not include initiating force against anyone's person or property.  They are peaceful and harm nobody.  And even if you believe that I am incorrect, it doesn't matter, because you are going to force me to do what you want and I will have no opportunity to share any reason or evidence with you.  If I attempt to resist in any way your initiation of force, I'm going to either get murdered or kidnapped and thrown into a cage.  

Let me say this again, you (or someone you pay) is going to initiate force to make me do what you want and my resistance either means death or capture even if my actions are no threat to anyone's persons or property.

So, let me ask you this, do you really believe that you (or someone you pay) has the right to do this to me?  

If you say yes, it means that reason and evidence really doesn't matter to you and that you are willing to kill or imprison me in order to force me to do what you want. We are not equals.  You think that you somehow are more special then I and that you can kill, hurt, or imprison me in order to control me.  How should I feel about that?  How should I feel about you?  If you say yes, what does that say about your moral compass?

If you say no, it means you're a libertarian.  It means we really are equal and that you respect reason and evidence.  It means that you are willing to trust the fruits of negotiation and learn.  It means that you believe that you MIGHT be wrong and are open to the possibility.  

Ultimately, all law is an opinion with a gun.  Some people want to hold the gun and some people do not.  That decisions says a lot about a persons fundamental moral quality.

That's not hyperbole, that's philosophy...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 19, 2013)

Welcome to civilization and rule of law....your philosophy is nothing but a collection of libertarian catchphrases. 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The gang of people saying its bad is the PEOPLE.



The gang of people telling everyone what to do is not "the people" in any collectivized way.  The rulers are actually a small gang of people with a lot of power and influence.  This gang of people is not 51%.  It's not even 1%.  The idea that Democracy reflects the will of the people is a myth.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Welcome to civilization and rule of law....your philosophy is nothing but a collection of libertarian catchphrases.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



It's actually very simple.  Do you believe that you, or someone you pay, has the right to initiate force against me in order to change my behavior even if I violate no one's person or property?  Do *you *believe that you can do this to *me*?

Your answer has nothing to do with libertarianism.  It has to do with whether or not we are equals and whether or not you respect me as a human.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> It's actually very simple.  Do you believe that you, or someone you pay, has the right to initiate force against me in order to change my behavior even if I violate no one's person or property?  Do *you *believe that you can do this to *me*?
> 
> Your answer has nothing to do with libertarianism.  It has to do with whether or not we are equals and whether or not you respect me as a human.



So you dont believe we should have laws in a society?  And the laws we do have you should only follow if you like them?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> The gang of people telling everyone what to do is not "the people" in any collectivized way.  The rulers are actually a small gang of people with a lot of power and influence.  This gang of people is not 51%.  It's not even 1%.  The idea that Democracy reflects the will of the people is a myth.



Oh ok so were living in a myth world run by the 1%s and were all just puppets in their game.  Got it nevermind


----------



## Tgace (Aug 19, 2013)

So you don't believe you should live under the rule of law and those who enforce laws enacted through representative gvt are "initiating force"? 

Of course you are a 9\11 truther as well so......

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So you dont believe we should have laws in a society?  And the laws we do have you should only follow if you like them?



I believe that we are equal and that I have no right to initiate force against you to change your behavior if it violates no one's person or property.  I respect you as a human.

Now, please answer this question.



> _Do you believe that you, or someone you pay, has the right to initiate force against me in order to change my behavior even if I violate no one's person or property? Do _*you believe that you can do this to me?*


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

Tgace said:


> *truther*



It's ironic that you would call me this especially since I am delving into the *truth *of our relationship.  Never mind the fallacy, you know which one it is...lol

I believe that we are equal and that I have no right to initiate force against you to change your behavior if it violates no one's person or property.  I respect you as a human.

Now, please answer this question.



> _Do you believe that you, or someone you pay, has the right to initiate force against me in order to change my behavior even if I violate no one's person or property? Do _*you believe that you can do this to me?*


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I believe that we are equal and that I have no right to initiate force against you to change your behavior if it violates no one's person or property.  I respect you as a human.


Except drug use does effect other people ask any mother of a drug addict or child of a drug addict if it had an effect on them?  Drunk driving has no effect on anyone until you crash and kill someone.  


> Now, please answer this question.


I beileve society has tasked me with the responsibility to enforce its rules even the ones you dont like.

Again there are methods available to you to change any law you disagree with.  Until you change the law by living in this society you agree to follow them or face the repercussions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I beileve society has tasked me with the responsibility to enforce its rules even the ones you dont like.



No one "tasked" you with anything.  You chose your profession.  You believe that you can initiate force against me even if my actions harm no one's person or property.  You believe that you are a superior human to me because there is no need to initiate force between equals when no threat is present.  

That says a lot about your moral character and, in a very personal way, I understand how you REALLY feel about me.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> No one "tasked" you with anything.  You chose your profession.  You believe that you can initiate force against me even if my actions harm no one's person or property.  You believe that you are a superior human to me because there is no need to initiate force between equals when no threat is present.
> 
> That says a lot about your moral character and, in a very personal way, I understand how you REALLY feel about me.


And you believe your more Important then your neighbor and the rest of society and that the rules don't apply to you.  Says much about you as well.


----------



## Carol (Aug 19, 2013)

The people actually at the meeting where the Marine spoke were overwhelmingly against the 
BEARCAT.

Chief Duval implied on his grant application that organizations such as the Free State Project and Occupy NH have the potential to be domestic terrorists, continuing with the "libertarians are the state's biggest threat" meme (see the thread here on Mt) started by a quote by a legislator in the Blue Hampshire blog.  

After being cornered with the information, Chief Duval has backed down from his statements, but I haven't heard anything about his grant application being amended.   

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

Carol said:


> The people actually at the meeting where the Marine spoke were overwhelmingly against the
> BEARCAT.
> 
> Chief Duval implied on his grant application that organizations such as the Free State Project and Occupy NH have the potential to be domestic terrorists, continuing with the "libertarians are the state's biggest threat" meme (see the thread here on Mt) started by a quote by a legislator in the Blue Hampshire blog.
> ...


Why would you be against a bearcat?  They are useful tools that provide movable cover for rescue of injured people during active shooter response


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> And you believe your more Important then your neighbor and the rest of society and that the rules don't apply to you.  Says much about you as well.



Actually, I don't believe that at all. I believe that my neighbors are my equal and deserve respect. Therefore I would not initiate force against them.


----------



## Carol (Aug 19, 2013)

I'm not necessarily against it.   I am against the police chief stating that people me and my friends present domestic challenges to the police when we have done nothing of the sort.  I also don't really see a need for another one when the city's existing armored vehicle has hardly been used, and the State Police barracks -- in the same small city -- already has one.  

Chief Duval says the BEARCAT would be nice to have.  For a quarter million of taxpayer dollars, I can think of a lot of things that would be nice to have.  I'm not convinced the BEARCAT is the best use of that money.  If there is genuinely a need for a second BEARCAT in Concord, why lie to DHS about it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

Carol said:


> I'm not necessarily against it.   I am against the police chief implying that me and my friends present domestic challenges to the police when we have done nothing of the sort.  I also don't really see a need for another one when the city's existing armored vehicle has hardly been used, and the State Police barracks -- in the same small city -- already has one.
> 
> Chief Duval says the BEARCAT would be nice to have.  For a quarter million of taxpayer dollars, I can think of a lot of things that would be nice to have.  I'm not convinced the BEARCAT is the best use of that money.  If there is genuinely a need for a second BEARCAT in Concord, why lie to DHS about it?
> 
> ...



Well yeah if they have one already then I dont see the point in needing another unless its to replace the existing one.  We have one, the County police have 4 or 5 I lost count I dont see a need for more then one in the county.  We got one from a DHS grant part of the grant says if another department needs to use it we must provide it and a driver.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Actually, I don't believe that at all. I believe that my neighbors are my equal and deserve respect. Therefore I would not initiate force against them.



Actually you believe your above the law.  There is really nothing left to say.  Grow and smoke whatever "plants" you want just know its illegal and be prepared for the consequence.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I beileve society has tasked me with the responsibility to enforce its rules even the ones you dont like.
> 
> Again there are methods available to you to change any law you disagree with.  Until you change the law by living in this society you agree to follow them or face the repercussions.



Ditto.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Actually you believe your above the law.  There is really nothing left to say.  Grow and smoke whatever "plants" you want just know its illegal and be prepared for the consequence.



The law is an opinion with a gun and you hold the gun not me. What gives you the right to hold that gun and enforce your opinion?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> The law is an opinion with a gun and you hold the gun not me. What gives you the right to hold that gun and enforce your opinion?



The Constitution.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Ditto.



Assuming that democracy really is 51% against 49%, what gives the 51% the right to force their opinion on the 49%?

Didn't someone important in American history tell us that democracy was 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Assuming that democracy really is 51% against 49%, what gives the 51% the right to force their opinion on the 49%?
> 
> Didn't someone important in American history tell us that democracy was 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner?



So change it or move. Find your 51% and set the rules how you want.  You dont get to just say I dont like it so Im not listening.  Thats what my 4 year old does.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> The law is an opinion with a gun and you hold the gun not me. What gives you the right to hold that gun and enforce your opinion?



My opinion? Seriously?

I don't enforce my "opinon"...I enforce the laws enacted through the representatives of the people.

Screw your wingnut down a little tighter.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The Constitution.



Oh right, the same Constitution that the government you serve violates all of the time? It's ironic that you even bring it up.

Btw, when did I sign the Constitution? Didn't a few oligarchs just up and force this on a whole bunch of people? Like my native ancestors? 

Look, I'm just a human who got plopped out on a particular plot of land where the people have all kinds of strange beliefs...including the belief that some humans are better than others and that they can force their will on peaceful people with threats of pain, death, and imprisonment.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So change it or move. Find your 51% and set the rules how you want.  You dont get to just say I dont like it so Im not listening.  Thats what my 4 year old does.



If I found my 51% and convinced them that I was right about something, what inherit quality about that group of people makes them better than the 49% they want to rule over?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 19, 2013)

Tgace said:


> My opinion? Seriously?
> 
> I don't enforce my "opinon"...I enforce the laws enacted through the representatives of the people.
> 
> ...



You show your agreement with all the laws you enforce through your actions. Even if your mouth says something different, your actions prove otherwise. So, yes, you enforce your real opinion with a gun. If all humans are equal, why do you have that power and others do not?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> If all humans are equal, why do you have that power and others do not?



I guess cause I passed the background check


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Oh right, the same Constitution that the government you serve violates all of the time? It's ironic that you even bring it up.
> 
> Btw, when did I sign the Constitution? Didn't a few oligarchs just up and force this on a whole bunch of people? Like my native ancestors?
> 
> Look, I'm just a human who got plopped out on a particular plot of land where the people have all kinds of strange beliefs...including the belief that some humans are better than others and that they can force their will on peaceful people with threats of pain, death, and imprisonment.


.......nevermind


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 19, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> .
> 
> Btw, when did I sign the Constitution? Didn't a few oligarchs just up and force this on a whole bunch of people? Like my native ancestors?



Nevermind there is no need to continue this nonsense


----------



## Tgace (Aug 19, 2013)

Can someone explain why we are not allowed to place this lunacy on "ignore"?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 20, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Can someone explain why we are not allowed to place this lunacy on "ignore"?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Let me finish this argument then.

Me - What gives you the right, yadda yadda yadda?
You - people believe I have the right.
Me - you realize this is irrational, just like another religion?
You - so what.
Me - don't you have a problem with enforcing an irrational hierarchy on people?
You - No.
Me - is it reasonable to think that all humans are equal?
You - obviously not. Most people need someone like me to control them.
Me - how do you know that.
You - I don't know it, but I believe it and so do most others. 
Me - does reason and evidence mean anything to you?
You - sometimes, but not now. The momentum of people's belief will get you killed if you don't follow it. Humanity exist in a state of jumped up barbarism and you either learn to deal with it or you get to deal with people like me.
Me - so if no one else cares whether or not power is reasonable, you can either live by the sword or die by it.
You - yes.
Me - that sucks.
You - it's what it is. Accept it or don't, you choose. Do what they tell you or else....this...you point to your gun.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 20, 2013)

I think here we have a clear case of two sides of an argument that are not listening to each other.  

I know how it feels, I used to get like that when faced with BillC's barrage of (mostly) political propaganda clips.  But it's something we have to fight against i.e. allowing our emotional attachment to certain ideas and concepts shut off any attempt to see an alternative point of view.

A sense of another perspective can really help get our minds around a point of contention at times and gain a deeper understanding of why we think what we do.  If we are lucky it also leads us to better articulate our views and quell that spluttering sense of "NONSENSE!!!!" that sometimes seizes hold of our posting fingers :chuckles:.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 20, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> I think here we have a clear case of two sides of an argument that are not listening to each other.


True.  I stopped listening when he said the constitution does not apply to him since he didn't sign it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 20, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> True.  I stopped listening when he said the constitution does not apply to him since he didn't sign it.



Does a contract apply to you if you don't sign it? Why is any piece of paper different?

This is actually an old argument from an 18th century abolitionist named Lysander Spooner. The world get's very strange when you start asking questions and looking at things objectively.

I guess the the answer here is the same as what's been given above. The Constitution applies to me because the people around me believe it does...and they are willing to initiate force to force that on me. That's why the answer live with it or move sit's so readily on people's tongues when this question is asked.

Still, it should be noted, this is not a contract. It is rule through force. And people like you are the enforcers.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 20, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Does a contract apply to you if you don't sign it? Why is any piece of paper different?
> 
> This is actually an old argument from an 18th century abolitionist named Lysander Spooner. The world get's very strange when you start asking questions and looking at things objectively.
> 
> ...



And your free to leave anytime you want.  By staying here you agree to follow the rules we have in place.  You don't like the rules your free to go live someplace that has rules you like better.  I'm sorry there is no lawless fantasy land that allows you to act or behave anyway you want.  That's not how living in a society works.  Its not how being an adult works.  When you became an adult you had the choice stay or go.  By staying you have given your consent to the contract.  You don't like it tough suck it up butter cup.  Welcome to reality


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 20, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Oh right, the same Constitution that the government you serve violates all of the time? It's ironic that you even bring it up.
> 
> Btw, when did I sign the Constitution? Didn't a few oligarchs just up and force this on a whole bunch of people? Like my native ancestors?
> 
> Look, I'm just a human who got plopped out on a particular plot of land where the people have all kinds of strange beliefs...including the belief that some humans are better than others and that they can force their will on peaceful people with threats of pain, death, and imprisonment.



Unless you are a lot older than I take you for, you certainly did not sign the US Constitution.  However, it is the basis for all the laws of the United States, and our form of government.  When you live in the USA, you accept that and the laws that have been passed by the federal, state, commonwealth, tribal, local or whatever.  If you do not comply with those laws, you must be prepared to accept the consequences of the law.  Or, you can simply move out of the jurisdiction, the laws of which you don't agree.

You don't have to agree with any of the laws, but you do have to obey them or accept the consequences.



Makalakumu said:


> You show your agreement with all the laws you enforce through your actions. Even if your mouth says something different, your actions prove otherwise. So, yes, you enforce your real opinion with a gun. If all humans are equal, why do you have that power and others do not?



That is a rather ridiculous statement don't you think?  You are showing your agreement, or at least acquiesence (pretty much the same thing reference obeying a law) to the constitution by choosing to remain under its jurisdiction. So how is Tgace any different?  Simply because he becomes an instrument of its enforcement?  He still has to obey all the laws himself.  If he doesn't, he will potentially, and probably will, face the same consequences as you or any other citizen. 

Your remark about Tgace enforcing his opinions with a gun is insulting not only to Tgace, but all law enforcement.  You try to cleverly use your words to imply Tgace and other policemen only enforce their own opinions, not law.  And that doesn't leave any room for a policeman to enforce a law that he may not agree with.  He must enforce even those laws he doesn't agree with.  But your 'clever' use of words may be a web that takes you in as well.  

In your dojo, if someone does not agree with your opinion, no matter what it is, do you enforce your belief on them by use of MA, since I presume you don't carry a firearm in you dojo?  If you don't, then why would you assume Tgace or other police would do so only to enforce their opinions?  Remember, opinions are not law, no matter how much you try to vilify someone by saying so.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 20, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> By staying you have given your consent to the contract.



I disagree.  This contract is forced on an individual at birth.  It was spread through North America and beyond through the use of force.  It isn't a "contract" in any sense of the word.  It's a fiat that states that a certain group of individuals the exclusive right to initiate force in a given geographic area.  

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiat

An individual can flee the fiat or they can stay for many different reasons, including simply not having the resources to flee.  This is not the same as consenting to the fiat.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 20, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> You try to cleverly use your words to imply Tgace and other policemen only enforce their own opinions, not law.  And that doesn't leave any room for a policeman to enforce a law that he may not agree with.  He must enforce even those laws he doesn't agree with.  But your 'clever' use of words may be a web that takes you in as well.
> 
> In your dojo, if someone does not agree with your opinion, no matter what it is, do you enforce your belief on them by use of MA, since I presume you don't carry a firearm in you dojo?  If you don't, then why would you assume Tgace or other police would do so only to enforce their opinions?  Remember, opinions are not law, no matter how much you try to vilify someone by saying so.



I don't have the right to enforce my opinion on anyone.  I wouldn't want that power.  In my dojo, if someone doesn't like what I'm doing, they can leave.  It's a voluntary association that many call the free market.

This is very different from how Tgace and other police officers choose to operate.  They agree when they take their jobs that they will enforce the rules of the State good or bad.  They may disagree with a rule, but they are still required to enforce it.  My point is to only illustrate that there is a potential contradiction between thought and action here.  To put it simply, "words are wind."  The words and thoughts of a person do not actually demonstrate commitment to principles or opinions.  Only actions demonstrate commitment.  So, the real opinion of every cop of rips out someones blackberry and okra bushes while pointing guns at non-violent farmers is demonstrated by their actions.  Their actions show that they are committed to an opinion that someone else has and are willing to enforce that opinion at gun point.

Ultimately, it's a matter of integrity to principles.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 20, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I disagree.  This contract is forced on an individual at birth.  It was spread through North America and beyond through the use of force.  It isn't a "contract" in any sense of the word.  It's a fiat that states that a certain group of individuals the exclusive right to initiate force in a given geographic area.
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiat
> 
> An individual can flee the fiat or they can stay for many different reasons, including simply not having the resources to flee.  This is not the same as consenting to the fiat.



Exactly...and I took an oath to defend it. Try me.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 20, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Exactly...and I took an oath to defend it. Try me.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



If you took an oath to defend the constitution and the government you serve violates the constitution, how do you reconcile this?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 20, 2013)

Has the judicial determined the executive and\or legislative have violated the Constitution?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 20, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Has the judicial determined the executive and\or legislative have violated the Constitution?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



What if the Judicial Branch is compromised? This was a major worry for the FF?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 20, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I disagree.  This contract is forced on an individual at birth.  It was spread through North America and beyond through the use of force.  It isn't a "contract" in any sense of the word.  It's a fiat that states that a certain group of individuals the exclusive right to initiate force in a given geographic area.
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiat
> 
> An individual can flee the fiat or they can stay for many different reasons, including simply not having the resources to flee.  This is not the same as consenting to the fiat.



So don't follow it I don't care.  In not sure what you want here.  Why don't you file a complaint with the courts saying the constitution is not valid because you didn't sign it.  You don't like the rules I got it you wanna smoke pot and you can't I'm sorry move to Washington or change the laws in your state.  But its more fun to make up LA LA land and say well laws don't apply to me.  I just had a similar case in court a few weeks ago a "Moorish national". Spouting that sane junk saying he didn't need a driver license to travel upon the lands.  Said I was a pawn of the Govt and they don't care about me.  Told the judge she had no authority to hold a trail against him.  Guess who got a 60 day sentence and went to jail.  So fight the Govt protest the govt sue the govt ignore the govt. I DONT CARE. Just face the fact when you do there will be repercussions.  I know I know you don't like the repercussions you didn't agree to them. TOUGH


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 20, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So don't follow it I don't care.  In not sure what you want here.  Why don't you file a complaint with the courts saying the constitution is not valid because you didn't sign it.  You don't like the rules I got it you wanna smoke pot and you can't I'm sorry move to Washington or change the laws in your state.  But its more fun to make up LA LA land and say well laws don't apply to me.  I just had a similar case in court a few weeks ago a "Moorish national". Spouting that sane junk saying he didn't need a driver license to travel upon the lands.  Said I was a pawn of the Govt and they don't care about me.  Told the judge she had no authority to hold a trail against him.  Guess who got a 60 day sentence and went to jail.  So fight the Govt protest the govt sue the govt ignore the govt. I DONT CARE. Just face the fact when you do there will be repercussions.  I know I know you don't like the repercussions you didn't agree to them. TOUGH



I understand all of this. I follow all the rules, even those I don't like, because people like you have guns and are willing to use them. The point here is that there is a potential contradiction between words and actions that I'm pointing out. I don't have to deal with it because I'm not holding the government's guns. I don't want that job because it would place me in a position where I would have to force myself to do something against my conscience. 

You do have to deal with it, though. I'm curious how it will play out. Most people in your position simply outsource their moral reasoning to some "higher" authority. Some people find creative ways of rationalizing what they do. Some realize that they can't do it anymore and quit. 

Ever hear of the Milgram Experiment?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 20, 2013)

I love my job.

Moorish nationals...meet a few of them myself ballen...good analogy.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 20, 2013)

I know that in some ways the basis of law in America is different to that over here but something to add into the conceptual mix is that the body of Common Law is meant to *protect* individuals from the predation of other, more powerful individuals and groups.  Law and law enforcement can be seen as an evil imposition on the individual but it is also a very real 'shield' for individuals too.  You have to look at it with both sets of eyes to see fully whether you think the legal system is something to be scorned or welcomed.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 20, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I don't have the right to enforce my opinion on anyone.  I wouldn't want that power.  In my dojo, *if someone doesn't like what I'm doing, they can leave.*  It's a voluntary association that many call the free market.



Perhaps that would give you more peace of mind in the long run.



Makalakumu said:


> This is very different from how Tgace and other police officers choose to operate.  They agree when they take their jobs that they will enforce the rules of the State good or bad.  They may disagree with a rule, but they are still required to enforce it.  My point is to only illustrate that there is a potential contradiction between thought and action here.  To put it simply, "words are wind."  The words and thoughts of a person do not actually demonstrate commitment to principles or opinions.  Only actions demonstrate commitment.  *So, the real opinion of every cop of rips out someones blackberry and okra bushes while pointing guns at non-violent farmers is demonstrated by their actions*.  Their actions show that they are committed to an opinion that someone else has and are willing to enforce that opinion at gun point.



That might be true.  I didn't look that up further than your post, but I did the mention of Manassas as I am familiar with that city.  It is something rather old (2008 as I recall) and clouded depending on whose side you are on.  The amount of police used in both seems not likely in either incident.  

But are you suggesting that defines all those on MT who have indicated they are cops?

And I must admit I am having trouble with your intimation that all cops threaten all people they deal with by using guns.  Is that truly how it is done where you live?



Makalakumu said:


> Ultimately, it's a matter of integrity to principles.



Isn't a cop who enforces legitimately enacted laws displaying integrity to principles?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 20, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> I know that in some ways the basis of law in America is different to that over here but something to add into the conceptual mix is that the body of Common Law is meant to *protect* individuals from the predation of other, more powerful individuals and groups.  Law and law enforcement can be seen as an evil imposition on the individual but it is also a very real 'shield' for individuals too.  You have to look at it with both sets of eyes to see fully whether you think the legal system is something to be scorned or welcomed.



Truth.

Just as an aside, were you aware that four states and two territories refer to themselves ad commonwealths?  And more or less (probably less) adhere to the idea of common law?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 20, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> Truth.
> 
> Just as an aside, were you aware that four states and two territories refer to themselves ad commonwealths?  And more or less (probably less) adhere to the idea of common law?


We still have some common laws on the books here.  I like using them because there is no set penalty.  When you tell the person what they are charged with you get to say "Any punishment the judge rules not to be cruel or unusual"  they look at you all crazy and ask what the heck that means


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 20, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So don't follow it I don't care.  In not sure what you want here.  Why don't you file a complaint with the courts saying the constitution is not valid because you didn't sign it.  You don't like the rules I got it you wanna smoke pot and you can't I'm sorry move to Washington or change the laws in your state.  But its more fun to make up LA LA land and say well laws don't apply to me.  I just had a similar case in court a few weeks ago a "Moorish national". Spouting that sane junk saying he didn't need a driver license to travel upon the lands.  Said I was a pawn of the Govt and they don't care about me.  Told the judge she had no authority to hold a trail against him.  Guess who got a 60 day sentence and went to jail.  So fight the Govt protest the govt sue the govt ignore the govt. I DONT CARE. Just face the fact when you do there will be repercussions.  I know I know you don't like the repercussions you didn't agree to them. TOUGH



If I went to another country, I would follow there laws and expect to be punished if I broke them. It's no different for the country where I was born. I tend to look at America from a foreign perspective. By random chance I was born here, but I don't feel any kinship or loyalty to the government. It's just another government with features that make it distinct and similar to other governments in the past and present.

That said, what interests me more are people. It's really important to see what principles they hold and understand them for what they really stand for and how they are applied in actuality. I see this as part of the intellectual self defense that a person can do to understand better the people in the community, the people who enforce the rules, and people who make the rules. If you understand the principle by which people operate, you can predict future actions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 20, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> And I must admit I am having trouble with your intimation that all cops threaten all people they deal with by using guns.  Is that truly how it is done where you live?
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't a cop who enforces legitimately enacted laws displaying integrity to principles?



In the US and just about every country I can think of, laws are enforced through direct or indirect force. Indirect force is the threat of force. So, in a metaphorical way of speaking, laws are opinions with a gun...where the "gun" represents force and/or the threat of force.

That said, the second question strikes to the mark of what I want to talk about. A government official who is enforcing legitimately enacted laws is displaying integrity...but to what principle? If a government official initiates force against peaceful non-violent members of the community, what principles are they displaying with their actions?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 20, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> If I went to another country, I would follow there laws and expect to be punished if I broke them. It's no different for the country where I was born. I tend to look at America from a foreign perspective. By random chance I was born here, but I don't feel any kinship or loyalty to the government. It's just another government with features that make it distinct and similar to other governments in the past and present.


Im sorry bro its life.  Buy your own island and start your own land where respect and a stern talking too is all you need to stop a criminal from stealing you stuff.  Let me know how that works.  Im sorry that you were forced to live in society and you just dont like it.  


> That said, what interests me more are people. It's really important to see what principles they hold and understand them for what they really stand for and how they are applied in actuality. I see this as part of the intellectual self defense that a person can do to understand better the people in the community, the people who enforce the rules, and people who make the rules. If you understand the principle by which people operate, you can predict future actions.


Um ok


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 20, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> In the US and just about every country I can think of, laws are enforced through direct or indirect force. Indirect force is the threat of force. So, in a metaphorical way of speaking, laws are opinions with a gun...where the "gun" represents force and/or the threat of force.


So in your world how would you enforce laws and rules?


> That said, the second question strikes to the mark of what I want to talk about. A government official who is enforcing legitimately enacted laws is displaying integrity...but to what principle? If a government official initiates force against peaceful non-violent members of the community, what principles are they displaying with their actions?


Whos using force against peaceful non-violent members of the community?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 21, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So in your world how would you enforce laws and rules?
> 
> Whos using force against peaceful non-violent members of the community?



As to how I would run society, I don't know and I have no desire to even attempt that.

People like you initiate force against nonviolent and peaceful community members all of the time. So, what principle is being displayed by people like you? I know the reason why you are doing it. The actions of said community members is against the law. What principle drives you to take the action you are taking?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> In the US and just about every country I can think of, laws are enforced through direct or indirect force. Indirect force is the threat of force. So, in a metaphorical way of speaking, laws are opinions with a gun...where the "gun" represents force and/or the threat of force.



I am sure you know that isn't a usual way of thinking in the USA.  Most people in the USA know when they are breaking laws, especially traffic laws.  If they are caught, most accept their ticket without consideration of violent reaction.  Even more serious infractions of law may not draw a violent response.  A policeman must always remain vigilant for people they deal with who may turn violent.  But I think you are much mistaken.  Police in general don't walk around looking for people to lord it over, using their guns as a threat of violence.  I'm sorry if that isn't the norm for police where you are.  It is sad to think of your police acting in any other manner.



Makalakumu said:


> That said, the second question strikes to the mark of what I want to talk about. A government official who is enforcing legitimately enacted laws is displaying integrity...but to what principle? If a government official initiates force against peaceful non-violent members of the community, what principles are they displaying with their actions?



You have a funny way of getting where you want to go.  Why didn't you just ask that to begin with?  


Makalakumu said:


> A government official who is enforcing legitimately enacted laws is displaying integrity...but to what principle?  If a government official initiates force against peaceful non-violent  members of the community, what principles are they displaying with their  actions?


Those two sentences don't automatically go together with most people, including police.  To enforce legitimately enacted laws is displaying integrity to the law and more importantly, to society who has requested or acquiesced to them.  If you consider that act unprincipled use of force, then I would have to assume you don't want any laws enforced.  That would be chaotic anarchy, with only the unprincipled strong getting what they want from more peaceful people.  Not a society where I would like to live.  If you would, I think there are places in the world where that is how it is done.  Perhaps you should seek out a place like that.  

If you were to move to such a place, which do you want to be, those who enforce their selfish desires on all others, or those who must submit or be inconvenienced, hurt or die?  Mind you, you must be stronger than anyone else, and enforce your desires on them by force or fear.  Do you see no value to a society where rules are made that most people wish to live by, and are enforced by government through law and a body (police) to enforce that law?  And if there are people who prefer to go against those laws, what do you propose be done with them?



Makalakumu said:


> If I went to another country,* I would follow there laws and expect to be punished if I broke them.* It's no different for the country where I was born. I tend to look at America from a foreign perspective. By random chance I was born here, but I don't feel any kinship or loyalty to the government. It's just another government with features that make it distinct and similar to other governments in the past and present.



As to the bolded part, then what is your problem with obeying law?  And I am sorry you don't feel any kinship or loyalty to the government of the USA.  Isn't it ironic that you feel that way but seem to prefer to live where others others who do feel kinship and loyalty to the USA protect your right to feel that way?



Makalakumu said:


> That said, what interests me more are people. It's really important to see what principles they hold and understand them for what they really stand for and how they are applied in actuality. I see this as part of the intellectual self defense that a person can do to understand better the people in the community, the people who enforce the rules, and people who make the rules. If you understand the principle by which people operate, you can predict future actions.



Again, why didn't you just ask?  I think most police do what they do out of a sense of making life better for their community.



Makalakumu said:


> As to how I would run society, I don't know and I have no desire to even attempt that.



Yet you fault others who wish to take on that burden?



Makalakumu said:


> People like you initiate force against nonviolent and peaceful community members all of the time. So, what principle is being displayed by people like you? I know the reason why you are doing it. The actions of said community members is against the law. What principle drives you to take the action you are taking?



That is insulting don't you think?  How do you know what you intimate, that is, a non-caring, hateful desire to use more force than necessary at all times, is how people in this forum prefer to enforce law?  And why do you assume that all enforcement of law against non-violent people is itself violent?  Do you think all police prefer to get violent to enforce law?  How about these non-violent people?  They are using some force to violate the law, whether or not it is passive?

Forget the innocent part.  If they are a law breaker, they are not innocent.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 21, 2013)

Just another version of "I want you to do something about HIM but I don't want you to enforce THAT".

See it everyday. Its amazing how many people who want pot legalized will complain about why we don't do something TO a person who is doing something they don't like.

Makus opinions are not founded on any reality I have ever seen....just last week I had to explain to a family that "no I cant search your basement bedroom you allowed your drug addicted brother to live in without a warrant". That happens all the time.....Maku would have you think that its the "citizens" role to protect Constitutional rights from the cops when it seems to me that its frequently the citizens who would like us to ignore the constitution as long as it benefits them.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 21, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> Forget the innocent part.  If they are a law breaker, they are not innocent.



According to the definition of those in power. Even peaceful nonviolent members of the community can not be innocent of breaking a law. So, what principle is involved here? What principle does a government official display when they initiate force against peaceful non violent members of the community? This is important, because it will allow us to predict future human actions and this is ultimately the subject of this thread. Why do people worry about the power of the government officials in their neighborhoods? 

Principles are displayed through action and people can readily see those even if they have never been taught to identify them.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 21, 2013)

I mis typed. Even peaceful nonviolent members of the community CAN be innocent of breaking the law.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> People like you initiate force against nonviolent and peaceful community members all of the time.


Prove it.  Who have I initiate force against.


> So, what principle is being displayed by people like you? I know the reason why you are doing it. The actions of said community members is against the law. What principle drives you to take the action you are taking?


Because I like my community more then your trippy hippy babble about the constitution not being valid because you didnt sign it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 21, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Just another version of "I want you to do something about HIM but I don't want you to enforce THAT".
> 
> See it everyday. Its amazing how many people who want pot legalized will complain about why we don't do something TO a person who is doing something they don't like.
> 
> ...



Actually, the principles that I'm driving at ARE founded in reality. They are demonstrated by the actions of those that hold them. These actions are observable facts in the real world. Logical conclusions can be drawn from these observations of principles in action. These conclusions are drawn all of the time by people even if they don't consciously understand that they are drawing that conclusion. Principles and observation of facts are an evolutionary mechanism that allows humans to survive.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 21, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Prove it.  Who have I initiate force against.
> 
> Because I like my community more then your trippy hippy babble about the constitution not being valid because you didnt sign it.



So, the principle is, "I like my community" and you demonstrate it by initiating force against peaceful non-violent community members? That is a logical contradiction and cannot possibly be the principle you display.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> So, the principle is, "I like my community" and you demonstrate it by initiating force against peaceful non-violent community members? That is a logical contradiction and cannot possibly be the principle you display.



Its call the rule of law.  Im sorry you dont think it applies to you.  We call that 10-96 (Crazy person)


----------



## Tgace (Aug 21, 2013)

Cause lawless places around the world have shown themselves to be great examples of peace and prosperity.....

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 21, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Its call the rule of law.  Im sorry you dont think it applies to you.  We call that 10-96 (Crazy person)



Then the principle isn't I like my community because you don't initiate force against people you like. There is a different principle here. You say the law, well that indicates another principle.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Then the principle isn't I like my community because you don't initiate force against people you like. There is a different principle here. You say the law, well that indicates another principle.



What?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 21, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> What?



Perhaps the principle is to serve and protect? Is this the principle that government officials act on when they initiate force against peace and nonviolent community members?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Perhaps the principle is to serve and protect? Is this the principle that government officials act on when they initiate force against peace and nonviolent community members?


What nonviolent people are you talking about?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 21, 2013)

People throw around words like serve and protect with no clue about what accomplishing it means. You are sitting in Platos cave dude...

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 21, 2013)

Social Contract.

In brief -- people who have agreed to live in a community have agreed to follow the rules of the community.  Some of those rules are the unwritten norms and expectations of "proper behavior."  Others (which overlap with those) are written into laws and statutes that the members of the community entrust the government to make and enforce.  The police (and other law enforcement officers) are those public servants (generally and with some exceptions because there are private police forces like the railroad police or the Aquia Harbor Police in Virginia) who are given the authority and entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing the law, and investigating and preventing crime, while seeking to preserve the peace.  Part of that authority includes using force on those who break the law, when necessary and appropriate.

Look, this is stuff that you can build entire college courses on.  Rory Miller has done a nice job addressing some of the issues regarding police use of force in Force Decisions.  There are some minor ways I disagree with him, likely because of the difference in our experiences and focuses of our jobs.  Just like ballen & Tgace and I have disagreed at times...  But it still covers a lot of why police use force the way they do.

And, yes, of course there are bad cops out there.  They're pretty rare, though.  And there are incidents where cops make mistakes.  Let's just accept that those are aberrations, just like the school teachers who abuse students are aberrations.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 21, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Social Contract.
> 
> In brief -- people who have agreed to live in a community have agreed to follow the rules of the community.  Some of those rules are the unwritten norms and expectations of "proper behavior."  Others (which overlap with those) are written into laws and statutes that the members of the community entrust the government to make and enforce.  The police (and other law enforcement officers) are those public servants (generally and with some exceptions because there are private police forces like the railroad police or the Aquia Harbor Police in Virginia) who are given the authority and entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing the law, and investigating and preventing crime, while seeking to preserve the peace.  Part of that authority includes using force on those who break the law, when necessary and appropriate.
> 
> ...



I think one of the things that we'll discover with this conversation is that the inherit contradictions in morals, actions, and principles makes the concept of the social contract untenable.  It's fundamental philosophy is dangerous because the acting principle inside of it is obedience to authority.  This authority can demand that force be initiated for ANY actions, even peaceful non-violent actions.  Thus, any moral reasoning behind the "social contract" is easily undermined.  

This concept is very difficult to understand because humans in general are very confused about philosophy.  They don't know how to personalize it, IMO.  However, if we work backward from principle and reflect on how our actions meet that principle, we can suddenly zoom out and see the bigger picture.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 21, 2013)

Tgace said:


> People throw around words like serve and protect with no clue about what accomplishing it means.



What does it mean then?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> What does it mean then?



It means all of your sources you appear to tap for your worldview are nothing but fodder for the flames that are casting the shadows of what you believe "policing" to be on the cave wall in front of you. Were you to actually exit the cave and work in the real world you would find the reality of policing vastly different. What are you basing your "knowledge" of the realities of law enforcement on? 

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 21, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> What nonviolent people are you talking about?



Back in the day when the US first invaded Iraq, I was very upset about this because it was obvious the government was lying about the pretenses for the war and I was even more upset that trillions of dollars of taxes, thousands of lives, and trillions in property damage were going to be wasted because of this.  So, I decided to protest when President Bush came to my state.  I was going to hold a sign when he drove by and make sure I was with a group of people so the media could see that there were at least some people that were against this war.

Previous to this, my wife just birthed our baby boy and we were taking some parenting classes at the local ECFE.  During the class we met a nice family who had children the same age as ours.  So, we set up play dates at the park and our older kids would get together and play.  I started to develop a friendship with the father of the other family and I took him out on my boat to go fishing.  The father also happened to be a LEO in our community.

Fast forward to the protest.  At that time in my life, I was involved in the Green Party of all things.  Yeah, it's kind of weird to think of now considering how much my political views have change.  However, they did have an organization in our town where concerned citizens could go and make a statement if we felt the need to do that.  This organization was also very good at getting the permits and making sure we followed all of the local statutes regarding protests.

So, I show up at the protest and I'm immediately surprised at how many more people start showing up.  Usually, these things are quite some, but there were over a hundred people there when I got there and more were arriving every minute.  I wasn't there more than fifteen minutes before a line of cop cars and vans peels across the bridge and deploys dozens armed and armored officers, adding to the huge amount of cops that were already there.  I figured that this was because the President was coming and this was the typical over-reaction security measure that was being taken around the country.

I was wrong.  Suddenly, the bullhorns came out and we were being ordered away from the pre-planned protest area and we were told that we could assemble around the corner of the building, almost behind it.  Of course this is completely out of the view of the road and the rest of the city.  It was almost in the alley between the hockey arena and the convention center.  The police started to march forward when people didn't immediately move back and then suddenly the whole crowd was moving back.  When we were securely inside the "free speech zone" the police that were recently deployed formed a line and stood arrayed with full stormtrooper gear.

Here I am, I'm holding my sign, I'm wearing a pair of blue jeans and a t-shirt and some running shoes.  I'm obviously not armed nor intending any other action than standing on the pre-approved sidewalk and holding a sign that voiced my disapproval of the US invasion of Iraq.  I look at the cops lined up in front of us and try to see who they actually are...and lo and behold, there is my friend.  So, I put my sign down and wave.  His eyes flick over me and I know the friendship is over.  

We've never spoken to each other since.  

I was part of a non-violent and peaceful assembly where I was going to civilly express my view of the War to the President.  LEOs in our community moved our whole group with armed and armored cops into a free speech zone out of sight and out of mind.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 21, 2013)

I can't help but feel that perhaps my friends here are talking about different coins rather than two sides of the same coin?  *TG* and *Ballen* are speaking of their experiences of what we might term Community Policing, the sort of thing that most of us experience and the world in which I feel safer if I see a policeman walking the beat.  *Maku* is speaking in both a general philosophical sense about the foundational nature of the societal structure and also of the way in which the law enforcement agencies are employed to suppress dissent (or at least herd it out of sight of the media).

These are not the same things for one is the Common Law for ordinary people that we mentioned before and the other is the near-abuse of power by a ruling 'class' that has become isolated from its democratically principled roots.  Both are true within their frames of reference but they are not both true at the same time or in the same circumstance.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 21, 2013)

Well put Suk.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Back in the day when the US first invaded Iraq, I was very upset about this because it was obvious the government was lying about the pretenses for the war and I was even more upset that trillions of dollars of taxes, thousands of lives, and trillions in property damage were going to be wasted because of this.  So, I decided to protest when President Bush came to my state.  I was going to hold a sign when he drove by and make sure I was with a group of people so the media could see that there were at least some people that were against this war.
> 
> Previous to this, my wife just birthed our baby boy and we were taking some parenting classes at the local ECFE.  During the class we met a nice family who had children the same age as ours.  So, we set up play dates at the park and our older kids would get together and play.  I started to develop a friendship with the father of the other family and I took him out on my boat to go fishing.  The father also happened to be a LEO in our community.
> 
> ...


So he did nothing but look at you and you stopped being his friend?   Great story has nothing to do with me. I've NEVER used a bullhorn.  All cops are armed and wear body armor so that kinda silly that you keep repeating it over and over like it's wrong that I wear body armor in case I get shot at.  I have no idea what really happened I have your version and your obviously bias.  I've never stopped anyone from protesting.  I've defended the westboro freak shows on two different occasions now including when they protested the funeral of two small boys that were brothers that drown.  The older brother tried to save the younger and they both died.  I stood between them and the angry people wanting to hurt these protesters.  So even when I totally hated everything these fools stood for I put my life on the line for them.  That's what we do.  We enforce laws even if we disagree with then.  Without question I risk my life to protect others and you turn and question my morals.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 21, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> So, I show up at the protest and I'm immediately surprised at how many more people start showing up.
> ...
> 
> I was wrong.  Suddenly, the bullhorns came out and we were being ordered away from the pre-planned protest area and we were told that we could assemble around the corner of the building, almost behind it.  Of course this is completely out of the view of the road and the rest of the city.  It was almost in the alley between the hockey arena and the convention center.  The police started to march forward when people didn't immediately move back and then suddenly the whole crowd was moving back.  When we were securely inside the "free speech zone" the police that were recently deployed formed a line and stood arrayed with full stormtrooper gear.
> ...



Couple of things to consider.

Do you know how fast a "peaceable crowd" of 100 or more can become a violent mob?  You said many more than expected or typical showed up; is it at all possible that some of them were agitators who may not have been quite as into the peaceable mentality?  And that maybe the police knew about that -- though the people like you who weren't of that mindset didn't?

Unarmed?  But you had your sign.  Depending on the group, those signs are on wooden posts.  I've also seen documented instances where the "cardboard tube" holder was slipped around PVC, wood, or other more dangerous material.  Again... You may not have been part of that portion of the crowd -- but they may have been there.

Regarding "full stormtrooper gear."  Again -- it's frightening how fast a group can flip.  When it happens, there's no time to go back and gear up.  And my family has every right to expect me to take all reasonable precautions to stay safe -- and wearing appropriate safety gear and armor is reasonable.  Maybe a worker on a construction site shouldn't worry about his hard hat or high visibility vest, unless he thinks he's going to be in a position where he'll need it?


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 21, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So he did nothing but look at you and you stopped being his friend?   Great story has nothing to do with me. I've NEVER used a bullhorn.  All cops are armed and wear body armor so that kinda silly that you keep repeating it over and over like it's wrong that I wear body armor in case I get shot at.  I have no idea what really happened I have your version and your obviously bias.  I've never stopped anyone from protesting.  I've defended the westboro freak shows on two different occasions now including when they protested the funeral of two small boys that were brothers that drown.  The older brother tried to save the younger and they both died.  I stood between them and the angry people wanting to hurt these protesters.  So even when I totally hated everything these fools stood for I put my life on the line for them.  That's what we do.  We enforce laws even if we disagree with then.  Without question I risk my life to protect others and you turn and question my morals.



There is a little more back story here, like some unanswered phone calls on my part, but it's not important, you asked me about what kind of non-violent people were being aggressed against and I answered. The details of this story aren't as important as the principle involved. So, lets's look at this in terms of principle and cross reference it with the story you shared about the Westboro guys.

The principle at the heart here is obedience to authority. It fits in both cases and it fits in every single example brought up in this thread. This is what has people's spidery sense up as well. The whole concept of the social contract is based off this principle as well. The social contract is imposed through force and those that come after are measured by how well they obey. It's an ancient tool of human organization that has been passed down through the generations so long that's origins have been lost to time.

The obvious flaw concerns the moral nature of the authority. Humans used to have to struggle against some pretty vile monsters in the past and the fix on the system was to create a concept called "natural rights" so that humans could begin the process of defining what authority can and cannot do. The problem with the system is the nature of power itself. It corrupts and is therefore morally negative. This is because the very act of exerting power means that you must initiate the use of force against individuals. This moral flaw at the very heart of the of the philosophy of power is the reason why every attempt to restrain power has failed.  Even the vaunted Constitution is failing, as my story illustrates.

In literature, this is why Frodo had to destroy the ring. The Ring was power and it could not be wielded without corrupting the wearer, so into the fire it goes.

I think this is a powerful metaphor that describes what is happening here as well. When you obey those with power, you take on their moral nature. If that moral nature is barely corrupted, you may be allowed to do some good, as the story with the Westboro folks illustrates. However, as those who wield the power become ever more corrupted by it, those who serve that power are changed as well. This is the metaphor of the Nazgul in LOTR. It's also reflective of what happens in reality.

One benchmark that we use to measure immorality in the real world is whether force is being initiated against peaceful people. This is also a benchmark that can be used to measure how corrupted the wielder of power has become. So, when a government official obeys authority and ends up initiating force against peaceful people they meet that benchmark as well.

Of course the way to not meet it is to throw the ring into the fire, but this requires more strength then most Men are capable of. The lies, dissembling, and attraction of power is very hard to ignore. This is why choosing not to obey is so difficult. It's why so many who serve power recoil at the thought. It's why a government official will forswear any oath to the Constitution and help to violate it. It's why government officials kill over growing the wrong plants.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 22, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> Couple of things to consider.
> 
> Do you know how fast a "peaceable crowd" of 100 or more can become a violent mob?  You said many more than expected or typical showed up; is it at all possible that some of them were agitators who may not have been quite as into the peaceable mentality?  And that maybe the police knew about that -- though the people like you who weren't of that mindset didn't?
> 
> ...



All true, but notice how easy it is to rationalize away my constitutional rights. This is why power cannot be restrained. It always finds the weakness, like an alcoholic looking for a reason to drink.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 22, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> All true, but notice how easy it is to rationalize away my constitutional rights. This is why power cannot be restrained. It always finds the weakness, like an alcoholic looking for a reason to drink.



Constitution doesn't apply to you remember you didn't agree to it.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 22, 2013)

Come back from Middle Earth....even there, did Aragorn rule a kingdom without laws or enforcement of them? Wasn't it death to even step into Lorien uninvited?

"It's why government officials kill over growing the wrong plants."

So. Is that intentional hyperbole or ignorance of what the legal use of force is? I would think that even you would realize that I wouldn't shoot someone for growing a plant. But if they are trying to kill me..... People have killed cops for traffic stops. Should we allow driving with no laws now too?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 22, 2013)

Hmmm...interesting connection to a different thread.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/111139-We-Were-Bored?p=1591574#post1591574


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Constitution doesn't apply to you remember you didn't agree to it.



Cute, but we were talking about a social contract that people had to accept.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 22, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Come back from Middle Earth....even there, did Aragorn rule a kingdom without laws or enforcement of them? Wasn't it death to even step into Lorien uninvited?
> 
> "It's why government officials kill over growing the wrong plants."
> 
> So. Is that intentional hyperbole or ignorance of what the legal use of force is? I would think that even you would realize that I wouldn't shoot someone for growing a plant. But if they are trying to kill me..... People have killed cops for traffic stops. Should we allow driving with no laws now too?



Aragon represents the divine right of the Ruler. It is a contradiction of metaphors that Tolkien never solved. On one hand he saw the ultimate issue at the root of power, but on the other, he was a Monarchist. Some people really were just better and meant to rule. No one is perfect and I think it represents the strength of the superstitions that we carry.

Anyway, they are just metaphors.

The legal use of force is an interesting concept to explore, because here the contradiction will appear again. If normal guy trespasses onto another man's property, fully armed and kicking down a door with the intent of apprehending him and destroying his property, he has the legal right to defend himself. When a government official does it, if the man defends his property and freedom, this will escalate the use of force on the government's part. So, the principle of obedience is revealed again and we see that the actual reason all this occurs doesn't matter. As you say, people get killed over traffic stops. 

I see a big problem with this because it means that government can grow and grow and grow into all kinds of areas and just suddenly peaceful, nonviolent activities become the subject for the application of the obedience principle.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 22, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Hmmm...interesting connection to a different thread.
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/111139-We-Were-Bored?p=1591574#post1591574



Great thread. Thanks for linking. I think it has a profound connection here as well. Violence is never going to totally disappear from society. People can have brain injuries or simply be born with no empathy and these people are always capable of violence. Therefore, someone will have to respond to that violence. The key here is respond. 

The key is also violence.

In this thread we are largely talking about the invitation of force against peaceful individuals by the state. This is very different from a person who has initiated force forcing the community to respond. The latter is moral, the former is not.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 22, 2013)

First even if we go with the theory that the US is creating an internal army via military and police. (which I personally do not feel is happening)  You also have LEO's on this site telling you it is not happening.  Let's look at just this.  Sure that would be a big organized force.  However, everyone here does know just how many guns US citizens have?  How could any police force or joint military force control this country?  How could they when over time it has been shown how hard it is to control a small area in other countries when the populace does not want you there.  Plus those people are typically armed less than most US citizens.  The US citizens have more guns than most standing armies in the entire world. (probably more than all of them)

Second I know a lot of LEO's who are really, really close friends.  I do not believe any of them would turn on the citizens of the United States of America.  They have families.  They have loved ones.  Do you really think they would turn on the US citizens knowing that if they are doing it that their loved ones could suffer a similar fate by another LEO or military person in a different location?  My money is that if anything did happen most LEO's would be protecting US citizens just like they do every day of the year.  Why?  *Because that is the type of people they are!*  Imagine the local elected Sheriff telling his deputies to start rounding up people or shooting people.  I think most deputies would say to hell with that or actually do more.  This is not an uneducated group of people.  This is not a group of people that are easily pushed around.  The LEO's I know are smart and professional at what they do.  Not people who have been brainwashed or easily manipulated by politicians.

Our law enforcement community is wearing fatigues because *they are cheap*, body armor because *well bad guy's some times shoot back*.  They also wear riot gear when dealing with protestors because well frankly protestors *can turn into a violent mob pretty quick*!  They have a shotgun because it is effective at close range, handgun because they can carry it easily everywhere and rifles because you just never know when some nut will go off and have a high powered rifle.  Helicopters and drones because they are great for intelligence, etc.  Armored vehicles because you could need it for a variety of reasons.

Our law enforcement community is actually a great group of people.  Like Tgace said before it would be nice if people did a *ride along* just to have an idea on *what LEO's actually do.*  Sure there is a bad apple here and there.  Just like in any other profession.  However, right now in this time frame we have the most educated and definitely the most professional law enforcement community that we have ever had.  They are simply doing a job that is not easy and frankly most people do not want to do.  I can get pretty upset when some crazy nut tries to tie in our law enforcement community with the idea that they are the standing army that is going to take away our rights.  Particularly when you really think about it they are one of the groups that works hard to keep people off the street so that you can live in a society where you have the rights afforded a United States citizen!


I can guarantee you that the current LEO's I know and the ones currently out of the field will not let this country fall into some kind of dictatorship! Nor are they going to be the ones handing this country over to some group.  That is laughable in my mind.
*
So rest at ease*.  Carry on with your life and enjoy all of the benefits that this great country has to offer! * We are all so lucky to live here!!!*

Sorry about the rant!


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 22, 2013)

It's not a rant when it is fine oratory, my friend :bows:.

This has been one of those rare threads where I started with one idea in my mind of how a certain thing was and have been persuaded differently by the participants.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 22, 2013)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I can guarantee you that the current LEO's I know and the ones currently out of the field will not let this country fall into some kind of dictatorship! Nor are they going to be the ones handing this country over to some group.  That is laughable in my mind.



I disagree.  There is a lot of context here that needs to be taken into account and a lot of information that needs to considered before you make a prediction like this.  Here are some general categories that I think you would be very surprised if you started to do a little research.

1.  You need to take into account the history of governments in this world.  The pattern is that they grow and collapse.  They grow again and collapse.  The reasons that they collapse vary, but one thing they all have in common is that moral compass of authority is always compromised.  People in power may start out with good intentions, but those morph over time into evil.  Various countries around the world exist on a continuum of degradation and will eventually proceed toward collapse.

2.  You need to take the philosophy of the Founding Fathers into account and understand how incremental rationalization over time has undermined the protective power of the Constitution.  The document began to fail shortly after it was drawn up and signed and I think this reflects the general inability to control power. 

3.  You need to be able to look at your country from an objective perspective and consider the actions that show how power is being applied.  This will give you an accurate picture of your threat level from government.  For example in the USA, our authorities have declared that citizens can be killed, captured and imprisoned without trial indefinitely.  They have declared that torture is acceptable.  They have declared that you have no privacy and that they have the right to literally watch everything you do.  They are currently chipping away at your right to use force and carry weapons.  They are actively initiating force against peaceful citizens engaged in all sorts of non-violent activities.  They have more citizens locked in cages then any other country per capita.  Most of these people are in cages for non-violent crimes.  This country now engages in aggressive war overseas.  I can go on and on and on.

If you look at this objectively, the warning bells of tyranny are sounding.  The founding fathers of the US would be screaming for revolution, but the slow grind of incremental rationalization of those in power have slowly turned down the volume so that most people can't hear it.

So, what about the government officials who are charged with carrying out all of this?  On the whole, their actions have shown that someone will always obey the orders of those in power, no matter how heinous.  I highly suggest you check out the statistics given in the Milgram Experiment.  65% of people in the experiment delivered a fatal shock for not answering a question correctly, simply because they were told to do so.  What this goes to show you is power and the obedience to power has surrounded you with sociopaths.  Most people will hurt and kill you if you do not obey.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 22, 2013)

When in American history was this "golden age" you say we have lost?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 22, 2013)

Tgace said:


> When in American history was this "golden age" you say we have lost?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



The Constitution was violated shortly after it was signed by the people who wrote it.  Even they chafed under the restraints they placed on their own power and found ways to rationalize ways around those restraints.  So, golden age?  I don't think so.  I think this supports the idea that power cannot be restrained.  This means that we need to go back to the fundamental principles that organize society, IMO.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 22, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> The Constitution was violated shortly after it was signed by the people who wrote it.  Even they chafed under the restraints they placed on their own power and found ways to rationalize ways around those restraints.  So, golden age?  I don't think so.  I think this supports the idea that power cannot be restrained.  This means that we need to go back to the fundamental principles that organize society, IMO.



What..

What society are you possibly thinking of? I believe Hammurabi had some pretty kicking laws.....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 22, 2013)

I do not know about you guys but frankly I have never had it so good.  Both economically and socially.  I know some people are struggling but when I look at my whole extended family everyone is actually doing pretty well.  This is over a broad range of people from doctor's to businessmen to home makers, retiree's, etc.  Trust me things have not gone to hell.  Sure the US has some problems but let me tell you right now having traveled around the world.  I am really happy that I live here!  I am sure that Sukerkin feels the same way about the UK and our friends from Canada feel the same way, etc.  We all have a lot to be thankful for and understand that there are a lot of good quality people out there who feel just like us!

You really can count on people and particularly our law enforcement officers.  Just look at any natural disaster and the stories of helping and heroism that come out of them.  I saw two LEO's out helping ladies change tires on a recent trip.  Trust me they enjoy living in the US as well just the way it is!  Look at the fire fighters in Califronia, Arizona and Nevada risking their lives every day as well.

I know it is popular to go all doom and gloom right now but guess what?  I*t has been popular throughout the course of human history.*  The world is still here and most of us are really good people!  

Now I am not saying do not be prepared as pretty much everyone on this board prepares for violence in some way or another and we should all prepare in case of an emergency, natural disaster, violence, etc.  Just be one of the sane people who prepares instead of someone who goes off the deep end!  I am not saying anyone is going off the deep end but being realistic, rational is important in our society!


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 22, 2013)

Tgace said:


> What..
> 
> What society are you possibly thinking of? I believe Hammurabi had some pretty kicking laws.....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



What if the principles that Hammurabi used were the same principles that modern society uses now? Both societies require obedience to authority at their root.

This would make our societal technology grossly outdated.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 22, 2013)

Go back to middle earth...apparently thousands if years of human history has taught you nothing about humans.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 22, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> What if the principles that Hammurabi used were the same principles that modern society uses now? Both societies require obedience to authority at their root.
> 
> This would make our societal technology grossly outdated.


So what's your alternative.  If rule of law is outdated what would you like to see


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 23, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Go back to middle earth...apparently thousands if years of human history has taught you nothing about humans.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



The only thing that can really be said about human nature is that it is adaptable.


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> So what's your alternative.  If rule of law is outdated what would you like to see



I don't think humans are ready for an alternative yet, because they hardly understand the ramifications of the way society is being organized now. Take, for instance, the problem of evil. When the fundamental principle organizing society is obedience to authority, disobedience becomes the actionable evil act to which society responds. Even a commandment like thou shall not kill is merely just a command that requires obedience. This is of course how non violent acts become evil as well. Homosexuality is evil because it is breaking some commandment given by some authority. This principle also explains the moral relativistic nature of evil, because any authority can simply define evil with it's commands. This leads to the confusion we see today. So, simply obeying authority has some far reaching and harmful effects.

Noting these, what principle could replace the one we have now and perhaps grow a more functional human society. What could give everyone more freedom, more opportunity, and could lead to more peace and happiness in the world?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 23, 2013)

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/news/plot-kill-vegas-officers-thwar


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 23, 2013)

Tgace said:


> http://www.lawofficer.com/article/news/plot-kill-vegas-officers-thwar



If people want to be aggressive and hurt people, they don't need to fight authority, they need to become part of it.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 23, 2013)

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/news/sovereign-movement-critical-of 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## grumpywolfman (Aug 24, 2013)

After 160 posts, I think that the Colonel's speech is worth repeating.







_"There's always free cheese in a mouse trap."_


----------



## Tgace (Aug 24, 2013)

For someone claiming to be a USMC Col..he has some odd ideas about what DHS is and what an "Army" consists of. My 130 man department wouldn't even be considered a "company"...much less an entire Army. Hell we don't even have a long gun for every person let alone enough ammo to be compared to a military unit.

LAPD had to call in the national guard during the Rodney King riots...police departments just don't have the manpower or heavy weapons to "fight" the population they live amongst. 

I would think that a military man would realize that it would take crew served weapons, artillery and actual tanks to form a credible "Army". Let alone the logistics of what an "Army" would require. Even your whole PD armed with M4's and a Bearcat couldn't enforce martial law against a population determined to resist. This is just hyperbole. 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 24, 2013)

Tgace said:


> http://www.lawofficer.com/article/news/sovereign-movement-critical-of
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



First they came for the...


----------



## Tgace (Aug 24, 2013)

So in this world where I am now a member of Obama's "domestic army"...

Who are we supposed to be taking orders from? What is my new chain of command? Who is supposed to be providing our supply chain? Where are we getting our ammo? Food? Shelter? Im not going to be able to crush my neighbors then go home at night....



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## grumpywolfman (Aug 25, 2013)

Tgace said:


> So in this world where I am now a member of Obama's "domestic army"...
> 
> Who are we supposed to be taking orders from? What is my new chain of command? Who is supposed to be providing our supply chain? Where are we getting our ammo? Food? Shelter? Im not going to be able to crush my neighbors then go home at night....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



It will all be explained after receiving your Bacon number in 2014


----------

