This is seriously troubling

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

BUT THEY CAN IF THE LAW IS CHANGED.

And then you have to DEFEND yourself against a FELONY which if convicted of will change your life forever in a negative way. If Obama proposed such a law you would be the first one POUNDING the TABLE screaming about loss of civil rights and us as a country moving closer to a Police state.

That is not true. The law will not change the definition of resisting arrest. You are acting like this law will make it easier for the police to charge people with resisting arrest and that police will now be able to charge people with resisting arrest for almost anything. This law will not make it any easier for the police to charge a person with resisting arrest. The only thing this law will do is increase the penalty for resisting arrest.

This article doesn't go into too much detail, so I don't know what the exact criteria will be in deciding whether a person will be charged with a felony rather than a misdemeanor. But common sense tells me that there will be specific guidelines. In the end, it will be up to the DA to decide on each individual case. They're not going to be charging people with a felony who did nothing. That's not what the law is going to allow and that's not what the DA would do.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That is not true. The law will not change the definition of resisting arrest. You are acting like this law will make it easier for the police to charge people with resisting arrest and that police will now be able to charge people with resisting arrest for almost anything. This law will not make it any easier for the police to charge a person with resisting arrest. The only thing this law will do is increase the penalty for resisting arrest.

This article doesn't go into too much detail, so I don't know what the exact criteria will be in deciding whether a person will be charged with a felony rather than a misdemeanor. But common sense tells me that there will be specific guidelines. In the end, it will be up to the DA to decide on each individual case. They're not going to be charging people with a felony who did nothing. That's not what the law is going to allow and that's not what the DA would do.

For someone not knowing the criteria you have no problem stating in certainty what the DA will do. The fact is this CAN BE ABUSED and you can't tell me that at some point it won't be in at least 1 case. Your whole entire argument is based upon what a reasonable person SHOULD do. Note to Rupe there are unreasonable people out there who think nothing of convicting someone of a felony if it will enhance their future.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by jms62

For someone not knowing the criteria you have no problem stating in certainty what the DA will do. The fact is this CAN BE ABUSED and you can't tell me that at some point it won't be in at least 1 case. Your whole entire argument is based upon what a reasonable person SHOULD do. Note to Rupe there are unreasonable people out there who think nothing of convicting someone of a felony if it will enhance their future.

It must be nice living in Rupert's fantasy world where cops aren't rapidly devolving into an unaccountable paramilitary force and Tiger Woods is still a threat to win majors.

[Pants II]

This is to protect the kids. What if that group of liberal protestors aren't vaccinated?

Then what?

Save us GUBMINT!

[bigrun]

Just saw this


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/...ist/ar-AA91vgE

[jms62]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Just saw this


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/...ist/ar-AA91vgE

If I was on the jury the second cop would be guilty just for having that haircut

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

It must be nice living in Rupert's fantasy world where cops aren't rapidly devolving into an unaccountable paramilitary force and Tiger Woods is still a threat to win majors.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need police. There would be no murder, no robberies, no assaults, no riots, etc. Unfortunately that is not the world we live in. There is a serious amount of crime, including violent crime in this country. We need the police. They aren't perfect but they do alot more good than bad. You are the one living in the fantasy world if you think the police are more of a threat to you than all the criminals.

With regards to Tiger, I still think there is an excellent chance he will win majors again. I'm not saying it's a sure thing. Some guys never recover after going into slumps. Daviid Duval never recovered. He was #2 in the world and he can hardly make a cut nowadays. There are plenty of good players that that has happened to. But there are also plenty of good players who went into bad slumps for several years and ended up coming back as good as ever. There is no way to tell for sure. But if there is anyone who I would think could come back, it would be Tiger.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

In an ideal world, we wouldn't need police. There would be no murder, no robberies, no assaults, no riots, etc. Unfortunately that is not the world we live in. There is a serious amount of crime, including violent crime in this country. We need the police. They aren't perfect but they do alot more good than bad. You are the one living in the fantasy world if you think the police are more of a threat to you than all the criminals.

More straw-man arguments against things nobody said.

Don't talk to me like I'm five years old. Obviously we need the police and there are more good cops than bad ones. But the bad ones are doing more and more damage as time goes on because they are almost never held accountable when they harm and kill innocent people. Not to mention the increased firepower they're getting from all of our surplus Iraq/Afghanistan military toys. It's a very bad combination.

It sounds like you live in a bubble where you never have any interactions with hostile police, which is great, but for the rest of us out here, news like the story Jim posted is troubling as hell.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

More straw-man arguments against things nobody said.

Don't talk to me like I'm five years old. Obviously we need the police and there are more good cops than bad ones. But the bad ones are doing more and more damage as time goes on because they are almost never held accountable when they harm and kill innocent people. Not to mention the increased firepower they're getting from all of our surplus Iraq/Afghanistan military toys. It's a very bad combination.

It sounds like you live in a bubble where you never have any interactions with hostile police, which is great, but for the rest of us out here, news like the story Jim posted is troubling as hell.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

More straw-man arguments against things nobody said.

Don't talk to me like I'm five years old. Obviously we need the police and there are more good cops than bad ones. But the bad ones are doing more and more damage as time goes on because they are almost never held accountable when they harm and kill innocent people. Not to mention the increased firepower they're getting from all of our surplus Iraq/Afghanistan military toys. It's a very bad combination.

It sounds like you live in a bubble where you never have any interactions with hostile police, which is great, but for the rest of us out here, news like the story Jim posted is troubling as hell.

Your exact quote was that "cops are rapidly devolving into an unaccountable paramilitary force". I think that is absurd. From the events we have had lately, I think it shows that the police need to be heavily armed and need to use more force, not less force. You saw the rioters burn down half of Ferguson. The police used way too much restraint there and they used way too much restraint here in Los Angeles. There weren't any buildings burned down here in Los Angeles but you had a small group of protesters running into traffic and shutting down freeways and inconveniencing a lot of people. Those protesters need to be arrested. They have the right to have a bonehead opinion but they have no right to inconvenience the rest of us (who also have an opinion on the case).

There are always going to be some bad cops. That is expected. There are bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad firemen, etc. That is reality. But just because there are some bad cops that hardly makes them "an unaccountable paramilitary force". Do you have any evidence that the police are using more force than they used to or that there is more police misconduct now than there was 20 years ago?

By the way, just because Al Sharpton says a cop acted improperly, doesn't make it so. Was there "no accountability in Ferguson"? Maybe according to you and Al Sharpton. But the vast amount of people in this country who heard the facts of the case thought there was total transparency and accountability. There was a full investigation and the vast majority of people including the DA, the FBI, and the grand jury found no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Officer Wilson. I don't know if that case is one of your examples of police acting out of control. It it is, then your definition is different than the vast majorities of Americans. That doesn't mean that you are necessarily wrong and everybody else is right, but it means that there are different opinions out there and most people would disagree with your characterization of the police being out of control. You are certainly entitled to your opinion but you shouldn't expect me to agree with you.

[ateamstupid]

Ah yes, Al Sharpton. No argument with a right-wing airhead is complete without a mention of their boogeyman shoehorned into it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25BBGnd-JkE

Look at that. That was the 2nd night of protests and an American police force's response to (at that point) peaceful protesters. If you don't think that's a paramilitary force and a terrifying look into what the future of American policing could look like, I don't know what to say. They were firing tear gas canisters at people standing in their own back yards for God's sake. How can you possibly defend this?

Damn near every single police shooting in 2014 in America was deemed justified. SWAT teams used to be deployed a few thousand times a year, now they're used a thousand times a week, often for low-level crimes. Countless people have been brutalized, traumatized and killed by cops with zero accountability and they're only getting more heavily armed and aggressive despite crime being at record lows. You have a lot of nerve saying the police need to be using more force, not less, but again, that's what happens when you live a completely insulated life from any kind of interaction with the increasingly militarized police in this country. You get to sit in your bubble and use every possible explanation for why the cops are always right and the people whose lives they ruin are always the bad guys. It's ignorant, juvenile and pathetic.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

It must be nice living in Rupert's fantasy world where cops aren't rapidly devolving into an unaccountable paramilitary force and Tiger Woods is still a threat to win majors.

Yep, already overweaponed, and get so much benefit of the doubt in these situations. They want to self police, for good reason. Why theyre determined to protect the very ones making it difficult for the good cops is beyond me.
youd think crime and violent crime was increasing, not decreasing. 10 times the former amount of swat raids, and mostly for drug raids. And people getting shot by trigger happy cops who just happen to be in the hoke when they come charging in unannounced in the middle of the night.
We should all be wary when suggestio s like this are made in regards to people protesting.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

It must be nice living in Rupert's fantasy world where cops aren't rapidly devolving into an unaccountable paramilitary force and Tiger Woods is still a threat to win majors.

And how often do cops say tell it to the judge? Theyll slap everything chargewise they can, and then you spend months or years fighting it.