America: over/under 50 years until it falls

Over/under 50 years

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
#76
#76
therealUT said:
Really? If a police officer tells me, in public, to stop and speak to that officer, and I continue to walk away, without saying anything, what response does the officer, legally, have available in most municipalities and states?

The officer can physically block my way; the officer can demand that I hand over identification; if I refuse to hand over identification, the officer can detain me simply in order to verify my identify; yet, the officer can even admit that prior to his request that I stop moving and speak with the officer, I had done nothing wrong. Hence, it is a crime not to cooperate with the state when the state requests your cooperation. That is certainly not a libertarian society. The only place that my liberty is respected by the state to such a degree (whether one views that as high or low) that they must prove probable cause before interfering with my life and stealing my time is my own private property.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, probable cause. That doesn't mean officers don't abuse the rules sometimes, but it sure as heck doesn't mean the entire state is totalitarian because of of what they give officers the legal authority to do with cause. Otherwise, it sounds like you're basically asking for law enforcement to be powerless.
 
#77
#77
UTRavens said:
Well, yeah, probable cause. That doesn't mean officers don't abuse the rules sometimes, but it sure as heck doesn't mean the entire state is totalitarian because of of what they give officers the legal authority to do with cause. Otherwise, it sounds like you're basically asking for law enforcement to be powerless.
Click to expand...

I am asking for law enforcement to be absolutely powerless prior to the commission of a crime. At the point in which there is probable cause that an actual crime (i.e., someone or someone's property has been physically damaged) has been committed then investigations should proceed. If no one wishes to cooperate, then no one should be coerced into cooperation. Again, if an actual crime has occurred, certainly the victim or advocates of the victim will wish to come forward with a complaint and testimony; those who are charged, as well as advocates and friends of those charged, can then come forward to rebut the testimony in an effort to clear their name.

If one who is charged refuses to cooperate in any manner, I see no problem with trying that individual in absentia. If the individual is convicted, then law enforcement may detain the individual against said individual's will.
 
#78
#78
Burger said:
The government will fall. It always does, and it always will. Egypt, Greece, China, Mughal Empire, the Monarchy, and Rome says hi.
Click to expand...

The rules are different nowadays. As technology and human knowledge improves, society becomes inherently more stable and mature. Governments in the past fell for reasons that, beyond their most simplest forms, are no longer applicable to modern times.

I don't think the American government (as well as others) will "fall" so much as it will be superseded by something larger. Some time in the probably not too distant future, communication and travel will occur with such ease that societies separated by thousands of miles will be even more interdependent and intertwined than they are today. You see this in its infancy with such things as the EU, and eventually I think we'll see entities that will overtake smaller national governments (that's not a bad thing) in that they'll all play by a well-established set of core rules.
 
#79
#79
therealUT said:
I am asking for law enforcement to be absolutely powerless prior to the commission of a crime. At the point in which there is probable cause that an actual crime (i.e., someone or someone's property has been physically damaged) has been committed then investigations should proceed. If no one wishes to cooperate, then no one should be coerced into cooperation. Again, if an actual crime has occurred, certainly the victim or advocates of the victim will wish to come forward with a complaint and testimony; those who are charged, as well as advocates and friends of those charged, can then come forward to rebut the testimony in an effort to clear their name.

If one who is charged refuses to cooperate in any manner, I see no problem with trying that individual in absentia. If the individual is convicted, then law enforcement may detain the individual against said individual's will.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying TRUT is 99% of all Police Officers are worthless?

Wow man.

That's just wrong.

You should be ashamed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#81
#81
NEOCON said:
I give it 49 years until the whole thing collapses.

Anyone care to speculate?
Click to expand...

Lets see. Too many people in prison for nothing. Companies NOT paying taxes. Food Stamp crisis. Rampant illegal immigration. Rampant hiring of illegal immigrants. Diminshing qaulity of American goods. Poor air quality. The housing and healthcare systems are totally broken. too many big, fat ass Mexicans in Nashville where there were none just 20 years ago. Jobs going overseas. Yeah, we will last forever like this :ermm: .
 
#83
#83
therealUT said:
I am stating that a large portion of what they currently do is absolutely unnecessary and unwarranted. I made no statement regarding the worth of the individuals.

Not ashamed.
Click to expand...

Like the entire war on drugs. That's $1 billion/week down the drain.
 
#84
#84
PimpVol said:
Lets see. Too many people in prison for nothing. To many people and Companies NOT paying taxes. Food Stamp crisis. Rampant illegal immigration. Rampant hiring of illegal immigrants. Diminshing qaulity of American goods. Poor air quality. The housing and healthcare systems are totally broken. too many big, fat ass Mexicans in Nashville where there were none just 20 years ago. Jobs going overseas. Yeah, we will last forever like this :ermm: .
Click to expand...

FYP. And the part in bold, whats that about? Serious question.
 
#87
#87
therealUT said:
Enforcing laws that one does not believe in...integrity, right?
Click to expand...

Didn't say officers don't believe in keeping dangerous drugs off the streets, I said that police officers didn't come up with the legislation for the "war on drugs."
 
#89
#89
BigOrange15 said:
Didn't say officers don't believe in keeping dangerous drugs off the streets, I said that police officers didn't come up with the legislation for the "war on drugs."
Click to expand...


Why do we need the state to protect us from ourselves?

Why not just let people make the decision on their own of whether or not to use drugs?
 
#91
#91
Pepe_Silvia said:
Why do we need the state to protect us from ourselves?

Why not just let people make the decision on their own of whether or not to use drugs?
Click to expand...

It's not you they are trying to protect you from. Drugs don't just hurt you, some can make you do a number of things to physically harm others as well. For instance, PCP. I'd rather not have that readily available for people to take whenever they want. I agree with you on the level that the state shouldn't be protecting you from yourself but they do have a duty to protect others from you and you from others.
 
#92
#92
Pepe_Silvia said:
Why do we need the state to protect us from ourselves?

Why not just let people make the decision on their own of whether or not to use drugs?
Click to expand...

1. Some people need to be protected.

2. Take a trip to the neonatal unit at UT Medical Center or the East Tennessee Children's Hospital and take a good long look at all the babies being born addicted.
 
#93
#93
Gramps said:
1. Some people need to be protected.

Darwinism

2. Take a trip to the neonatal unit at UT Medical Center or the East Tennessee Children's Hospital and take a good long look at all the babies being born addicted.
Click to expand...

The law, as it is, didn't protect those babies. Dumb people are going to do drugs; some of those people will have addicted babies. It's not an excuse or justification for the government forcing its will on individuals.
 
#94
#94
BigOrange15 said:
It's not you they are trying to protect you from. Drugs don't just hurt you, some can make you do a number of things to physically harm others as well. For instance, PCP. I'd rather not have that readily available for people to take whenever they want. I agree with you on the level that the state shouldn't be protecting you from yourself but they do have a duty to protect others from you and you from others.
Click to expand...


The only thing the state is trying to protect is its own power.

How have drug laws kept people from using drugs? All they have done is fill up prisons with people who were only harming themselves.
 
Last edited:
#95
#95
Pepe_Silvia said:
The only thing the state is trying to protect is its own power.
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen an officer protect a child from their high as a kite father that was dead set on beating the hell out of them for no reason other than the fact that they didn't want to go to bed just yet? I have... Now, maybe there is a little ass covering going on (there usually is) but the individual officer or at least the ones I had the privilege of shadowing in my internship are out to protect people from crap like that and they usually do a damn good job at the risk of their own life.
 
#96
#96
Pepe_Silvia said:
How have drug laws kept people from using drugs? All they have done is fill up prisons with people who were only harming themselves.
Click to expand...

They haven't. The war on drugs has been wildly ineffective and a massive waste of money. I can only speak from my own experiences and tell you that I have been with more than one officer that put their own life in serious danger to protect someone else from someone that was high.
 
#97
#97
BigOrange15 said:
Have you ever seen an officer protect a child from their high as a kite father that was dead set on beating the hell out of them for no reason other than the fact that they didn't want to go to bed just yet? I have... Now, maybe there is a little ass covering going on (there usually is) but the individual officer or at least the ones I had the privilege of shadowing in my internship are out to protect people from crap like that and they usually do a damn good job at the risk of their own life.
Click to expand...

Where ya at?
 
#98
#98
BigOrange15 said:
Have you ever seen an officer protect a child from their high as a kite father that was dead set on beating the hell out of them for no reason other than the fact that they didn't want to go to bed just yet? I have... Now, maybe there is a little ass covering going on (there usually is) but the individual officer or at least the ones I had the privilege of shadowing in my internship are out to protect people from crap like that and they usually do a damn good job at the risk of their own life.
Click to expand...


Many non-using parents also abuse their children. Child abuse is illegal, as it should be. So, how do drug laws protect children?
 
#99
#99
BigOrange15 said:
They haven't. The war on drugs has been wildly ineffective and a massive waste of money. I can only speak from my own experiences and tell you that I have been with more than one officer that put their own life in serious danger to protect someone else from someone that was high.
Click to expand...


You admit that the war on drugs has been "wildy ineffective and a massive waste of money," yet you wish for it to be continued?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top