• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

RT presenter choked by police

Maximus Zeebra said:
which European country are you referring to exactly?
Click to expand...

One only has to look up hate speech laws to see which European countries I am talking about.

you can also own a gun in Europe, but yes, it is more strickt, you need a licence.
Click to expand...
So in other words its not a right seeing how you need permission from the government to have a firearm.


owning a gun with no licence is the freedom to risk being shot down on the street by some maniac who owns a gun without a licence.
Click to expand...


A maniac is not going to use a licensed gun.So whether or not a law abiding citizen can get a firearm without permission from the government is irrelevant.


I support gun ownership by the way, but this is not a measurment of freedom.
Click to expand...

A heavily armed populace keeps a tyrannical government at bay,ensures that you can defend yourself if your country is ever invaded,gives you the means to hunt and allows you to adequately defend your home. So you claim that firearm owner is not a measurement of freedom is simply false.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I agree that it really isn't police brutality but the police should of just said.
"This is dumb, a waste of our time and unconstitutional, we won't enforce it."
That takes balls though.
Click to expand...

and any cop with balls enough would be fired, which is why we need protesters to test the first amendment. So, what the heck were they protesting, anyway? A ban against dancing? And RT, means "Russia Today"? What's up with that? Are they trying to prove that we're just as oppressed as the Russians or something?
 
Dittohead not! said:
and any cop with balls enough would be fired, which is why we need protesters to test the first amendment. So, what the heck were they protesting, anyway? A ban against dancing? And RT, means "Russia Today"? What's up with that? Are they trying to prove that we're just as oppressed as the Russians or something?
Click to expand...

I don't think a job is worth keeping if you have to enforce victimless crimes.
Sometimes, just sometimes, personal integrity matters more.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
RT presenter choked by police — RT

police brutality and arrests took place in Washington DC as police brutally cracked down on a crowd of people for dancing by a Washinton DC memorial...

a new victory for American style democracy and free speech and expression..
Click to expand...

It was obvious from the video that this was an organized and premeditated violation of a law that may or may not be stupid. If you choose to protest a law by violating it, you are probably going to get arrested.

As for the brutality, get real. Only a loser would consider what the cops did in this video “brutality”. The nimrods the cops got violent with were resisting arrest and even then, the measure of force the cops used was proportionate to what was required to cuff them for arrest.

Shouldn’t you dill weeds in Europe be talking about all the genocide that occurs over there rather than focusing on a few takedown and cuffing situations over here?
 
The mentality of this law enforcement is all you need to put a Jew in an oven. The rule of law is more important than common sense. It's idiots like these that make a Holocaust possible. There was no crime committed. The constitution or law is irrelevant when judging a person's action in terms of crime. One must only ask, what harm can be proven? Where there is no harm, there can be no crime. These idiot cops are a sorry excuse for a human being.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't think a job is worth keeping if you have to enforce victimless crimes.
Sometimes, just sometimes, personal integrity matters more.
Click to expand...

Enforcing the law means just that. You would prefer police that only enforce the laws they like?
 
empireofreason said:
The mentality of this law enforcement is all you need to put a Jew in an oven. The rule of law is more important than common sense. It's idiots like these that make a Holocaust possible. There was no crime committed. The constitution or law is irrelevant when judging a person's action in terms of crime. One must only ask, what harm can be proven? Where there is no harm, there can be no crime. These idiot cops are sorry excuse for a human being.
Click to expand...

Godwin's law. You lose.
 
jamesrage said:
One only has to look up hate speech laws to see which European countries I am talking about.
Click to expand...

You still didnt say which European countries you cannot say whatever you want about any groups..

jamesrage said:
So in other words its not a right seeing how you need permission from the government to have a firearm.
Click to expand...
Police.. not government..
police and government is not the same in Europe, with the exception of Italy.

jamesrage said:
A maniac is not going to use a licensed gun.So whether or not a law abiding citizen can get a firearm without permission from the government is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
More maniacs will have a gun in a country where you need no licence to own a gun than a country where you need a licence.

jamesrage said:
A heavily armed populace keeps a tyrannical government at bay,ensures that you can defend yourself if your country is ever invaded,gives you the means to hunt and allows you to adequately defend your home. So you claim that firearm owner is not a measurement of freedom is simply false.
Click to expand...

you dont need to convince me, I believe in gun ownership. My mistake, what I mean to say is that gun ownership without a licence is not THE measurment of freedom. it is a measurment of freedom, yes.but freeedom to own a gun with a licence is not that far behind..
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'd prefer them not always take orders and instead think.

Some laws are completely arbitrary and unjust, I'd prefer them to not enforce those.
Click to expand...

What about those of us who would like them to enforce the law? Are we chopped liver?
 
Godwin's law is fallacious. It' attacks the very principle of comparison, which is neccessary in which to bring weight to any subject in discussion. Comparisons are always neccessary. Do you always follow orders of fallacious reasoning?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'd prefer them not always take orders and instead think.

Some laws are completely arbitrary and unjust, I'd prefer them to not enforce those.
Click to expand...

Is smoking allowed inside these Washington Monuments? If not, would you be ok with it if police refused to enforce the no smoking law if 100 people lit up and puffed away in protest of the law?

What if 100 people pulled out crack pipes and started smoking crack in the monuments?
 
Smoking causes cancer. Dancing causes what harm? ...
 
empireofreason said:
Godwin's law is fallacious. It' attacks the very principle of comparison, which is neccessary in which to bring weight to any subject in discussion. Comparisons are always neccessary. Do you always follow orders of fallacious reasoning?
Click to expand...

Let me see, you compared Jews being thrown in ovens to a few police officers arresting a group of people who broke the law and you accuse me of fallacious reasoning? Thanks, I needed a laugh.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Let me see, you compared Jews being thrown in ovens to a few police officers arresting a group of people who broke the law and you accuse me of fallacious reasoning? Thanks, I needed a laugh.
Click to expand...

The implication is that they follow orders and the specific orders are to use force against people who are in no way harming others. Do you find this humerous?

The two principles are identical in both situations. You compared smoking to dancing, one is harmful, the other isn't. I'm afraid you are the one failing to compare things in an appropriate manner.
 
Last edited:
empireofreason said:
Smoking causes cancer. Dancing causes what harm? ...
Click to expand...

Dancing causes good vibes, great exercise and sometimes leads to getting laid.

However, it might cost the Parks Service millions of dollars a year in revenue if dancing was allowed for all I know.

BTW, smoking has been shown to increase the chances of getting cancer. If you smoke, there is no proof that you will contract cancer. If you smell smoke, you aren’t going to get cancer but you might be offended.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't think a job is worth keeping if you have to enforce victimless crimes.
Sometimes, just sometimes, personal integrity matters more.
Click to expand...

Well, that is your opinion.
 
empireofreason said:
The implication is that they follow orders and the specific orders are to use force against people who are in no way harming others. Do you find this humerous?
Click to expand...
I find your reasoning humorous. You can’t find anything real to argue on the issue so you make Nazi comparisons. It is the sign of a weak mind and a weak argument (with a lot of drama queen thrown in too).

empireofreason said:
Two principles are identical in both situations.
Click to expand...
Right. Arresting protesters who break the law is the same as the holocaust and the cops are no different than the monsters who threw Jews into ovens. What a great argument. Should we hang these Nazi cops at The Hague?
 
Yeah, blame those whose job it is to enforce the law rather than those who WROTE the law and UPHELD the law.

This is the ignorant stupidity of the American view towards Law Enforcement.

When they disagree with a law, they blame law enforcement and exclaim "WE THE PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER MAAAN"
While re-electing the retards who WROTE the laws and who appoint the judges who UPHOLD those laws the way they were written.

****ing ignorant Americans we have today.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'd prefer them not always take orders and instead think.

Some laws are completely arbitrary and unjust, I'd prefer them to not enforce those.
Click to expand...

What if they are thinking?

What if they are thinking that...

"The best way to get rid of an unjust law is to enforce it."

I notice that comment got ignored the first time I mentioned it in this thread.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Is smoking allowed inside these Washington Monuments? If not, would you be ok with it if police refused to enforce the no smoking law if 100 people lit up and puffed away in protest of the law?

What if 100 people pulled out crack pipes and started smoking crack in the monuments?
Click to expand...

Victimless crimes hurt no one, the ones you listed could have side effects on non using bystanders.
 
Caine said:
What if they are thinking?

What if they are thinking that...

"The best way to get rid of an unjust law is to enforce it."

I notice that comment got ignored the first time I mentioned it in this thread.
Click to expand...

The best way to get rid of an unjust law, is to not enforce it.
It gives it no weight or power, the unjust law becomes flaccid.
 
empireofreason said:
The implication is that they follow orders and the specific orders are to use force against people who are in no way harming others. Do you find this humerous?
Click to expand...
No. Law Enforcement Officers are authorized to make arrests for violations of the law that are above an infraction. (There are infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies, in that order). Any Law Enforcement Officer that is attempting to effect an arrest may use the force that is reasonable and prudent in the circumstance of resistance they are facing. Nowhere does it say that the crime have to be one which is harming others in order for officers to use force. Use of force is not a PUNISHMENT, it is a tool used to make an arrest in a situation where one is resisting that arrest.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The best way to get rid of an unjust law, is to not enforce it.
It gives it no weight or power, the unjust law becomes flaccid.
Click to expand...

But it remains to be used at a later date.

Enforcing the law and bringing the matter before the courts so that the courts can properly rule that the law is unconstitutional is how one sets a precedent and closes a "loophole" of sorts for law enforcement to use at a later date or time if the circumstances fit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom