• 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!

Video Shows Man Getting Punched by Cop After Resisting Arrest in Harlem

Right there is the entire problem with your logic in this thread: In a free country, we shouldn't harass, accost, assault or otherwise punish people because other people sometimes commit violent acts. Show me where this guy knifed, robbed, shot, raped or otherwise did ANYTHING aggressive before the cop stopped him and confiscated his identification.

I go back to my original point. Follow the law. If you don't and are caught and then resist, you've earned whatever lumps you get. And you're delusional if you think living in a free country means you can carry a knife while you're dodging bullets.
 
Not everyone has the resources to hire an attorney.

The problem is starting at the point of contact, it's starting with the police. We should address it there, not on the backend where the officer has even more power over the citizen as their testimony is ALWAYS given greater weight.

It's not a even playing field.

I agree, the problem is starting at the point of contact and we should address it there, but people who know little to nothing about the law should not be armchair lawyers on the side of the road with a police officer. The reason we are not the Middle East is because we resolve our problems by utilizing our justice system, instead of confronting each other in the streets. If you want to live in that kind of environment, there are plenty of violent places around the world where you are free to do so.
 
I go back to my original point. Follow the law. If you don't and are caught and then resist, you've earned whatever lumps you get. And you're delusional if you think living in a free country means you can carry a knife while you're dodging bullets.
Here's an illuminating article In new York city you can buy a pocket knife at home Depot and be arrested for posessing it walking out the door. Stage hands, carpenters, plumbers, etc have been arrested for essentially carrying their work tools. And of course there's wide racial disparity in the enforcement of these laws. Yet you defend what is clearly an overly broad and abusive law. So if your town decides to outlaw a tool that you use everyday, don't complain when an officer punches you in the face on your way home from work.
 
Here's an illuminating article In new York city you can buy a pocket knife at home Depot and be arrested for posessing it walking out the door. Stage hands, carpenters, plumbers, etc have been arrested for essentially carrying their work tools. And of course there's wide racial disparity in the enforcement of these laws. Yet you defend what is clearly an overly broad and abusive law. So if your town decides to outlaw a tool that you use everyday, don't complain when an officer punches you in the face on your way home from work.

Okay, in my state (Mississippi) you can own any knife and openly carry it or carry it in your vehicle, but I would not carry ANY knife, even a pocket knife, concealed on my person for the reasons outlined in the article you linked. What the article described is unjust and a misapplication of the law, but that's something for the New York legislature and courts to address. If they're not doing it and the law continues to be misinterpreted or misapplied then maybe it's time for some civil rights lawsuits.

But, once again, the issue in this thread when is it appropriate to resist arrest? My answer is never.
 
Why? If you ask me law enforcement is just carrying out rules I never agreed to follow.

Why? Because you are in a nation of laws and not a nation of men... meaning what you "agree" to means jack.
 
Why? Because you are in a nation of laws and not a nation of men... meaning what you "agree" to means jack.

That doesn't offer me a very sound reason to care what the officer thinks. The only reason I have to care what he thinks is because he has back up. If he didn't have that and he got the grand idea of assaulting me I would kill him without hesitation.
 
That doesn't offer me a very sound reason to care what the officer thinks. The only reason I have to care what he thinks is because he has back up. If he didn't have that and he got the grand idea of assaulting me I would kill him without hesitation.

Ahhhh... so you aren't libertarian as much as you are an anarchist.
 
Ahhhh... so you aren't libertarian as much as you are an anarchist.

You mean like how a libertarian is for voluntary association and freedom of choice. You mean like how both of those are in fact violated when I'm made a member of a country against my will.
 
You mean like how a libertarian is for voluntary association and freedom of choice. You mean like how both of those are in fact violated when I'm made a member of a country against my will.

No, libertarians may not be fans of big guv but libertarians are for the rule of law. Anarchist want to ignore law because they take a, "meh... I don't feel like abiding by it so I'll go kill a cop enforcing a law I don't like" attitude.

Massive difference between the two and you just admitted to aligning with the latter.
 
No, libertarians may not be fans of big guv but libertarians are for the rule of law. Anarchist want to ignore law because they take a, "meh... I don't feel like abiding by it so I'll go kill a cop enforcing a law I don't like" attitude.

Massive difference between the two and you just admitted to aligning with the latter.

If I don't consent to being a member of your organization then I don't consent to its rules. It's pretty straight forward.
 
If I don't consent to being a member of your organization then I don't consent to its rules. It's pretty straight forward.

Tough crap. If you are in a country, you abide by that country's rules... they are called laws. Don't like it, move to where there are no laws. Till then, your BS notion that killing cops enforcing laws as acceptable is just ridiculously childish tripe.
 
Tough crap. If you are in a country, you abide by that country's rules... they are called laws. Don't like it, move to where there are no laws. Till then, your BS notion that killing cops enforcing laws as acceptable is just ridiculously childish tripe.

You can call your rules by any name you want, but at the end of the day they are just rules that were established by an organization that I don't want to be a member of.
 
You can call your rules by any name you want, but at the end of the day they are just rules that were established by an organization that I don't want to be a member of.

That organization is called America and those rules are called laws. There is a way to not be a member of it. Why aren't you taking it?
 
That organization is called America. There is a way to not be a member of it. Why aren't you taking it?

Because either I have to be a member of another organization or I'm governed but seen as stateless. Neither choice really does much to resolve the problem.
 
Because either I have to be a member of another organization or I'm governed but seen as stateless. Neither choice really does much to resolve the problem.

What exactly is the problem?
 
Okay, in my state (Mississippi) you can own any knife and openly carry it or carry it in your vehicle, but I would not carry ANY knife, even a pocket knife, concealed on my person for the reasons outlined in the article you linked. What the article described is unjust and a misapplication of the law, but that's something for the New York legislature and courts to address. If they're not doing it and the law continues to be misinterpreted or misapplied then maybe it's time for some civil rights lawsuits.

But, once again, the issue in this thread when is it appropriate to resist arrest? My answer is never.

Fair enough -- and thanks for reading the article I linked. I don't agree, however, that it's never appropriate to resist. Open, peaceful resistance is one of the most effective ways to encourage social change. I certainly don't intend to hold up the man in this video as a Gandhi-like freedom fighter, but I empathize with his frustation. I find his treatment and the law behind it unjust, and I think it does take a certain amount of courage to stand up against misapplied authority. Most importantly however, I think the burden of justification should lie with the state and its actors. America was founded on defiance of authority, and our constitution was crafted to restrain authority. To me, it's pretty clear cut: You should be able to carry a knife, and you should be able to walk home unmolested. People are right to resist this type of treatment.

This may not be Thoreau's ideal of passive resistance on display, but neither is the haymaker-throwing officer some beacon of justice.
 
Open, peaceful resistance is one of the most effective ways to encourage social change.

In that case, what you do is get the biggest number of people you can to hold a rally and announce that they're carrying little pocket knives, and then dare the cops to arrest them. When it come time to get hauled off, just drop to your knees and go limp, like so many protesters have done in the past. Whatever you do, though, do not fight back! But I think the best thing to do would be to find some worthy defendants and follow the Thurgood Marshall approach: Make a federal case out of it on constitutional grounds. If nothing else, it should get someone's attention, but it's entirely possible you'd win.
 
In that case, what you do is get the biggest number of people you can to hold a rally and announce that they're carrying little pocket knives, and then dare the cops to arrest them. When it come time to get hauled off, just drop to your knees and go limp, like so many protesters have done in the past. Whatever you do, though, do not fight back! But I think the best thing to do would be to find some worthy defendants and follow the Thurgood Marshall approach: Make a federal case out of it on constitutional grounds. If nothing else, it should get someone's attention, but it's entirely possible you'd win.

I agree with this. That's exactly how passive resistance is supposed to work: Publicly provoke and then accept the arrest.
 
This may have cleared some issues up.

View attachment 67186980

Oh. So you shouldn't pontificate the question and if answering the question may actually benefit society? You know like: "have you seen this man." Or "have you seen this child." Or "did you hear anyone arguing at this time last night?"

**** me! I swear people just don't understand that one size responses NEVER fit all.

But what would I know? I've been asked questions by police and answered questions for them.
 
Oh. So you shouldn't pontificate the question and if answering the question may actually benefit society? You know like: "have you seen this man." Or "have you seen this child." Or "did you hear anyone arguing at this time last night?"

**** me! I swear people just don't understand that one size responses NEVER fit all.

But what would I know? I've been asked questions by police and answered questions for them.

While I agree, answering have you seen this man/woman/child may help society, it is not your requirement as a citizen to participate in the questioning unless you are being detained and even then, you have the right to a lawyer. So ya, this may have helped the guy. I don't know, all I saw was a guy who did not want to be detained get detained.

Thank you for doing your civic duty and answering to the police. That was your choice, you can use or not use your freedom as you like.
 
While you call it fascist logic...I call it liberal logic. Its liberal policies that are getting people ****ed with, its liberal policies that made the arrest justified, duh. Unintended consequences are the mother****er, arent they lib?

I'm likely more traditionally conservative than you could ever hope to be. But no, this is Republocrat fascism at its finest. Make laws that excuse excessive interference and monitoring, and then make excuses for the authority when they abuse power.

So instead of smuggly sitting back pointing fingers, perhaps it would be better to address the base of the problem. But deflection and intellectual dishonesty make for an oh so much more convenient argument, huh?

Statists :roll:
 
While I agree, answering have you seen this man/woman/child may help society, it is not your requirement as a citizen to participate in the questioning unless you are being detained and even then, you have the right to a lawyer. So ya, this may have helped the guy. I don't know, all I saw was a guy who did not want to be detained get detained.

Thank you for doing your civic duty and answering to the police. That was your choice, you can use or not use your freedom as you like.

I just want to point out that "cooperating" with the police isn't a bad thing. One of the worst problems for inner city police departments, especially in solving murders, is the anti snitch mentality. A mentality that makes an already horrible situation even worse because it pretty much lands the idea that it is impossible to solve murders or solve the problems.
 
Why follow the idiot? To have sufficient non-lethal force to subdue him without engaging in a fistfight on the street where you put lives in danger. What if the guy had grabbed the cop's gun, for example?

Don't matter, they are both black. No harm no foul, just another day in the hood.
 
I'm likely more traditionally conservative than you could ever hope to be. But no, this is Republocrat fascism at its finest. Make laws that excuse excessive interference and monitoring, and then make excuses for the authority when they abuse power.

So instead of smuggly sitting back pointing fingers, perhaps it would be better to address the base of the problem. But deflection and intellectual dishonesty make for an oh so much more convenient argument, huh?

Statists :roll:

There is no such thing as fascism in our CJ system. Everyone gets their day in court, hell...some people even get free legal counsel. Yea sooooooooooo fascist. Give me a break.
 
Back
Top Bottom