ParanoiA

And you won't get one from me as I'm of the same opinion. Recording police actions isn't perfect, and can be exploited, and yet that doesn't invalidate its usefulness and necessity for a free society. The same arguments I see against recording government servants are the same arguments that could be used against free press.

I'm not sure where my posts suggested anything other than how this is supposed to be. I was talking about their jobs and the role they're supposed to play. If I implied otherwise, it was unintentional. That's the quote TBK has challenged and I have defended. That's my position. Cops aren't supposed to be "understanding and sympathetic", they are supposed to apply the law fairly and equitably to all, which should mean strictly and objectively in order to qualify. Shit, in practice cops let people off the hook for all kinds of human reasons - including in trade for sexual favors, roadside bribery, or a pregnant mother who's water just broke. But they're job is to apply the law objectively, and I think they do that 99% of the time and I think most of us consider them assholes when they've done their job perfectly.

Weird. You should have read this first. Welcome to the reality that would arise? How about the reality that is? Here' date=' in [i']this[/i] reality, where you get to force everyone in the nation into the same pitiful standardized government education routine, they do have different versions of the legal procedures - entirely false ones generated by their damaged egos when a cop gives them a citation for a law they don't respect. And that's without the method of education where institutions compete for students and parents have true freedom of choice. Maybe then even small portions of us would learn actual useful information instead of leaving economics in the 6th grade (in a capitalist country...brilliant ) and miserably failing to impart the function and design of a constitutional republic (in a republic for crying out loud). Here, let me refer to rest of my paragraph that you conveniently left out in order to have something to say about it: See, the first sentence, "Cops are assholes and its their job to be." establishes the general topic of the brief paragraph. The following sentences explain and clarify it: "They aren't supposed to represent tolerance and understanding, they're supposed to represent intolerant, strict application of law. Go to court to get your understanding." So, you see, a respectable argument that's worth reading would contest my actual position - contained in the paragraph, not limited to the opening sentence. I could ask that you stop cowardly grabbing one liners out of my posts and then beating them up with two or three liners, or whole paragraphs, misrepresenting my entire position - but we both know that won't happen.

FCC Opens Inquiry On Broadband Regulation And here we go with the "protection" excuse... They're going to clean it up all nice and neat for us; force a premium distinction so we get to pay for our deviancy. They'll ruin it like they ruined TV and radio. And we'll accept it to the point we don't even notice....just like TV and radio. Bleeping words, black bars over "offensive" body parts....yeah that's real tolerant and free... Sanitized internet. Hope you're ready. You'll be telling your kids how free and limitless the internet used to be.

I hear your frustration man. I couldn't view this video' date=' so I can't comment on it, but I've seen this general anti-police attitude and it's essentially the association fallacy amplified. One cop is an asshole, so now all of them are assholes. Folks can get pulled over by good police officers their whole life, but one bad experience and suddenly the entire establishment is called into question. Cops are assholes and its their job to be. They aren't supposed to represent tolerance and understanding, they're supposed to represent intolerant, strict application of law. Go to court to get your understanding. Every charge, every ticket is disputable in a [b']court[/b] of law. That's what courts are for. The public making assumptions and then stepping in is just flat out stupid. To me, this goes back to the general ignorance by the public about how the branches of government work. They take way too much offense to a citation. As if it's all finalized and their guilt has been presumed and concluded. Tickets are more like accusations - charges by the officer. They aren't proof of any guilt at all whatsoever. They are not judges, they are officers. You go to courts to argue guilt and innocence. This is why police are not interested in arguing with you about anything. This is why they annoyingly obssess over controlling the situation - this person over here, that person over there, you sit down here, you go over there - this isn't about setting up court in the street, this is about keeping the peace. And keeping the peace is not about assigning guilt or innocence, or right and wrong. This is where everyone goes wrong with police. All of my buddies and their stupid war stories in dealing with cops always come down to arguing with them about a citation, or warning by a police officer. They all seem to think it's reasonable to strike up an argument with the police and circumvent the entire court system. This begins a chain reaction of disobedience by the citizen and reactionary tactics by law enforcement, that escalate. Rinse and repeat..same ole story. I hear them at every party. Of course, this video recording ban is not an answer either. Free speech isn't perfect speech. Never has been. It's not convenient, it's necessary. Particularly in checking the performance and ethics of our civil servants. I'm firmly against any attempt by the government to stop video recording of their work. As long as their video recording behavior doesn't interfere with the commands of the officer - such as controlling the situation - then I see no wrongdoing at all.

Right, because I'd rather be in a court room than at work, so the "I'm a witness" excuse becomes attractive to me.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. I guess it's a balancing act. Personally, I couldn't live with being an obstacle to saving a life. Beyond that, I see no compelling point to talk to them at all. And I won't. Of course, one could also argue that if all you're asking for is an attorney to be present, then delays become the responsibility of the police at that point. I have no desire to be uncooperative, just legal protection.

It would not have helped one bit. What this incident did was bring home the reality of just how vulnerable we are. You feel dirty, violated and invaded. You can't sit down and feel comfortable at all. It doesn't feel like your home anymore. I can't describe it to you unless you've experienced it yourself. I've heard this from people all of my life, but never really *got* it. Now I get it. The pit in my stomach hasn't left yet. My wife is scared to go to the basement at night. My oldest son doesn't want to be in the house at all. Everywhere you look it's a reminder that strangers were in your house, tore it up, dug through your most personal and intimate effects. I have a demolished shell of a gun safe still sitting next to my bed because I have nowhere to put it - I have no money to haul anything away. I don't get paid for another week. I go to my studio and my stomach just aches. All that empty space. People were in here. Bad people that didn't give a crap about me or my family - happy to take advantage of us, without an even remote regard for our lives in any way. And you have no idea who it is. None. It's psychological torture right now. And while I didn't connect the dots well enough, the intent is to regain confidence in our security. We weren't home this time. But what about next time? I've dodged the odds my whole life. This proves I can't defy statistics. So what's next? A mugging? Home invasion? Car jacking? Some violent attack on my wife? I can't pretend this happens just to everyone else anymore. That's the reasoning behind a renewed interest in personal defense. That's also part of the reasoning behind a renewed disregard for anyone that initiates malicious force against my family or my property.

After watching the videos, I will certainly cooperate and talk with the police as long as I'm not the subject of their investigation. I thought that was more or less implied, but maybe that's just me. You wouldn't want to be an obstacle in a time sensitive situation where further life is at risk, like a kidnapping or something, just because of the potential for honest human error to cost you. That would seem fairly extreme and paranoid to me. But if I'm the subject, in any way, shape or form, then I'm clamming up. That's not paranoia, that's wisdom straight from the horse's mouth.

Just wanted to say thanks for that. It's absolutely scary how innocent you and the officer can both be, yet find yourself being accused by the officer's own, honest mistaken interpretation. I failed the question at the end too. I just wish they would have talked a moment or two about respectfully remaining silent and/or refusing to talk with law enforcement. Somehow, I see me being detained for hours on end in retribution, despite my insistence of a lack of probable cause to do so.

See, I find that the most insulting. Picking on a single mom, working folk, that have to sacrifice to have valuable items of any kind. It's not like we're talking about the have-nots taking from the haves. This really challenges my belief that people don't do things they think are wrong, that they must lie and convince themselves they are justified in their actions. Maybe that's all bullshit after all. Well, it's Blue Springs, Missouri. Last I looked, the crime rate was a 70. In comparison, Kansas City was 440 at that time. They brag about their schools, and the neighborhoods are family oriented, mostly owners, but there are a couple of rough patches, like any city. Average home price is probably around a hundred grand. Predominantly white, but there's a lot of racial diversity exploding right now, or at least it seems like it. All good folk. (stuck up and superficial, but honest and respectful). It wasn't obvious we were on vacation because it happened the same night we left. So it's not as if our mail overflowed, or newspapers piled up - the classic signs. This is why we think they know us. They chose the window over the chair as opposed to the already partially broken window just 5 feet away directly over a glass desk - both windows were completely covered from the inside. They had no way to know the lay out of the room unless we already knew them. They also didn't get the guitar case for my Ibanez. This is highly odd, because they should have grabbed it since it was only a foot away from the stand - or at least suspected another guitar was in it. Yet, it wasn't disturbed - it was still snapped shut. Again, this suggests to me someone who already knew I didn't keep my Ibanez in that case, and that there was nothing in it, obviously. Otherwise, I would think it would open, laying on the floor, something - just like the rest of the house. Sadly, I'm fairly convinced it's someone we know. My son uses the studio for his band and has brought numerous kids over this past year. He's torn up about it because he thinks it's his fault, but it's not. You can't be responsible for failing to read bad intentions in people. It's just not realistic to place that kind of expectation on yourself.

Yeah, that would piss me off. According to the pawn shops here in Kansas City, they must share their inventory on a weekly basis with the police departments. Supposedly, there is an investigator or two that looks for matches between what is reported stolen and what is submitted on that list. And, they claim it works a lot. I'm not all that confident about it, and I find it hard to feel good about it. The thing that surprised me the most was the positive reception by these pawn shops. They've all taken an interest, sympathized and repeated to me how they work with the police - some even holding items for 30 days to be sure it doesn't come up stolen before putting it out on the floor to sell. And they all took my flyer and at least acted like they'll keep on the lookout. I really didn't expect them to be helpful or the least bit cooperative with someone who is looking for their stolen merchandise; a threat to their money. Of course, maybe that's because of what Pauls1950 said above and they plan on charging me for it. I guess I'll find out.

Yeah, this is outrageous. Might as well just give police a license to abuse.

Hey thanks all. Yeah, I have printed the pictures of my little home studio and put them on a nice flyer and included a list on the back and have been circulating them at the pawn shops. I search Craigslist daily - although I don't know why I didn't check e-bay. I'll have to check that one now. Hell, they may even lie about their location thinking I won't suspect. Thanks for the tip!

Well, the odds finally caught up with me and my family. We just got back from vacation early Saturday morning to discover we were robbed. They emptied my entire studio, every bit of it except for a couple of microphones still in the box that they apparently didn't realize were there. Turns out it happened the night we left. As we were enjoying the mountainous view of Colorado via Highway 160, our house was being invaded and my life's mission and purpose stolen. They got my precious Ibanez SC420 Classic electric guitar, a rare model that isn't manufactured anymore. I took immaculate care of it. God it's almost like losing a child. I've had this pit in my stomach ever since I ran into my studio to see it gone. I keep replaying that moment in my mind, seeing my studio reduced to empty furniture. Luckily they didn't notice my back up drive, so I've still got my work from January 30 of this year. But that still sacrifices 5 months of work. I'm a busy musician and I can't really recreate this work. It's just gone. For good. They completely trashed our bedroom and broke into our gun safe, which was a heavy duty Sentry safe. Luckily I only had my old Remington 20 guage in there. Thankfully they didn't trash my CD's in there as they are my only media record of my late Sister, other than pictures on the wall. I toggle from depression to anger over and over again. It's not just merchanise. I'm a musician first and everything else second. They stole my ****ing heart man. I'll never be able to replace it all. Everything you own has story about how you obtained it. Whether it was working your ass off to pay for it a little at a time - or a loan that took you years to pay off. Or maybe it was a gift from someone. Maybe you spent lots of time and energy to locate it. When these things are taken, all of your life associated with it is stolen as well. These things serve as cues for memories, and all of that fades when you have no catalyst, no record or symbol of your life's energy or work. This particular guitar was a gift from my wife - the first quality instrument of my life. When she was struggling with my love of music and giving me space and time to do it. This guitar was a symbol of her acceptance and support. It cost her every dime she had at the time, and we were just barely getting by in those days. Which brings me to my subject. Honestly, I wouldn't care if it was a father of starving children, I think I would shoot him dead to keep him from leaving with my guitar. I don't say it proudly. I'm kind of shocked at how cold I feel right now. I can't say that about the other thousands of dollars of equipment, jewelry and TV's they stole - just my precious. Can anyone relate to this? Am I a horrible person because I wouldn't hesitate to shoot these idiots dead if I had a chance to guard my "property"?

Ah, but see that's exactly the problem right there - I did not say the only course forward is to do nothing. You went wrong right here: It wasn't accurate at all. And thus all subtending logic was flawed. That I believe private citizens, or business owners, have a right to discriminate if they so desire and that no law should prevent them does not conflict with the belief in a possible remedy for discrimination. Perhaps government could take other kinds of actions, in the form of the proverbial carrot instead of the unconstitutional stick that was used. Or perhaps the citizenry could stop excusing themselves from doing anything and participate in large scale boycotts of any practicing racist business models. See, I never said the solution was to do nothing, but that's what you read. Probably because our discussions on a political forum are largely about law. And my libertarian intentions are aimed at law, specifically. I probably never gave the impression that the need for non-coercive remedies were acknowledged. Surely now you know, that they are. To be clear, I don't believe black folks face any specific obstacles today that white folks don't face. I also don't believe the black race is as advantaged as it could have been if they had not been mistreated from the very beginning. One does not conflict with the other, unless you're trying to make the case the retardation of their advancement is an obstacle. I don't believe it is. I think it's more a comparison of total wealth, not total opportunity.

I'm saying if everyone listened to her after a couple of doobies we wouldn't be posting our geeky opinions on a science forum.

I'm not following you here at all. Above I argued that white people experience racism as well and that everyone is expected to not be a racist and no one gets an out just cuz "the other guy" is worse about it. Then, below I argued that the black race has been disadvantaged by the white majority since america's colonization and that has real consequences to the overall advancement of the black population here. In both cases I propose no discrimination created by law, and no right to control other's property based on the repugnance of a person's right to discriminate. There is no remedy I can think of that respects both. I'm not sure what is inconsistent about that.

That's the same thing the critics said about Led Zeppelin. Well...except the toilet part. Well we like people on the crapper. We like artists and the more eccentric they are' date=' the more interesting they are. Art is a funny thing. You can act a complete fool and be rejected in humiliation or just as quickly be accepted as ground breaking. Mostly though, fans can tell who is sincere and who is putting on an act. I used to be a singer-guitarist in a band, and I'm just not that great vocally, but I can sing in key and women really dug my falsetto. But my buddy, the lead guitarist, had a [i']horrible[/i] voice, always out of key, very awkward sounding, didn't know how to manage a mic, and my wife and I and the other band members would just cringe when he started singing stuff. It was truly terrible. But people we played for loved him for it. Because he was so into it, so genuine and sincere and willing to be emotionally naked. This was picked up by the crowd and his horrible singing just didn't seem to matter. Lady Gaga has that to me, only she has a great voice too. I look for her music to evolve and change over time. If it doesn't, then I could see her fading away. But I'll bet it does, and I'll bet she impresses us for years to come.

I do get your point here, and I've struggled with this myself. The thing is, there's no way to compensate for history without repeating history. Does that make sense? Affirmative action requires us to duplicate the very crime, which we have gone to so much trouble to condemn, that got us here. And against people that are A) not responsible for it and B) that have fully embraced diversity and tolerance, spitefully thumbing their nose at our racist past. So, while I struggle with the obvious lack of fairness and the deep consequences of institutionalized, systemic retardation of the entire black race here in America, I equally struggle with a method to remedy it.

And that's why we always disagree. I think it's a matter of principle, to expect from others as they expect from us, and not to entertain desperate appeals to you-do-it-to-us-worse-than-we-do-it-to-you. That's preciesly why we get nowhere. It's precisely why racism is still going on. Because people keep excepting themselves and other groups based on "impact" rather than "existence". You won't change the hearts and minds of everyone until you expect the same from everyone. Just my opinion.

Not really. Most of the time I'm just arguing the principle and challenging assumptions. How that translates to policy and practice is up to politicians. That's why I always say compromise is for politicians. Because I actually have respect for your views, whether I think they're stupid or not. I don't deserve to have my way if others don't agree. So, yes my position may be absolutist, but my tolerance is not. Also keep in mind that it's my belief that what's happening right now is exactly what Madison, Jefferson and Franklin all warned about. A federation is joint sovereignty between the state and central government and right now the scales are tilted dramatically to the central government. This is largely because we allow ourselves to make exceptions to principles based on altruism. Engineering standardized morality across the 50 states from the central, federal government is our legacy. It is the crack aspiring despots and tyrannts require. That said, just like Rand, I have no desire to go revisit this legislation. It doesn't make the top 100 list of stuff that matters right now. No, he said "What challenges to black people face that white people do not?". White people face racism, including institutionalized racism. All of which is based on ignorance and resentment for people that aren't and haven't been alive for a long damn time. You may be thinking racism aimed at white people is powerless, which to an extent can be true. But if you think it doesn't exist, try taking a long walk through the ghetto with your girl and tell me how that goes. Here, in Kansas City, there are blocks that white people had better not be found on.

No, you're just misreading entirely. I've consistently made the point that you can't label your own business as a "private club". Your business model must fit the guidelines of a private club, not merely be "deemed" by you as private. I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer. I officially give up. What a succinct point. Nicely put. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I hardly see how you're not enjoying that same massive public infrastructure as a private club. A private club isn't a hidden club. It still receives a boon from any economic advantages from the public. Well that's the argument anyway. But it's problematic in its assumptions. If I come from a small town with no grocery store, does that mean the government must come and build one for me? No? Then why must the government force a grocery store owner to serve all of the public based on the notion the food there is essential? Denying an individual access to that grocery store, as cruel as that is, is no different than the grocery store not existing in the first place, for that person. If the "essential services" argument is to be consistent, then I'd think the lack of a grocery store should cause the government to act. Also, who said you have a right to canned green beans and processed meat? You have a right to roam public land and hunt and gather there - and cultivate your own land as you wish. That's where the green beans and meat came from in the first place. A grocery store, being an "essential service", is stocked with modernized presentations and preparations of this food. As long as no one is denying access to public lands, or depriving your rights to use your land to cultivate, then essential services are not being denied. Rather access to other's wealth, in creating and preparing pretty food, is being denied.