Boy Delivers Blow in the Groin Of Common Sense

[Callipygous]

so basically you werent doing anything wrong besides breaking 3 laws. damn those blackhearted police for abusing their powers by arresting people who are breaking laws... your family has expensive lawyers! how dare they try to make you abide by society's rules.

[Rakista]

so basically you werent doing anything wrong besides breaking 3 laws. damn those blackhearted police for abusing their powers by arresting people who are breaking laws... your family has expensive lawyers! how dare they try to make you abide by society's rules.

 

We were breaking laws we did not create and could not vote on. The only thing in such a situation one can do is direct action and civil disobedience. I would do it all over again. If you are under 18 in the US you are no better than a slave in roman times where your parents can send you to mental hospitals for no reason at all, which is a popular way for rich parents to take vacation in the suburbs from "unruly" kids. I think children have an obligation to defy laws until they have the right to rule themselves. Even up to the point of killing, maiming or destroying the lives of your oppressors if they threaten your physical liberty for extreme amounts of time.

 

I am a completely sane individual yet my parents sent me and my sister (at the same time) to a mental hospital many times during the 5 years they were getting divorced and remarried, mostly due to financial disagreements. I had never hurt anyone or been in a fight or posed any danger to myself or others; my sister did kill some neighborhood cats with other children by putting a raid can taped down and throwing a cat in a garbage can with it. She has a lurid fascination with death. I never participated in such violent things as I was programming on my Apple II/c all day and night without the least bit of adult supervision I had found refuge in programming as I do now. I may of been anti-social and depressed but my parents were coked out 80's partiers who were home increasingly less as there jobs took them to meetings and rewarded vacations around the world.

 

When I was taken to the first mental hospital at the age of 14 along with my sister 12 we were detained in cells without any padding on the floor for up to 12 hours at a time as punishment and "treatment" and held down and administrated narcotics if we screamed long enough. This is without any physical force on our part ever being imparted and merely us disagreeing vehmently with orders to stop writing or drawing when called to a meal or activity time. After 6 months of this I had my first physical reaction to being imprisoned taking a chair and breaking 2 vertabrete and nearly paraylyzing my psychologist after pleeing with him for half of a year to be released to my grandparents who saw my incarceration as an excuse for my jet-setting parents to have children without the responsibility of caring for them. He was a podgy fellow with a swollen diseased liver who had a gait that amounted to a waddle like a seabird. He talked down and around children as if they did not deserve any more humane concern than a POW. I hope the pain in his neck reminds him of me as the 2 years of incarceration I had afterwards where I became increasingly violent towards an institution that regarded me as a subhuman because I was under the age of 18. When I was 16 I caused a concussion on a man who was groping a young girl's breasts as he was restraining her in the lunchroom. I took a plastic tray turned it on its side and bashed it repeatedly at the base of the neck and around the throat until it was black and blue. I knew by than that was the quickest way to take a man down, by concentrating on the throat and back of the neck. I would pry never of learned that if I had not been locked up. They thought about prosecuting me as an adult but after I started writing letters about the sexual and physical abuses they simply released me all of the sudden before I could stir up any more trouble. I have never laid a finger on anyone since than.

 

You know why I wasn't released? Because every time I would go home for weekend visits during those first 6 months my father and mother would conspire against me and tell them that I was unruly in some regard and was not "fixed". My sister released to my grandmother's care became a recluse and suicidal to the point the state institutionalized her in a dirty county hospital for a year as it was decided if she would become a ward of the state. My parents did not go to any of her hearings until it was almost too late. Eventually my mother reclaimed both of us when my father left her for a 19 year old Chili's waitress who took all his money, lol. But those 2 and a half years of my life remind me that children need better protection from police, the state and their parents and any action on there part to fight against such miscarriage of justices is supported by me in full.

 

Since all this trauma I have been largely unaffected by it graduating from college with honors and now in graduate school for the 4th year. My sister is not as lucky as she lives off SSI checks and requires massive help to inspire any action on her part to better her life. I often send her money when she reaches desperate situtations as my parents have not talked to either of us regularly in almost a decade. My point is that children should not be subject to the rule of the parent or the police without the ability to defend themselves. We were specifically sent to Kentucky from Califronia to mental hospitals by the way because at the time California was one of the only states to grant judicial review to mental patients under the age of 18. Other states should adopts similiar statutes to prevent the abuse of the system from people like my parents.

[AzurePhoenix]

if you give them any power they are likely to abuse it and any reaction even violent is justified in such a case.

Enforcing a law against people who ARE ACTUALLY BREAKINGTHE GODDAMN LAW is not abusing a power. Second, any derogatory reaction to a police officer is simply providing them with a second valid reason to arrest you and amp up the charges. Any violent reaction you feel you deserve gives the cops a valid reason to beat your ass into the pavement. You take a punch at a cop, you break their window, or you try to run, and you deserve to be clubbed and tazed.

[DQW]

but the primary motivation for the curfew is to reduse crime... its still limiting the freedom of the majority to prevent the actions of a minority.

So does the law that prevents people from carrying knives on aircrafts.

[Callipygous]

We were breaking laws we did not create and could not vote on.

and yet its still a law, and you are still required to either abide by it or accept the consequences.

 

The only thing in such a situation one can do is direct action and civil disobedience.

yeah, you definately couldnt speak out about it. you dont have access to any media, you definately couldnt write to your representation, you couldnt do anything. besides break the law that is.

 

I would do it all over again. If you are under 18 in the US you are no better than a slave in roman times

 

with good reason. generations of people before you have used their far more developed maturity and experience to decide that before that age you are not capable of making wise, educated decisions.

 

where your parents can send you to mental hospitals for no reason at all, which is a popular way for rich parents to take vacation in the suburbs from "unruly" kids. I think children have an obligation to defy laws until they have the right to rule themselves.

 

good call. i think stupid, uneducated people have the right to vandalize cancer research centers until they have been through years of schooling, and not only fully understand, but are involved in, the research themselves.

 

after all, people shouldnt have to put up with things they didnt decide on, even if they arent educated enough to take part in them yet.

[AzurePhoenix]

We were breaking laws we did not create and could not vote on ..... I think children have an obligation to defy laws until they have the right to rule themselves.

The laws are voted on by adults, adults who are responsible for the one's affected by the law, in this case, children. Your very admittance to breaking these laws, as well as your fundamental criminal attitude towards the law itself are the very reasons kids shouldn't vote, as well as why we need the damn curfew laws in the first place.

 

EDIT: in what way are you proving that you'll ever be fit to rule yourself if you can't even adhere to some of the most basic laws in existence? Maturity isn't something that's handed to you with age. You've gotta earn it. However old you may be now, your very attitude proves your still not there.

[Rakista]

Enforcing a law against people who ARE ACTUALLY BREAKINGTHE GODDAMN LAW is not abusing a power. Second, any derogatory reaction to a police officer is simply providing them with a second valid reason to arrest you and amp up the charges. Any violent reaction you feel you deserve gives the cops a valid reason to beat your ass into the pavement. You take a punch at a cop, you break their window, or you try to run, and you deserve to be clubbed and tazed.

 

Ok, so you are one of those people who can see nothing as acceptable unless it is part of the status quo? Well that does not require a lot of thought I suppose, must save you a lot of time when you get up in the morning by going, "Well the world is as it is and I can't change anything" Laws can be unjust and must be fought against until they are dismissed and I support any reaction by these children to this unjust arrests the same I would for blacks under curfew in South Africa or Jews under curfew in the Ghettos of Poland.

Police may have the "right" to exclusive enforcement of the law by violence but I support the right for humans to live as free men be they under-18, a different race or whatever and that any force used that singles anyone out under the law is unjust and should be fought against.

[Dak]

So does the law that prevents people from carrying knives on aircrafts.

 

So does the law that says we cant kill people: thats limiting our freedom to be murderouse.

 

I think you have to strike a balance... for example, by depriving me from the freedom to murder, you are also protecting me (and everyone else) from being murdered, so i think thats a more than fair trade.

 

by prohibiting knifes on planes, you are again protecting people, and at what cost? is it really that much hassel to get by on a plane without a knife? no. again, fair trade-off of freedoms vs protection (or another way of looking at it: you loose your freedom to carry a knife, but your freedom to not get stabbed is protected to a higher degree; i think if you took a servay, most people would place more value on the latter)

 

but by curfewing kids... sure you reduse crime, but at what cost to the kids? its alot more impacting to say that you cant go out after 9pm than to say that you cant have a knife on a plane.

 

compare with this argument: "surely if we gave everyone a curfew of 9pm, crime would plummet".

 

would you (assuming your 18+) be happy being cept inside after 9pm, even if you had a perfectly clean criminal record?

[Rakista]

The laws are voted on by adults' date=' adults who are responsible for the one's affected by the law, in this case, children. Your very admittance to breaking these laws, as well as your fundamental criminal attitude towards the law itself are the very reasons kids shouldn't vote, as well as why we need the damn curfew laws in the first place.

 

EDIT: in what way are you proving that you'll ever be fit to rule yourself if you can't even adhere to some of the most basic laws in existence? Maturity isn't something that's handed to you with age. You've gotta earn it. However old you may be now, your very attitude proves your still not there.[/quote']

 

Parents don't get thrown 5 to a police car without any seat belts and driven at dangerous speeds on a freeway. Children that are abducted by police officers should resist in any manner possible. Maturity is not following the law of the land buddy. Maturity is taking responsibility for your actions. If you do not know the difference than it would not matter to you if you lived in the US or in China during the cultural revolution. Killing intellectuals would be the same as jaywalking, curfew violations would be the same as torture programs etcetera.

 

Fit for rule? Lol, you are one to judge aren't you. Are you stained by the dogmatism of the military or religion or something else kooky? Curfew is not a basic law my friend it prohibits the free movement of individials for usually arbitrary reasons like race ( west bank in Israel palestines could be shot being in the wrong place at the wrong time), age ( many places in the western world but not in the east as much ), and such. If you do not think making something a criminal offense based on prejudging an entire group of people as "unfit to follow the rule of law" than why should they follow the law if they are already being labelled as maladjusted incompents? They should prove their competence by resisting, which I fully support.

[Rakista]

with good reason. generations of people before you have used their far more developed maturity and experience to decide that before that age you are not capable of making wise, educated decisions.

 

Age != Maturity and proscription of free movement by individuals in any measure denies just treatment by dehumanizing people. When I was 16 I left home and started working a graveyard shift at a local ISP. I had to get a permit to drive at night or I could of been arrested even though I was doing nothing but providing for me and my sister. Are you saying that I was not mature even though I was paying my own rent, my own groceries and taking care of my sister after being abandonded by our parents? I think your "good reason" is called prejudice.

[coquina]

This has nothing to do with going to bed' date=' just when you have to be off the streets.

 

This is an age-driven phenomena. All I can say is that it's nearly impossible to tell a human being they're doing something stupid [i']when they're doing it[/i]. It only sinks in when you can look back in a few years to see just how stupid it was.

 

When you're 10 you can look back at the crap you used to do when you were 7 and just shake your head. When you're 14 your actions are perfectly justifiable but you can ackowledge you were a complete goober when you were 10. When you're 20 you know everything, including what a dangerous late-night street-walking idiot you were when you were 14.

 

And it really never ends. I look back at some of the things I was doing when I was 35 and wonder how I'm still alive....

 

It never ends - I think the same thing about what I did when I was 45 - ie, took a boat out in a major northeaster, just because I wanted to go somewhere.

 

To me, the curfew laws serve 2 purposes - they attempt to keep the juvenile delinquents off the streets, but people bent on mayhem don't obey laws anyway. More importantly, they keep innocent kids out of the hands of those who would do them harm.

 

Also - if kids have school the next day, they have no business out past 9pm. And - before you go running me down as an old fuddy-duddy, my memory is extremely clear about some of the mischief I got into.

[Rakista]

Also - if kids have school the next day, they have no business out past 9pm. And - before you go running me down as an old fuddy-duddy, my memory is extremely clear about some of the mischief I got into.

 

The government should not act as your parent unless you do not have one and even than only with extreme limits and balances. If you don't know where your children are at any point of the day that is your problem not societies' unless they act out criminaly effecting other people such as egging houses, arson and such. A free society is measured by its lack of laws that prejudge people. All such laws along with racial profiling are reprehensible by measure of law and morality as they overwhelmingly punish the innocent.

[Callipygous]

Age != Maturity and proscription of free movement by individuals in any measure denies just treatment by dehumanizing people. When I was 16 I left home and started working a graveyard shift at a local ISP. I had to get a permit to drive at night or I could of been arrested even though I was doing nothing but providing for me and my sister. Are you saying that I was not mature even though I was paying my own rent, my own groceries and taking care of my sister after being abandonded by our parents? I think your "good reason" is called prejudice.

 

 

prejudice requires it to be unreasonable or without consideration of the facts. this is the opposite. the fact is many teenagers wreak havok. all of your examples are different situations because race does not determine things like that. age very often does. people go through rebellious stages in life, mainly during their teenage years. its not unreasonable or prejudiced to think that a group of people with a higher crime rate might be more likely to commit crimes.

[Phi for All]

A free society is measured by its lack of laws that prejudge people. All such laws along with racial profiling are reprehensible by measure of law and morality as they overwhelmingly punish the innocent.

SLOW DOWN, STRAWMAN!!!You are dragging a lot of issues into this argument. Remember that the laws are often objective in order to be applied fairly across the board. It is up to the police and the courts to moderate subjectively.

 

Before you drag Martin Luther King Jr out of his grave, just remember who the real culprits are here. Laws in response to criminal action are to punish criminals, not 16-year-olds with enough responsibility to warrant a special permit.

[Rakista]

prejudice requires it to be unreasonable or without consideration of the facts. this is the opposite. the fact is many teenagers wreak havok. all of your examples are different situations because race does not determine things like that. age very often does. people go through rebellious stages in life, mainly during their teenage years. its not unreasonable or prejudiced to think that a group of people with a higher crime rate might be more likely to commit crimes.

 

Just because you say something does not make it true. Show me a study that says that most people under 18 after 9 o clock wreak "havoc". I am arguing from a moral standpoint you are arguing from a statistical standpoint without any studies, I thought this was the science forums.

[Rakista]

Originally Posted by Rakista

A free society is measured by its lack of laws that prejudge people. All such laws along with racial profiling are reprehensible by measure of law and morality as they overwhelmingly punish the innocent.

 

SLOW DOWN' date=' STRAWMAN!!!You are dragging a lot of issues into this argument. Remember that the laws are often objective in order to be applied fairly across the board. It is up to the police and the courts to moderate subjectively.

 

Before you drag Martin Luther King Jr out of his grave, just remember who the real culprits are here. Laws in response to criminal action are to punish criminals, not 16-year-olds with enough responsibility to warrant a special permit.[/quote']

 

 

How is this a strawman argument? Any law that says that you are criminal because other people like you commit crimes is wrong on both moral and legal grounds. Argument by analogy is allowed in context or there would be no science, how else would you describe an atom? The fact that this is hardly a strawman argument and your emboldened attempt at "slowing me" to me is as some reactionary attempt to stop the argument because you have seen bringing up the strawman argument stop such discussions before and want to feel superior? If so please learn what you are talking about before you put in bold. I don't like wasting my time with foolishness or overeaction but when you say things like;

 

The laws are voted on by adults, adults who are responsible for the one's affected by the law, in this case, children. Your very admittance to breaking these laws, as well as your fundamental criminal attitude towards the law itself are the very reasons kids shouldn't vote, as well as why we need the damn curfew laws in the first place.

 

Parents are not affected when the children are imprisoned besides emotionally. They are not the ones being abducted by armed forces and imprisoned against there will. If you say that laws "voted on by adults" are good I'm not setting up a strawman when I bring up laws you do not like, what I am doing it proving the indadequecy of your argument. Does it matter if the laws were voted on the Communist Party in 1949 in China or by the Democratic Party in 2005 in the US? Your argument does not dileneate and therefore I may presume that you speak of all "laws voted on by adults" which includes a dizzying array of good and bad. Please remain civil and no more yelling it hurts my eyes.

[Callipygous]

Just because you say something does not make it true. Show me a study that says that most people under 18 after 9 o clock wreak "havoc". I am arguing from a moral standpoint you are arguing from a statistical standpoint without any studies, I thought this was the science forums.

 

 

when writing a research paper you have to cite any facts that ARENT COMMON KNOWLEDGE. it is definately common knowledge that teenage years usually involve rebellious stages often with minor acts of vandalism.

 

it doesnt have to be "most people under 18." just a higher frequency with people in that age range than in others

 

 

i read your edit. just because you got shafted by having crappy parents doesnt mean the system is bad. you were unlucky. that doesnt mean laws that apply to underage people arent a good idea. it just means you were adversely affected by it. you got the short end of the stick, that happens to someone with pretty much every law. double jeopardy prevents rapists and murderers who were found not guilty from being tried again even if we find more evidence. but the law keeps people from having their lives unfairly disturbed by spending months in court when they have already been proven innocent.

[Callipygous]

not sure if that was intentional, but your quoting two different people there.

 

 

Parents are not affected when the children are imprisoned besides emotionally.

 

your parents are legally responsible for you and your actions. if you break something they are the ones who end up paying for it. they are the ones who bail you out of jail, they are the ones who pay the fine, they are the ones who have to deal with all that crap for something they didnt even do.

[Dak]

when writing a research paper you have to cite any facts that ARENT COMMON KNOWLEDGE. it is definately common knowledge that teenage years usually involve rebellious stages often with minor acts of vandalism.

 

it doesnt have to be "most people under 18." just a higher frequency with people in that age range than in others

 

again, tho, its statistically provable that in some areas a higher frequency of black people are criminals, but theres no curfews being inposed upon blacks.

 

or, for that matter (to stick with age-based criteria), theres no curfews being plased on people in their early 20s, who are definately mostly responcible for violent crime. A tad strange that under-16s can be curfewed on the grounds that under-16s are yobbish, but theres no curfew for 20-25 year olds being proposed on the grounds that 20-25 year olds are violent.

[Rakista]

when writing a research paper you have to cite any facts that ARENT COMMON KNOWLEDGE. it is definately common knowledge that teenage years usually involve rebellious stages often with minor acts of vandalism.

 

it doesnt have to be "most people under 18." just a higher frequency with people in that age range than in others

 

What I'm saying is that such "common knowledge" is not well known to me. My exp growing up in gated communities and mental hospitals may be unique overall but I still can't honestly believe that a 15-16-17 yr old is more likely to be destructive than a 18-19 yr old in college which I have exp in. Look I'm not arguing from a statistically valid or invalid viewpoint as I'm unconcerned with studies in regards to human rights issues that seek to demonstrate a difference in someone for dehumanization because you can do things like this;

 

Abortions by blacks and other lower socioeconomic vectors lowers crime

 

Aborting blacks causes a reduction in crime so one could argue that all blacks should be aborted if you want a reduction in crime.

 

Curfew laws reduce the amount of vandalism done by some children so one could argue that all children should be under curfew.

 

People should not be penalized because of association.

[Callipygous]

again, tho, its statistically provable that in some areas a higher frequency of black people are criminals, but theres no curfews being inposed upon blacks.

 

thats because being black doesnt make someone more likely to commit crimes. being a teenager does. during those years your developing physically and mentally in ways that make you think its fun to go out and vandalize things with your friends. or film one another slapping random people on the street.

 

or, for that matter (to stick with age-based criteria), theres no curfews being plased on people in their early 20s, who are definately mostly responcible for violent crime. A tad strange that under-16s can be curfewed because under-16s are yobbish, but 20-25 year olds arent curfewed because 20-25 year olds are violent.

 

that is a tad strange... maybe because sending a 20-25 year old home doenst put them under control where as bringing a teenager home is putting them back under the judgement of their parents?

 

i dont know : P

[Rakista]

thats because being black doesnt make someone more likely to commit crimes. being a teenager does. during those years your developing physically and mentally in ways that make you think its fun to go out and vandalize things with your friends. or film one another slapping random people on the street.

 

Completely untrue. While this is almost all due to a culture of violence imposed by socioeconomic stereotypes this will not change in many many generations at the current rate. Black men are 3-7x as likely to commit any number of violent crime from rape to murder and giving them a curfew would actually make us safer than if we gave a curfew to 18 year olds. Neither one is acceptable to me.

[Callipygous]

Completely untrue[/url'].

 

no, it isnt. i think there may be some confusion on what i meant in my last post.

 

a teenager has actual, biological causes for being more likely to commit vandalism.

 

being black does not cause a person to want to rape or murder someone more than if they were white. thats just a coincidence based on, as you mentioned, social and economic circumstances. more minorities live in slums than non-minorities (yeah, i know, WHITES). if a black person is raised in a neighborhood that doesnt have those circumstances that probability doesnt apply to him. if a white person lives in those circumstances he has that higher likelyhood for crime too.

 

the only way to make that probability not apply to a teenager is to have him not be a teenager.

[AzurePhoenix]

They are not the ones being abducted by armed forces and imprisoned against there will

You first need to understand that cops are not frickin' abducting you when your being arrested, they're just cleansing the public roads of scuzzy bits of garbage that need to be tucked away from view. You break teh law, you suffer. And it's not like the five or so crimes you've spoken about are dumb little technicalities. They're all valid and worthwhile...

 

1 --- breaking curfew... no one wants little punk scuzzheads on the streets at night. As for those teens who aren't, they should be happy to be safe at home

 

2 --- drinking... you can't wait till you're of legal age to start killing brain cells? You're innate stupidity isn't good enough?

 

3 --- smoking... similar as above. Wait till your not your parents problem before you begin growing a lovely series of tumors

 

4 --- Resisting arrest... anyone who fights back against cops (who sacrifice so much in their lives to protect the public) is fighting for anarchy, and can't be trusted to move about without a babysitter.

 

5 --- destruction of property... if you didn't do anything wrong, why are you trying to get away? Even a criminal will get out without even a slap on the hand, if you're so innocent, you should get of scott free. By running, you admit that you're nothing but a lowly scumbag and the cop in question shouldn't have any probelm with stopping you with excessive force.

 

Please remain civil and no more yelling it hurts my eyes.

Then drop this sh*t about cops being trash. They put their lives on the line every night for nothing but a check scarcely better than a teacher's. And what do they get for it? Nothing but crap from anyone who's narcicistic enough to think they've been wronged by the law, no matter what they did to deserve being jailed /beaten /taken home.

 

 

 

 

Rakista, you're just one of those lowlifes who doesn't like anything that gets in the way of your fun, no matter how petty or harmful. Grow up.

[Rakista]

no' date=' it isnt. i think there may be some confusion on what i meant in my last post.

 

a teenager has actual, biological causes for being more likely to commit vandalism.

 

being black does not cause a person to want to rape or murder someone more than if they were white. thats just a coincidence based on, as you mentioned, social and economic circumstances. more minorities live in slums than non-minorities (yeah, i know, WHITES). if a black person is raised in a neighborhood that doesnt have those circumstances that probability doesnt apply to him.

 

the only way to make that probability not apply to a teenager is to have him not be a teenager.[/quote']

 

Until black people are in equal economic terms to whites it is meaningless to disassociate them in large studies like this, and I could not agree more that black people are not born this way but are borne into it. I did not bring up the biological difference, you did and I find it meaningless to talk about as I think everyone should be treated as an individual no matter the age race or reason.

 

Clearances and Juveniles

 

When an offender under the age of 18 is cited to appear in juvenile court or before other juvenile authorities, the UCR Program records that incident as cleared by arrest, even though a physical arrest may not have occurred. In addition, as defined by the Program, clearances involving both adult and juvenile offenders are classified as adult clearances.

 

Approximately 11.9 percent of violent crime clearances for 2002 involved only juvenile offenders. Of those crimes cleared by the Nation's cities, collectively, 12.1 percent involved only juveniles. In suburban counties, juvenile clearances accounted for 12.3 percent of the overall violent crime clearances, and in rural counties, juvenile clearances accounted for 9.6 percent of offenses cleared. (See Table 28.)

 

from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nviolent02.html

 

So 12% approx of all violent crimes are by children and children are approx 25.7% of the population that means the other 75% of the population is doing 88% of the crime and since I know for sure that is not done by over 50's than that means that if anyone should be under a curfew it is the 18-50 year olds. So do you support such a curfew to reduce violent crime, because I don't give a damn about vandelism.