Where FDR is stuck

galets · Number of posts: 213 Registration date: 2007-10-23

From legal perspective, how is the notion of using tasers different from the notion of, say, whipping the people who do not comply? Tasers are given to cops so that they don't have to shoot the guy. This implies that they can be used ONLY in situations where alternative will be to use lethal force. If taser is used on a person who is not threatening life of anybody, especially if he's handcuffed, then it's equivalent to use the gun to shoot the person in a foot in order to make him comply. Police already has all the procedures to handle such a situation, they know exactly what they need to do with cops who use taser. He goes to jail for excessive force, that's it.

Now from a free society point of view - if A can use a taser on B, then why can't B use a taser on A as a restitution? I think this is a viable option. For the most people, taser is not doing any long-lasting physical effect, which means, a person who was tasered has not too much to claim for restitution. I don't think it's any sort of cruel or unusial punishment to give the bully a taste of his own medicine. I think it is up to a person who was tasered to decide whether he wants money or he wants to taser the cop back.

Nielsio · Subject: Re: Where FDR is stuck Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:19 pm

Quote:

Now from a free society point of view - if A can use a taser on B, then why can't B use a taser on A as a restitution? I think this is a viable option. For the most people, taser is not doing any long-lasting physical effect, which means, a person who was tasered has not too much to claim for restitution. I don't think it's any sort of cruel or unusial punishment to give the bully a taste of his own medicine. I think it is up to a person who was tasered to decide whether he wants money or he wants to taser the cop back.

Conrad has tried to argue this point before but he failed. Does anyone know what thread that was?

_________________
http://thefreedomchannel.blogspot.com/ | http://www.youtube.com/Nielsio

Nielsio · Subject: Re: Where FDR is stuck Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:31 pm

Dylboz wrote:

So, then...nothing? Is that really it, our choice is all or nothing, and since you just said all -complete freedom in the absence of a state- is not going to happen, then we get...NOTHING? I'd prefer that this guy gets fired so that a the very least, he can't do this again under the guise of legitimacy and authority (however illegitimate it may be) that the state affords him as it's agent. I'm not sure how that's "silly."

I really don't see how you get so upset, morally, from all the rest of the police and the military. They are holding millions of people under a territory and extorting them. This incident just shows the reality of that. The idea that firing this guy will be any sort of justice in the scheme of thing is silly.

If you fire this guy, another will go in his place and have the exact same power. Whether these guys follow some arbitrary rules or not, it doesn't matter in the slightest.

The reason why people are upset with this cop is because they believe there exists something like a 'good' cop. This a fantasy; *ALL COPS ARE PSYCHOPATHS*. If you are not a psychopath, then you don't become a cop.

_________________
http://thefreedomchannel.blogspot.com/ | http://www.youtube.com/Nielsio

galets · Number of posts: 213 Registration date: 2007-10-23

Nielsio wrote:

I really don't see how you get so upset, morally, from all the rest of the police and the military. They are holding millions of people under a territory and extorting them. This incident just shows the reality of that. The idea that firing this guy will be any sort of justice in the scheme of thing is silly.

If you fire this guy, another will go in his place and have the exact same power. Whether these guys follow some arbitrary rules or not, it doesn't matter in the slightest.

The reason why people are upset with this cop is because they believe there exists something like a 'good' cop. This a fantasy; *ALL COPS ARE PSYCHOPATHS*. If you are not a psychopath, then you don't become a cop.

So, basically, you're saying: because it's not possible in out situation to excersise complete justice over that guy, we can't punish every sociopath anyway, lets just let this guy go and not face any reprecautions at all? Don't you think it will reward more sociopaths to openly use their power to bully people? And on the reverse side, don't you think, cops would excersise more reason into how they deal with people if they see one of their own chastised for abuse of power?

I beleive what I do see here is one of the fallacies, inspired by Molyneux. What he tells is: lets just do the things worse and then the whole system will crash and we will suddenly break free. I think it can be a dangerous mistake, which will lead people to surrender their freedoms instead of reclaiming them.

Nielsio · Subject: Re: Where FDR is stuck Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:13 pm

galets wrote:

Nielsio wrote:

I really don't see how you get so upset, morally, from all the rest of the police and the military. They are holding millions of people under a territory and extorting them. This incident just shows the reality of that. The idea that firing this guy will be any sort of justice in the scheme of thing is silly.

If you fire this guy, another will go in his place and have the exact same power. Whether these guys follow some arbitrary rules or not, it doesn't matter in the slightest.

The reason why people are upset with this cop is because they believe there exists something like a 'good' cop. This a fantasy; *ALL COPS ARE PSYCHOPATHS*. If you are not a psychopath, then you don't become a cop.

So, basically, you're saying: because it's not possible in out situation to excersise complete justice over that guy, we can't punish every sociopath anyway, lets just let this guy go and not face any reprecautions at all? Don't you think it will reward more sociopaths to openly use their power to bully people? And on the reverse side, don't you think, cops would excersise more reason into how they deal with people if they see one of their own chastised for abuse of power?

I beleive what I do see here is one of the fallacies, inspired by Molyneux. What he tells is: lets just do the things worse and then the whole system will crash and we will suddenly break free. I think it can be a dangerous mistake, which will lead people to surrender their freedoms instead of reclaiming them.

You're talking about two different things. One is morality and the other is efficacy. Yes, it would be better for him to get fired *compared to* the goal of raising standards. But that doesn't have to do with the socalled 'justice' of the situation.

You mention 'punishing sociopaths'. Did you understand the point of the opening post?

_________________
http://thefreedomchannel.blogspot.com/ | http://www.youtube.com/Nielsio

galets · Number of posts: 213 Registration date: 2007-10-23

Nielsio wrote:

You're talking about two different things. One is morality and the other is efficacy. Yes, it would be better for him to get fired *compared to* the goal of raising standards. But that doesn't have to do with the socalled 'justice' of the situation.

You mention 'punishing sociopaths'. Did you understand the point of the opening post?

I think I did understand a point: you wanted to say that FDR folks waste their time and energy on the stuff which is irrelevant, compared to the big picture. If that's what you were trying to say, I disagree. We're trying to imagine how a free society will handle situations like that. If a victim gets to legitimately taser the cop back and this will get shown on TV and internet and newspapers, that would have an incredibly powerful effect. It will send a very clear message about justice on example of relationships between individuals with or without uniform.

Nielsio · Subject: Re: Where FDR is stuck Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:56 pm

galets wrote:

Nielsio wrote:

You're talking about two different things. One is morality and the other is efficacy. Yes, it would be better for him to get fired *compared to* the goal of raising standards. But that doesn't have to do with the socalled 'justice' of the situation.

You mention 'punishing sociopaths'. Did you understand the point of the opening post?

I think I did understand a point: you wanted to say that FDR folks waste their time and energy on the stuff which is irrelevant, compared to the big picture. If that's what you were trying to say, I disagree. We're trying to imagine how a free society will handle situations like that. If a victim gets to legitimately taser the cop back and this will get shown on TV and internet and newspapers, that would have an incredibly powerful effect. It will send a very clear message about justice on example of relationships between individuals with or without uniform.

Ok, it appears you did not get the point of the opening point. Furthermore, our understanding of morality and justice are miles apart. I'm going to bed now. Maybe others can chime in.

_________________
http://thefreedomchannel.blogspot.com/ | http://www.youtube.com/Nielsio

galets · Number of posts: 213 Registration date: 2007-10-23

Nielsio, I'm sorry, that was not my intention to exhaust you and get you drop discussion. I might just not be getting what you're trying to say. If you don't mind, please, re-state your point and lets get some traction with it. I hate to leave the discussion at "lets agree to disagree" point, because that would mean we have not used scientific method to resolve the issue.

Conrad · Subject: Re: Where FDR is stuck Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:10 am

Nielsio wrote:

Quote:

Now from a free society point of view - if A can use a taser on B, then why can't B use a taser on A as a restitution? I think this is a viable option. For the most people, taser is not doing any long-lasting physical effect, which means, a person who was tasered has not too much to claim for restitution. I don't think it's any sort of cruel or unusial punishment to give the bully a taste of his own medicine. I think it is up to a person who was tasered to decide whether he wants money or he wants to taser the cop back.

Conrad has tried to argue this point before but he failed. Does anyone know what thread that was?

http://liberatingminds.forumotion.com/political-social-philosophy-f7/flawed-anti-death-penalty-arguments-t64-15.htm and further

I'm not sure that I failed to argue my point though.