As long as there have been laws and society, there have been police forces. They may have had different names, or been differently funded, but they existed. And they existed well before 1492, which it may shock you to learn was not the beginning of history…
Personally, though, I’d prefer a publicly funded and controlled police force to one controlled by the local barons or warlords. Seems like you differ, for some reason.
I would love to hear an interview with the jurors about this.
Just read Shodan or Steophan’s posts with a southern accent.
I’m disappointed in the bystanders. I hope I would have had the courage to tell the cops and his associates to stop it, or they’d could arrest me too.
Plus shipping and handling.
Regards,
Shodan
If you don’t stand by and let a cop punch an 18 year old girl repeatedly in the face, then you favor anarchy.
Well no, the family had to pay for the funeral expenses.
It depends on how you ask.
“I asked that fucking monkey to turn down his jungle music and he got mad and threatened me! The nerve!”
Nope, not confrontational at all.
I started my history lessen in 1492 since this thread is about the state of American policing in the US today.
Let’s go back further. Throughout most of civilization, policing duties fell upon the members of society, if you had a grievance you took it to the judicial body. Some societies, such as ancient Rome had a paramilitary force that did some policing, but most did not. Ancient Greeks did not, Vikings did not, Aboriginal Australians did not, AmerIndians did not.
The police force that we recognize today, including the private security forces of the 18th and 19th century America is a direct descendant of the one in 14th century Spain, which for all intents and purposes was a private security force of the King. So, still relatively new.
Your point that a police force is necessary to preserve order is demonstrably false.
When Norway proposed decriminalizing drugs, the detractors were vociferous in their opposition. Saying, in essence, that the country would descend into chaos. That the drug dealers and criminals would take over; that there would be an explosion of drug addiction and there would be addicts dying in the street. None of that happened. Why? Because all they did was decriminalize drugs. They didn’t change the morals of its citizens, they didn’t stop being upright moral people just because it was no longer against the law to do drugs. They were still the same people they were the day before.
Most people don’t commit crimes because they have a vested interest in a functioning society, not because they might get arrested. And those who do commit crimes are not dissuaded by possibly being caught.
I, too, prefer a publicly funded and controlled police force to one controlled by the local barons or warlords. It’s not an either or situation, I also prefer no police force to the one we currently have.
mc
Yes it is, because if you get rid of the one we have now, then private ones will spring up and no-one will be able to stop it. Because, contrary to your comments about history, that’s what has happened everywhere previously. You honestly think that if a peasant stole from a viking chief, he wouldn’t have his guards capture him and bring him to whatever passed for justice in that society? The only societies without a justice system - which necessitates someone to bring people to justice - are those so small that everybody knows each other, where decisions can be made communally. A population a millionth of the size of the US would be too large for that.
Whilst I doubt it could be proven, I would speculate that when primitive proto-humans first developed specialist roles, and were able to obtain surplus food by hunting or farming, one of the first of those roles would be a guard for that surplus.
New Hampshire police arrest a man who criticized them online.
Came here for that one. If only to see how it was going to be defended. So far, nothing. Huh.
What’s to say? The jury determined he was 99% responsible for his own death, and awarded compensation based on that. There’s nothing that needs defending, unless you think that the taxpayer owes the family compensation because he effectively killed himself.
It could be the case that the jury is wrong, of course, just as the jury could have been wrong in finding that the cop had no charges to answer in this case. Or, far more likely, you and other people that are complaining about this case haven’t bothered to find out what actually happened, and what the laws are and what the responsibilities of the various people involved are. The juries will have known all that.
Steophan, you’re a damn idiot.
If the jury thought it was the victim’s fault, they could’ve denied all compensation and I would’ve been fine with it. I think most of us ‘cop-haters’ would’ve been. But THAT is not the thing here.
It is the SUM. Four dollars is nothing but mocking the victim and his family. And reducing it to four cents is just rubbing it in. It has nothing to do with justice, it’s pointing and laughing.
Only a complete moron would miss that.
A moron like you.
I imagine they were required to provide some compensation, as they found that the police were 1% responsible. Are you saying the jury should have lied and claimed they were not? I thought one of the biggest complaints here was that people aren’t blaming the cops enough…
Also, it’s bullshit that people here would have accepted any denial of compensation. There have been tens if not hundreds of cases in this thread where the police have been completely cleared of any wrongdoing, and yet people like you still want to blame them.
He didn’t miss it. Not saying he’s not a moron, but he is one of the ones, like Shodan, that is joining in on the pointing and laughing.
Some people just cannot find any sort of happiness in their own life, and so they are only able to seek joy in the misery and misfortune of others.
How one defines 1% responsibility ? That’s just stupid.
No. The biggest complain here have been that some cops don’t act like people that are hired to protect and serve. And other cops who cover them. That is: the cops who break the law.
Even one person here accepting it is enough to make your claim a lie. And I just said I would’ve been fine with it. So there, idiot.
Yes, but you’re lying. You can’t reasonably say you would be fine with no compensation but not fine with some. There’s no mocking involved just (correctly) disinterest in the effect has on the man’s family. You honestly think people shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions because it might upset someone? That would be taking the bleeding-heart leftie stereotype to an absurd extreme.
Nope, neither pointing nor laughing, and not finding any joy in this. I just find it sad that people aren’t willing or able to acknowledge that the suffering of this family was almost entirely caused by the guy who was responsible for his own death, and instead are blaming the police or the jury.
He got himself killed through his own stupidity, and caused his family to suffer. He’s the arsehole responsible for this, not the cop who shot him nor the jury that awarded them adequate compensation.
I don’t laugh at tragedy, and I wasn’t going to comment on this until some idiot asked how it was defensible - a question obviously aimed at one of the people here with similar views to me. That you think anyone who has differing views to you must take joy in the suffering of others says far more about your lack of empathy and basic humanity than it does about anyone else.