More Cops Being Douches

[Heavan]

Smoking in public? It's an absolutely fucking selfish thing to do. I mean, you're spreading your cancer to everyone near you. I don't punch you in the face, don't blow smoke in mine.

I agree, and I never smoke around people that do not want me too.

But does that mean alcohol drinkers perform the same courtesy? they don't. they (at least, some) still get drunk and harm others either in a car, with physical violence, etc, but there are no stricter laws on drinking.

Its a double standard, and I can tell you why, most of the politicians that are in place to push laws? They drink but don't smoke. I bet you dollars to donuts most of them have one of those fancy bottles of brandy or scotch in their office, but most aren't into cracking open a back of Marlboros and lighting up.[/QUOTE]

You do realize that there are laws against drunk driving, right? And laws against being disorderly and a jerk in public? Meaning everything you're getting your RAGE on over is already being taken care of?

No?

Well, carry on then. I tried.

 

[Rubicon]

There's no such thing as a responsible public smoker. They will affect everyone nearby.

I stopped reading when I read that.

So, if I smoke alone, outside, say at work when no one is near me, I'm affecting people?

There are designated areas we can smoke, if a non-smoker chooses to be in those areas they are acknowledging our smoking ability in that space. (for arguments sake we're talking standing outdoors with a large open area).

Smoking a cigarette has never caused someone to flip out and beat their wife, or drive badly to the point if ending a human life. At least, none to my knowledge.

---------- Post added at 11:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:03 PM ----------

You do realize that there are laws against drunk driving, right? And laws against being disorderly and a jerk in public? Meaning everything you're getting your RAGE on over is already being taken care of?

No?

Well, carry on then. I tried.

*sigh* Why is it when we try to have a discussion, and someone has an opinion different from the majority, they are assumed to be raging mad over the subject? I'm simply discussing it with calm logic, but whatever.

There are laws yes, but they aren't strict enough. If smokers can't smoke in a restaurant, I shouldn't have to watch someone get drunk at that restaurants bar, sure most likely that person will harm no one, but there are those that will end up doing that.

Either way, lets just agree to disagree, you aren't going to change my mind, I'm not going to change yours and this is slowly going to degenerate into flames, I'd rather avoid infraction points.

 

[Krisken]

1 Demerit.

 

[Heavan]

Drinking beer has never caused someone to give cancer to some guy waiting for the bus a few meters away. And what do you mean that you shouldn't have to watch someone drink in at a restaurant? As long as they haven't gone overboard it's no different from someone drinking water, and if they do go overboard... well, I've never not seen someone get kicked out for causing a scene. There are laws against that, too. Smoke, on the other hand, doesn't stay in any restaurant-designated boundaries, and has guaranteed harmful effects if inhaled.

And I have to say, I find the straw-grasping to try and make a villain out of drinking when the comparisons between it and smoking are strawmen at best, well, I find it funny.

And how did we get on this topic, anyway? The topic is about police being jerks (they aren't).

 

[North_Ranger]

I have never ridden in a car without putting on a seat belt.
I have the best car seat for my daughter that money can buy.
I will teach her to wear her seat belt EVERY SINGLE TIME she gets into a car.

I am 100% against mandatory seat belt laws.

Freedom includes the freedom to be a complete idiot, as long as you don't infringe on others' rights.

As for restaurant smoking, there is no such thing as a "right" to dine or drink in an establishment without encountering smoke. You have the free will to not work in or patronize smoking establishments. Quit inventing "rights" out of whole cloth.

The person in the front seat wears a seat belt. The person behind him, doesn't.

There's a crash.

The person in the front seat would be safe - save for the person behind him, now continuing at the driving car's speed, smashing into his back, causing him to crash against the steering wheel/whatever you call the front of 'shotgun'.

The person in the front seat dies of internal injuries. Therefore, the person behind him infringed on his right to stay alive.

Just sayin', man.

 

[Espy]

I have never ridden in a car without putting on a seat belt.
I have the best car seat for my daughter that money can buy.
I will teach her to wear her seat belt EVERY SINGLE TIME she gets into a car.

I am 100% against mandatory seat belt laws.

Freedom includes the freedom to be a complete idiot, as long as you don't infringe on others' rights.

As for restaurant smoking, there is no such thing as a "right" to dine or drink in an establishment without encountering smoke. You have the free will to not work in or patronize smoking establishments. Quit inventing "rights" out of whole cloth.

The person in the front seat wears a seat belt. The person behind him, doesn't.

There's a crash.

The person in the front seat would be safe - save for the person behind him, now continuing at the driving car's speed, smashing into his back, causing him to crash against the steering wheel/whatever you call the front of 'shotgun'.

The person in the front seat dies of internal injuries. Therefore, the person behind him infringed on his right to stay alive.

Just sayin', man.[/QUOTE]

Sure but how far do we take that? That logic could be used for just about anything that can result in injury. I'd use an analogy but I'd be afraid of giving our greedy as shit politicians any other way to force us to do something or have to pay for a ticket.

 

[North_Ranger]

I would say the point is valid, since once you're in a car, it's not just your life that's involved, it's everyone's who's sitting in the car with ya.

 

[Armadillo]

I would say the point is valid, since once you're in a car, it's not just your life that's involved, it's everyone's who's sitting in the car with ya.

And, as the operator of the car with your own free will, you can tell the person not wearing their seatbelt to get the f out. The overarching point is that there is no reason for the government to involve themselves in this sort of thing. If you're moron enough to not wear a seat belt or a helmet on a motorcycle and you die in a crash, there's not a government mandate on Earth that will save your stupid ass.

 

[Chibibar]

Mav: if you smoke alone, and no one else is there. The smoke DOES linger when someone else decides to step outside AFTER you are done.

I know this to be true cause our campus has a designated smoking area (technically you can't smoke within 50 feet of the building)

I have to walk by this area where people usually smoke to get to the cafeteria. Sure I can detour about 200 feet or more (depending on the wind) not to smell smoke.

Now, what about indoor? if you smoke in a place (designated area) and it is "open" even after you leave, the smell linger there.

As for seatbelts, I think originally it was design to protect lives. The government is trying to look out for its people. can someone give me non-seatbelt casualties before the law was in place? (like 50+ years ago) vs today? I'm sure there are such data.

 

[ElJuski]

Oh god we're talking about freedom of rights oh god oh god this is going to hell in a handbasket

 

[Troll]

Oh god we're talking about freedom of rights oh god oh god this is going to hell in a handbasket

Look what you've done, Le Quack. You made Juski cry.

 

[IronBrig4]

There is a compelling governmental interest to keep its citizens alive and well. Seatbelts help do that. Therefore, the government has a compelling reason to impose seatbelt laws on people who use public roads and highways. It's the same reason we have federal and/or state inspectors who examine the hygienic qualities of restaurants and meat-packing plants.

 

[SeraRelm]

HEY GUYS! WHAT'S GOIN' ON IN HERE?

 

[North_Ranger]

I would say the point is valid, since once you're in a car, it's not just your life that's involved, it's everyone's who's sitting in the car with ya.

And, as the operator of the car with your own free will, you can tell the person not wearing their seatbelt to get the f out. The overarching point is that there is no reason for the government to involve themselves in this sort of thing. If you're moron enough to not wear a seat belt or a helmet on a motorcycle and you die in a crash, there's not a government mandate on Earth that will save your stupid ass.[/QUOTE]

You didn't read my example, did ya?

 

[Shannow]

Trolling - We have no problems with heated discussion, but require you keep it to the subject at hand. If you're making uncalled for personal attacks or simply posting to get a rise out of another member, you will get very little warnings before there will be repercussions.

 

[Qonas]

Once again, leave it to Shannow to be the wise man in the room. You have earned your alcohol, sensai.

 

[Krisken]

Mav is once more proving he is an idiot, and quack is that idiot stoner we all see/saw in college parties who, like totally think there shouldn't be any cops, man.


We all knew this before, and there is no point in even having this discussion with them.

Except they didn't say that at all.

I think people are oversimplifying a little on this issue. There are a lot of good police men and women who do a very tough job. There are also a few police officers who garner a seriously negative reputation for police by corrupting evidence and general d-baggery. Definitely a minority. I don't think anyone is saying this isn't the minority of police officers (I think).

 

[Twitch]

Don't call Mav an idiot over this, I'm with you guys on smoking but the guys being pretty calm about stating his opinion.

 

[Troll]

Mav is once more proving he is an idiot, and quack is that idiot stoner we all see/saw in college parties who, like totally think there shouldn't be any cops, man.


We all knew this before, and there is no point in even having this discussion with them.

Except they didn't say that at all.

I think people are oversimplifying a little on this issue. There are a lot of good police men and women who do a very tough job. There are also a few police officers who garner a seriously negative reputation for police by corrupting evidence and general d-baggery. Definitely a minority. I don't think anyone is saying this isn't the minority of police officers (I think).[/QUOTE]

But the issue I have with Le Quack is that he's saying the entire profession should be condemned because of that minority.

 

[Bowielee]

Mav: if you smoke alone, and no one else is there. The smoke DOES linger when someone else decides to step outside AFTER you are done.

I know this to be true cause our campus has a designated smoking area (technically you can't smoke within 50 feet of the building)

I have to walk by this area where people usually smoke to get to the cafeteria. Sure I can detour about 200 feet or more (depending on the wind) not to smell smoke.

Now, what about indoor? if you smoke in a place (designated area) and it is "open" even after you leave, the smell linger there.

As for seatbelts, I think originally it was design to protect lives. The government is trying to look out for its people. can someone give me non-seatbelt casualties before the law was in place? (like 50+ years ago) vs today? I'm sure there are such data.

Wow, so it's the SMELL that causes cancer? Holy crap. /sarcasm

 

[Shannow]

There are laws yes, but they aren't strict enough. If smokers can't smoke in a restaurant, I shouldn't have to watch someone get drunk at that restaurants bar, sure most likely that person will harm no one, but there are those that will end up doing that.
.

That is just stupid. me sitting at the bar drinking does not compare to you sitting there smoking. My drinking effects you not at all, and if it does, then guess what, I am removed.

Smoking in an enclsoed space, by its very nature, effects those around it. You are completely wrong on this to compare the two, as that they are very different. and to state otherwise is foolish and stupid. Flat out. And yes, I am a smoker.

 

[WolfOfOdin]

But who watches the watchmen!?

You beat me to it.

Seriously, corruption will run into any department. There's no way to effectively to police the police because the guys you hire to watch the cops will needs someone watching them.

You'd need a paragon of absolute virtue and I don't believe that has EVER existed.[/QUOTE]

Ok then. We should be ruled by machines. I'll name him Collossus, nothing will go wrong.

 

[Norris]

You have to admit, little by little Americans are losing our freedoms.

The freedom to inhale cancer causing chemicals before exhaling them onto other people and the freedom to do faceplants through windshields or get our faces rearranged by our dashboards. Truly, everything Orwell predicted has come to pass.

 

[ElJuski]

There is a direct correlation between someone smoking in a bar and blowing it into someone's face and someone having a drink at the bar.

Just because someone has the potential to do something hazardous to someone else's health is extremely different than someone activelydoing something hazardous to someone else's health.

That said, I still believe a bar should have the option to make their bar a smoking bar, where people actively understand the consequences of their actions and company. But more and more it's becoming inconsequential anyway, so it's not really high on my priority list.

And also, there will always be corrupt individuals in any field, especially when power comes into play. However, how much does it really fuck with you, personally? For me, hardly ever. I live my life without hardly any police harassment, and when they do get me, they've always had an understandable reason.

Now, if I were a minority in the inner city, that might be a different story...

But the thing is, we all end up playing games. It's whether or not we're the ones doing the illegal thing and not getting caught, or if they're doing the illegal thing and getting away with it. I doubt any of us here are the paradigm law-abiding moral citizen.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

That said, I still believe a bar should have the option to make their bar a smoking bar

I suppose I wouldn't get much in the way of tips, but if I worked there I'd wear a gas mask and some cheap hazmat suit.

 

[Adam]

Re: Seat belts.

No one ever complained after an accident that they wished they weren't wearing their seatbelt.

And I suppose no one ever complained after an accident that they wished they were wearing a seatbelt because guess what? They're dead!
http://www.journalstar.com/news/local/article_d61cc109-3492-54ef-849d-0a5d7f48027a.html

 

[Espy]

Re: Seat belts.

No one ever complained after an accident that they wished they weren't wearing their seatbelt.

And I suppose no one ever complained after an accident that they wished they were wearing a seatbelt because guess what? They're dead!
http://www.journalstar.com/news/local/article_d61cc109-3492-54ef-849d-0a5d7f48027a.html

I don't think anyone here is arguing that it's a bad idea to wear a seat belt. Instead people are merely saying, there are lots of dangerous things we do every day, many that can impact others around us. We don't like the government trying to nanny us. If it's truly a detriment to others then argue for it. If you just like the idea of the government saying "Do this because we say so" then thats fine to if you can argue why thats all well and good.
I think the discussion is less about wearing a seatbelt and more about where does government control of our lives start and end?

 

[Adam]

Re: Seat belts.

No one ever complained after an accident that they wished they weren't wearing their seatbelt.

And I suppose no one ever complained after an accident that they wished they were wearing a seatbelt because guess what? They're dead!
http://www.journalstar.com/news/local/article_d61cc109-3492-54ef-849d-0a5d7f48027a.html

I don't think anyone here is arguing that it's a bad idea to wear a seat belt. Instead people are merely saying, there are lots of dangerous things we do every day, many that can impact others around us. We don't like the government trying to nanny us. If it's truly a detriment to others then argue for it. If you just like the idea of the government saying "Do this because we say so" then thats fine to if you can argue why thats all well and good.
I think the discussion is less about wearing a seatbelt and more about where does government control of our lives start and end?[/QUOTE]

I had hoped that my link would make the point a little more clear.

Arguing about theoreticals over government control is all fine and dandy, however those arguing against government mandating safety equipment are a dying breed, literally.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

That article is full of tragic irony, Adammon. But at least the kid apparently died doing what he loved. Or would that be not doing what he hated?

 

[Le Quack]

Mav is once more proving he is an idiot, and quack is that idiot stoner we all see/saw in college parties who, like totally think there shouldn't be any cops, man.


We all knew this before, and there is no point in even having this discussion with them.

Except they didn't say that at all.

I think people are oversimplifying a little on this issue. There are a lot of good police men and women who do a very tough job. There are also a few police officers who garner a seriously negative reputation for police by corrupting evidence and general d-baggery. Definitely a minority. I don't think anyone is saying this isn't the minority of police officers (I think).[/QUOTE]

But the issue I have with Le Quack is that he's saying the entire profession should be condemned because of that minority.[/QUOTE]

People think I'm talking about an entire profession when I have explicitly said other wise several times. I assume they just ignore what I say.

 

[Espy]

Re: Seat belts.

No one ever complained after an accident that they wished they weren't wearing their seatbelt.

And I suppose no one ever complained after an accident that they wished they were wearing a seatbelt because guess what? They're dead!
http://www.journalstar.com/news/local/article_d61cc109-3492-54ef-849d-0a5d7f48027a.html

I don't think anyone here is arguing that it's a bad idea to wear a seat belt. Instead people are merely saying, there are lots of dangerous things we do every day, many that can impact others around us. We don't like the government trying to nanny us. If it's truly a detriment to others then argue for it. If you just like the idea of the government saying "Do this because we say so" then thats fine to if you can argue why thats all well and good.
I think the discussion is less about wearing a seatbelt and more about where does government control of our lives start and end?[/QUOTE]

I had hoped that my link would make the point a little more clear.

Arguing about theoreticals over government control is all fine and dandy, however those arguing against government mandating safety equipment are a dying breed, literally.[/QUOTE]

It didn't make your point clearer at all. It simply reinforced that he wanted to be able to make his own decisions about his life rather than the government forcing him to. He paid a price for HIS actions. That was HIS choice. I see no problem with that. It's fine if you have a differing ideology about government control but so far I don't see anything convince me to sway from my desire to see less government control in our personal lives.

 

[Adam]

That article is full of tragic irony, Adammon. But at least the kid apparently died doing what he loved. Or would that be not doing what he hated?

And his family loses a son and his friends lose a companion. I wear a seatbelt because I'd hate to leave my wife a widow.

The argument against government mandating seatbelts isn't simply anti-authoritarian in nature. If seatbelts weren't mandatory, there would still be people not wearing them.

The "freedom" to harm one's self is the exact reason why government mandates equipment such as this. Those rallying against this kind of legislation end up proving its necessity.

Stupidity may not be illegal, but suicide still is.

---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------

It didn't make your point clearer at all. It simply reinforced that he wanted to be able to make his own decisions about his life rather than the government forcing him to. He paid a price for HIS actions. That was HIS choice. I see no problem with that. It's fine if you have a differing ideology about government control but so far I don't see anything convince me to sway from my desire to see less government control in our personal lives.

His family paid a price for HIS actions, his friends paid a price for HIS actions. Every man isn't an island. Having to live with myself because a friend of mine was killed in my car (and everyone else lived) because of his stubborn indictment of 'the man' is a heavy price for anyone to bear.

 

[IronBrig4]

It didn't make your point clearer at all. It simply reinforced that he wanted to be able to make his own decisions about his life rather than the government forcing him to. He paid a price for HIS actions. That was HIS choice. I see no problem with that. It's fine if you have a differing ideology about government control but so far I don't see anything convince me to sway from my desire to see less government control in our personal lives.

His family and friends lost a loved one. You can't say he was the only one affected.

 

[Adam]

His family and friends lost a loved one. You can't say he was the only one affected.

Exactly. As much as this shatters our ego-centric view of the legal system, laws aren't put in place to protect "Adammon" or "Espy". They're put in place to protect society as a whole. A law against murder isn't put in place because we want to save Nicole Brown Simpson, it's there to ensure that on any given day there is no intrinsic pressure to commit a crime that deprives us holistically of an opportunity for life.

Often when arguing about these kind of safety requirements, the tact taken is "It's there to make YOU safe." Of course, there are those of us who aren't so concerned for our own personal safety or at least the potential downsides are outweighed by the benefits of ignorance. I would say that it should be argued from the standpoint of "It's there to let us (friends, family, coworkers, perfect strangers) know that you're safe".

 

[Espy]

Of course his family was affected but you guys act like the only thing we do that can potentially hurt our loved ones is not wear our seatbelts.
How about all those people that die in car accidents and do wear their seatbelts? What then? Do we outlaw cars?

I get your point and I AGREE. People should wear seat belts. No doubt. But all the over emotional arguments you throw out there won't change my views of what the role of the government is in our lives. The government has a responsibility to create safety rules, but how far do we go with it?
Do we outlaw cheese? More people die from heart disease than pretty much anything else.
Don't you care about the families of those whose husbands and fathers and mothers and wives die from heart attacks?
I could go on and on, but we both know it's silly. We all decide a point where we say, "I will allow *this* much government intrusion into my life". You simply are willing to allow more than I am.