What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

No indictment in NYPD chokehold death (2 Viewers)

Stinger Ray said:
CowboysFromHell said:
Stinger Ray said:
CowboysFromHell said:
Lutherman2112 said:
I find it truly amazing "conservatives" that fear and warn of the tyranny by government consistently side with the use of deadly force by said government agents/representatives.
:goodposting: Or how they value the unborn fetus of a poor mother up until the day it is born, then turn their back on it.

Or how they worship Jesus, who was obviously a democrat. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:lmao:
:highfive:
 
Ilov80s said:
Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
One could certainly make a case for compulsory prison camps for kids age 5-17 as being even more insidiously destructive.

But yeah, the War on Drugs is really a War on Freedom.
Are you likening school to prison camp and saying its destructive?
 
CowboysFromHell said:
Ilov80s said:
Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
What's the proposed alternative? Legalize all drugs, only some drugs? Soften penalties? I'm admittedly ignorant as to the current thinking here, but I can't imagine that letting drugs like heroine, crack, and meth go unchecked would be an overall positive thing for any society.
Present to me the benefits of our aggressive policing of drugs in inner cities. I would assume the most basic goal was to remove access to drugs. We know it has failed in that respect. So what are the benefits I am missing?Eta: there's a lot of solutions that don't involve paramilitary style tactics and treating drug users/sellers/producers like terrorists.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s said:
Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
One could certainly make a case for compulsory prison camps for kids age 5-17 as being even more insidiously destructive.

But yeah, the War on Drugs is really a War on Freedom.
Are you likening school to prison camp and saying its destructive?
I wouldn't make that comparison, but compulsory education is a total violation of liberty and is even worse when the State mandates exactly what everyone must learn. It's an awful policy.
 
CowboysFromHell said:
Ilov80s said:
Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
What's the proposed alternative? Legalize all drugs, only some drugs? Soften penalties? I'm admittedly ignorant as to the current thinking here, but I can't imagine that letting drugs like heroine, crack, and meth go unchecked would be an overall positive thing for any society.
Present to me the benefits of our aggressive policing of drugs in inner cities. I would assume the most basic goal was to remove access to drugs. We know it has failed in that respect. So what are the benefits I am missing?Eta: there's a lot of solutions that don't involve paramilitary style tactics and treating drug users/sellers/producers like terrorists.
So you don't disagree with the goal, only the results (or, more precisely, the lack thereof)?
 
Reggie Bush wore an "I Can't Breathe" t-shirt today. For those who don't know, Bush's mother has served as a police officer for 20 years.

Bush was the second prominent athlete to wear this t-shirt; Derrick Rose was the first.

 
CowboysFromHell said:
Ilov80s said:
Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
What's the proposed alternative? Legalize all drugs, only some drugs? Soften penalties? I'm admittedly ignorant as to the current thinking here, but I can't imagine that letting drugs like heroine, crack, and meth go unchecked would be an overall positive thing for any society.
Present to me the benefits of our aggressive policing of drugs in inner cities. I would assume the most basic goal was to remove access to drugs. We know it has failed in that respect. So what are the benefits I am missing?Eta: there's a lot of solutions that don't involve paramilitary style tactics and treating drug users/sellers/producers like terrorists.
So you don't disagree with the goal, only the results (or, more precisely, the lack thereof)?
Both. Look up the number of people in prison for small-time marijuana related crimes. Thousands upon thousands. Families broken, lives irreversibly changed for the worse over a substance that has fewer negative consequences than booze. Not to mention the vast amount of resources that went into finding, arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning those people.

I don't want crack legal or for kids to be taking heroin during study period, but the War on Drugs has been a colossal failure.

 
Reggie Bush wore an "I Can't Breathe" t-shirt today. For those who don't know, Bush's mother has served as a police officer for 20 years.

Bush was the second prominent athlete to wear this t-shirt; Derrick Rose was the first.
Unless Rose wore the shirt five years ago, Bush was the first.

 
Reggie Bush wore an "I Can't Breathe" t-shirt today. For those who don't know, Bush's mother has served as a police officer for 20 years.

Bush was the second prominent athlete to wear this t-shirt; Derrick Rose was the first.
Unless Rose wore the shirt five years ago, Bush was the first.
Really? ESPN showed a photo of Rose which I assumed was from last night. If I'm wrong, I stand corrected.

 
Ilov80s said:
Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
One could certainly make a case for compulsory prison camps for kids age 5-17 as being even more insidiously destructive.

But yeah, the War on Drugs is really a War on Freedom.
Are you likening school to prison camp and saying its destructive?
I wouldn't make that comparison, but compulsory education is a total violation of liberty and is even worse when the State mandates exactly what everyone must learn. It's an awful policy.
Ok. If making a free education mandatory is such a dagger to a child's liberty, what do you propose as an alternative? Education optional? If so, who makes the call on if a kid goes or not? The parent? Until what age? Realistically, how many fewer kids would end up educated? Who foots the bill when these uneducated people can't get a job and have their hand out for help?
 
Ilov80s said:
Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
One could certainly make a case for compulsory prison camps for kids age 5-17 as being even more insidiously destructive.

But yeah, the War on Drugs is really a War on Freedom.
Are you likening school to prison camp and saying its destructive?
I wouldn't make that comparison, but compulsory education is a total violation of liberty and is even worse when the State mandates exactly what everyone must learn. It's an awful policy.
Ok. If making a free education mandatory is such a dagger to a child's liberty, what do you propose as an alternative? Education optional? If so, who makes the call on if a kid goes or not? The parent? Until what age? Realistically, how many fewer kids would end up educated? Who foots the bill when these uneducated people can't get a job and have their hand out for help?
The parents make the call until 18, then it's the new adult. Who foots the bill for all the kids now that don't graduate or get a college prep education when their skills/interests aren't for university and they leave high school with no real job skills? It's sad that in most areas, a kid, their parents and teachers might agree that the focus of the education should be something like an art or skilled trade, but their opinion is meaningless because a legislative body somewhere has decided that the kid needs to focus on college prep courses to receive a diploma. Controlling one's education is one of the most basic and important liberties that one deserves. It will impact every aspect of a persons life.
 
CowboysFromHell said:
Ilov80s said:
Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
What's the proposed alternative? Legalize all drugs, only some drugs? Soften penalties? I'm admittedly ignorant as to the current thinking here, but I can't imagine that letting drugs like heroine, crack, and meth go unchecked would be an overall positive thing for any society.
Present to me the benefits of our aggressive policing of drugs in inner cities. I would assume the most basic goal was to remove access to drugs. We know it has failed in that respect. So what are the benefits I am missing?Eta: there's a lot of solutions that don't involve paramilitary style tactics and treating drug users/sellers/producers like terrorists.
So you don't disagree with the goal, only the results (or, more precisely, the lack thereof)?
Yes. The drugs are still widely available so it has done nothing to actually stop drug use while introducing problems even worse than drug use. Look at the cops in Denver. A guy is caught and has what they think is heroin in his mouth. He won't let it go, so they hold him down and punch him 6 times in the face to get him to open his mouth. Then, when his 7 months pregnant GF comes up screaming in horror, they flip her onto the ground. Someone taped it, so the cops try to confiscate the tape and destroy the evidence. All this for a guy that posed no threat. He was defenseless. All this violence over him having some heroin (that he would have had to give up eventually). How do we as a society continue to allow this type of "law enforcement" to openly continue across the country?

 
CowboysFromHell said:
Ilov80s said:
Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
What's the proposed alternative? Legalize all drugs, only some drugs? Soften penalties? I'm admittedly ignorant as to the current thinking here, but I can't imagine that letting drugs like heroine, crack, and meth go unchecked would be an overall positive thing for any society.
Present to me the benefits of our aggressive policing of drugs in inner cities. I would assume the most basic goal was to remove access to drugs. We know it has failed in that respect. So what are the benefits I am missing?Eta: there's a lot of solutions that don't involve paramilitary style tactics and treating drug users/sellers/producers like terrorists.
So you don't disagree with the goal, only the results (or, more precisely, the lack thereof)?
Yes. The drugs are still widely available so it has done nothing to actually stop drug use while introducing problems even worse than drug use. Look at the cops in Denver. A guy is caught and has what they think is heroin in his mouth. He won't let it go, so they hold him down and punch him 6 times in the face to get him to open his mouth. Then, when his 7 months pregnant GF comes up screaming in horror, they flip her onto the ground. Someone taped it, so the cops try to confiscate the tape and destroy the evidence. All this for a guy that posed no threat. He was defenseless. All this violence over him having some heroin (that he would have had to give up eventually). How do we as a society continue to allow this type of "law enforcement" to openly continue across the country?
Posed no threat to who? The cops? You're probably right there. Seems like they had him pretty well in hand. Let's say they didn't though. Let's say the guy and his ol lady and the kid avoid the cops and make it to their destination. Once there, guy shoots up and then (in a smack-fueled rage) beats the daylights out of her in front of the kid because, well, that's what junkies sometimes do. People find out when she goes in for her pre-natal exam and hasn't been able to open her eye for a week and then everybody agrees the cops need to do more to keep maniacs like that guy locked up. Or, maybe the guy is not the violent type. Maybe he is a lover and shares the goods with Ms Sevenmonthsalong. She jabs a vein and then in a month has a baby with all kinds of problems. Fast forward a few years. Older kid is a mess from having junky parents and is already in the corrections system. Meanwhile Mama's ripping the racist school system for not being able to do anything with her ####ed-up younger kid. Clearly it's because he is Latino she says. After a few more years, that kid's life is a mess and says "#### it! I am just going to get wasted." Few years later, he and his 7 months pregnant gf are cruising down the road with a sock of heroin...

Now, I am NOT condoning what those cops did. But please spare me the whole "this poor man" ####. He was clinging to smack (like his life depended on it) and his preggo GF had paraphernalia in her purse all the while another child was with them. The same guy who earlier said mandatory education was infringement on a child's liberty is now going out of his way to support a couple smuggling heroin with a child in the vehicle AND a baby on the way?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CowboysFromHell said:
Ilov80s said:
Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
What's the proposed alternative? Legalize all drugs, only some drugs? Soften penalties? I'm admittedly ignorant as to the current thinking here, but I can't imagine that letting drugs like heroine, crack, and meth go unchecked would be an overall positive thing for any society.
Present to me the benefits of our aggressive policing of drugs in inner cities. I would assume the most basic goal was to remove access to drugs. We know it has failed in that respect. So what are the benefits I am missing?Eta: there's a lot of solutions that don't involve paramilitary style tactics and treating drug users/sellers/producers like terrorists.
So you don't disagree with the goal, only the results (or, more precisely, the lack thereof)?
Yes. The drugs are still widely available so it has done nothing to actually stop drug use while introducing problems even worse than drug use. Look at the cops in Denver. A guy is caught and has what they think is heroin in his mouth. He won't let it go, so they hold him down and punch him 6 times in the face to get him to open his mouth. Then, when his 7 months pregnant GF comes up screaming in horror, they flip her onto the ground. Someone taped it, so the cops try to confiscate the tape and destroy the evidence. All this for a guy that posed no threat. He was defenseless. All this violence over him having some heroin (that he would have had to give up eventually). How do we as a society continue to allow this type of "law enforcement" to openly continue across the country?
Posed no threat to who? The cops? You're probably right there. Seems like they had him pretty well in hand. Let's say they didn't though. Let's say the guy and his ol lady and the kid avoid the cops and make it to their destination. Once there, guy shoots up and then (in a smack-fueled rage) beats the daylights out of her in front of the kid because, well, that's what junkies sometimes do. People find out when she goes in for her pre-natal exam and hasn't been able to open her eye for a week and then everybody agrees the cops need to do more to keep maniacs like that guy locked up. Or, maybe the guy is not the violent type. Maybe he is a lover and shares the goods with Ms Sevenmonthsalong. She jabs a vein and then in a month has a baby with all kinds of problems. Fast forward a few years. Older kid is a mess from having junky parents and is already in the corrections system. Meanwhile Mama's ripping the racist school system for not being able to do anything with her ####ed-up younger kid. Clearly it's because he is Latino she says. After a few more years, that kid's life is a mess and says "#### it! I am just going to get wasted." Few years later, he and his 7 months pregnant gf are cruising down the road with a sock of heroine...Now, I am NOT condoning what those cops did. But please spare me the whole "this poor man" ####. He was clinging to smack (like his life depended on it) and his preggo GF had paraphernalia in her purse all the while another child was with them. The same guy who earlier said mandatory education was infringement on a child's liberty is now going out of his way to support a couple smuggling heroine with a child in the vehicle AND a baby on the way?
Arrest them and take them in. My issue isn't with the arrest, it's with turning an arrest into a beat down.
 
Sorry, it was a joke about how Rose sucks now. Carry on.
You are too clever for us, PatsBot.*

Also, the War on Drugs sucks, both band and policy. I'd actually argue that it's the policy that leads to the violent policing and our reduced Fourth Amendment protections and not the other way around.

Anything to stop the scourge.

eta* no sarcasm, that was kind of funny

 
Last edited by a moderator:
whiskey7 said:
Alonzo Mosely said:
CowboysFromHell said:
Ilov80s said:
Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
What's the proposed alternative? Legalize all drugs, only some drugs? Soften penalties? I'm admittedly ignorant as to the current thinking here, but I can't imagine that letting drugs like heroine, crack, and meth go unchecked would be an overall positive thing for any society.
+1While I tend to agree with those who say weed should be legalized, the line has to be drawn somewhere, IMO. If we soften on some drugs (ie weed), I think it becomes that much more difficult to be tough on the hardcore drugs. And I would hope most folks would agree we cant go soft on those drugs because they are extremely dangerous and people have proven over and over they cant handle them. If we knew people would only get goofed-up in their own homes and only wreak havoc on their own stuff, fine. Go nuts with whatever. I don't really care if people want to do that to themselves. But its been proven over and over people are not responsible and end up causing problems for and/or hurting other people and we have to try to prevent that as much as possible.
You mean just like alcohol? I know I'm relieved that people only get goofed up on and wreak havoc in their own homes when it comes to alcohol.
The fact that there are a lot of people who obviously can't even handle simple booze should be a very strong argument against keeping even more potent chemicals illegal don't you think? You're not seriously suggesting (because alcohol is legal and people get ####ed up on it) we should make everything people get ####ed up on legal, are you?
No, I am suggesting that it is not the government's responsibility to be making those decisions for us. Just because there a bunch of #### ups that abuse drugs doesn't mean that everyone that uses them is a #### up. By that same logic, we should also be banning alcohol. We all know how that worked out, yet we are willingly making the same mistake again. Prohibition does little more than create a black market and a new subculture of criminals. It allowed organized crime to gain power the first time around and is doing so again. By legalizing said "more potent chemicals", the government can do what it does best. Regulate and tax.

Alas, we would rather keep our population of potential prisoners as large as possible so we can fulfill our contracts to keep the prisons at an acceptable occupancy level.

 
whiskey7 said:
Alonzo Mosely said:
CowboysFromHell said:
Ilov80s said:
Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
What's the proposed alternative? Legalize all drugs, only some drugs? Soften penalties? I'm admittedly ignorant as to the current thinking here, but I can't imagine that letting drugs like heroine, crack, and meth go unchecked would be an overall positive thing for any society.
+1While I tend to agree with those who say weed should be legalized, the line has to be drawn somewhere, IMO. If we soften on some drugs (ie weed), I think it becomes that much more difficult to be tough on the hardcore drugs. And I would hope most folks would agree we cant go soft on those drugs because they are extremely dangerous and people have proven over and over they cant handle them. If we knew people would only get goofed-up in their own homes and only wreak havoc on their own stuff, fine. Go nuts with whatever. I don't really care if people want to do that to themselves. But its been proven over and over people are not responsible and end up causing problems for and/or hurting other people and we have to try to prevent that as much as possible.
You mean just like alcohol? I know I'm relieved that people only get goofed up on and wreak havoc in their own homes when it comes to alcohol.
The fact that there are a lot of people who obviously can't even handle simple booze should be a very strong argument against keeping even more potent chemicals illegal don't you think? You're not seriously suggesting (because alcohol is legal and people get ####ed up on it) we should make everything people get ####ed up on legal, are you?
No, I am suggesting that it is not the government's responsibility to be making those decisions for us. Just because there a bunch of #### ups that abuse drugs doesn't mean that everyone that uses them is a #### up. By that same logic, we should also be banning alcohol. We all know how that worked out, yet we are willingly making the same mistake again. Prohibition does little more than create a black market and a new subculture of criminals. It allowed organized crime to gain power the first time around and is doing so again. By legalizing said "more potent chemicals", the government can do what it does best. Regulate and tax.

Alas, we would rather keep our population of potential prisoners as large as possible so we can fulfill our contracts to keep the prisons at an acceptable occupancy level.
So, your suggestion is to legalize ALL substances?

 
Ilov80s said:
Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
One could certainly make a case for compulsory prison camps for kids age 5-17 as being even more insidiously destructive.

But yeah, the War on Drugs is really a War on Freedom.
Are you likening school to prison camp and saying its destructive?
I wouldn't make that comparison, but compulsory education is a total violation of liberty and is even worse when the State mandates exactly what everyone must learn. It's an awful policy.
Ok. If making a free education mandatory is such a dagger to a child's liberty, what do you propose as an alternative? Education optional? If so, who makes the call on if a kid goes or not? The parent? Until what age? Realistically, how many fewer kids would end up educated? Who foots the bill when these uneducated people can't get a job and have their hand out for help?
The parents make the call until 18, then it's the new adult. Who foots the bill for all the kids now that don't graduate or get a college prep education when their skills/interests aren't for university and they leave high school with no real job skills? It's sad that in most areas, a kid, their parents and teachers might agree that the focus of the education should be something like an art or skilled trade, but their opinion is meaningless because a legislative body somewhere has decided that the kid needs to focus on college prep courses to receive a diploma. Controlling one's education is one of the most basic and important liberties that one deserves. It will impact every aspect of a persons life.
I guess I can see your point on liberty, but jeebus, the way out of poverty is gotta be through more/better education, not less! And, yes, the world will always need ditch diggers, so I totally agree at some point, college prep should be abandoned for some kids...after they've learned the basics of reading, writing, arithmetic, etc.

 
Arrest them and take them in. My issue isn't with the arrest, it's with turning an arrest into a beat down.
I think they tried that. I think that was their exact intent until our friend Flores chose Option 2 (aka "the hard way").

Dude was caught. Rather than just comply and make the best of it, he makes the choice to make a bad situation worse by trying to swallow the evidence. Even when been hit repeatedly, he would not give it up. What does that tell you about that man that he'd go to that length right in front of his pregnant girl and another child? Lets say the cops are not able to keep him from swallowing the ####. He either chokes on it or ODs and then the headline changes from 'cops beat unarmed man' to 'cops allow family man to die in front of his pregnant girlfriend and a child' and people are #####ing that the cops didn't do more to save him. The cops were put in a no win situation when Flores decided he was going to do it his way. Again, I am NOT saying what they did was totally right. But it was Flores' choice to resist and (as everyone should know by now) when you resist you are asking for trouble. As far as the woman goes, maybe if she had been speaking English the cops could have more easily understood what she was saying before she approached them. As far as that goes, do we know if those two were here legally? Reports are they didn't show up for court date after this. Oh, and ask some cops if they've ever been hit, kicked, scratched, bit, shot at, stabbed, etc by a pregnant woman. They don't know what she's going to do...only that she's approaching them screaming.

whiskey7 said:
Alonzo Mosely said:
CowboysFromHell said:
Ilov80s said:
Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
What's the proposed alternative? Legalize all drugs, only some drugs? Soften penalties? I'm admittedly ignorant as to the current thinking here, but I can't imagine that letting drugs like heroine, crack, and meth go unchecked would be an overall positive thing for any society.
+1While I tend to agree with those who say weed should be legalized, the line has to be drawn somewhere, IMO. If we soften on some drugs (ie weed), I think it becomes that much more difficult to be tough on the hardcore drugs. And I would hope most folks would agree we cant go soft on those drugs because they are extremely dangerous and people have proven over and over they cant handle them. If we knew people would only get goofed-up in their own homes and only wreak havoc on their own stuff, fine. Go nuts with whatever. I don't really care if people want to do that to themselves. But its been proven over and over people are not responsible and end up causing problems for and/or hurting other people and we have to try to prevent that as much as possible.
You mean just like alcohol? I know I'm relieved that people only get goofed up on and wreak havoc in their own homes when it comes to alcohol.
The fact that there are a lot of people who obviously can't even handle simple booze should be a very strong argument against keeping even more potent chemicals illegal don't you think? You're not seriously suggesting (because alcohol is legal and people get ####ed up on it) we should make everything people get ####ed up on legal, are you?
No, I am suggesting that it is not the government's responsibility to be making those decisions for us. Just because there a bunch of #### ups that abuse drugs doesn't mean that everyone that uses them is a #### up. By that same logic, we should also be banning alcohol. We all know how that worked out, yet we are willingly making the same mistake again. Prohibition does little more than create a black market and a new subculture of criminals. It allowed organized crime to gain power the first time around and is doing so again. By legalizing said "more potent chemicals", the government can do what it does best. Regulate and tax.

Alas, we would rather keep our population of potential prisoners as large as possible so we can fulfill our contracts to keep the prisons at an acceptable occupancy level.
Just their responsibility to help those people who make horrible choices and then have no where else to turn, right?

 
Not sure how this evolved into a drug discussion. My views on that, like so many others, have changed since my libertarian years. I'm good with making pot legal, a few others possibly. But- I'd prefer not to live in a society where heroin and crack are free to use.

 
Reggie Bush wore an "I Can't Breathe" t-shirt today. For those who don't know, Bush's mother has served as a police officer for 20 years.

Bush was the second prominent athlete to wear this t-shirt; Derrick Rose was the first.
Unless Rose wore the shirt five years ago, Bush was the first.
He wore it last night during pre-game warmups.
I thought Reggie Bush was talking about his rib injury or one of his many injuries that prevent him from playing 75% of the time. Should wear a shirt that's says "I can`t play, Hurt again"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure how this evolved into a drug discussion. My views on that, like so many others, have changed since my libertarian years. I'm good with making pot legal, a few others possibly. But- I'd prefer not to live in a society where heroin and crack are free to use.
Wait, are they just legal or are they free? Because I'm gonna put my foot down and say that people should buy their crack the old fashioned way instead of getting a handout from Uncle Sam.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Arrest them and take them in. My issue isn't with the arrest, it's with turning an arrest into a beat down.
I think they tried that. I think that was their exact intent until our friend Flores chose Option 2 (aka "the hard way").

Dude was caught. Rather than just comply and make the best of it, he makes the choice to make a bad situation worse by trying to swallow the evidence. Even when been hit repeatedly, he would not give it up. What does that tell you about that man that he'd go to that length right in front of his pregnant girl and another child? Lets say the cops are not able to keep him from swallowing the ####. He either chokes on it or ODs and then the headline changes from 'cops beat unarmed man' to 'cops allow family man to die in front of his pregnant girlfriend and a child' and people are #####ing that the cops didn't do more to save him. The cops were put in a no win situation when Flores decided he was going to do it his way. Again, I am NOT saying what they did was totally right. But it was Flores' choice to resist and (as everyone should know by now) when you resist you are asking for trouble. As far as the woman goes, maybe if she had been speaking English the cops could have more easily understood what she was saying before she approached them. As far as that goes, do we know if those two were here legally? Reports are they didn't show up for court date after this. Oh, and ask some cops if they've ever been hit, kicked, scratched, bit, shot at, stabbed, etc by a pregnant woman. They don't know what she's going to do...only that she's approaching them screaming.

Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
What's the proposed alternative? Legalize all drugs, only some drugs? Soften penalties? I'm admittedly ignorant as to the current thinking here, but I can't imagine that letting drugs like heroine, crack, and meth go unchecked would be an overall positive thing for any society.
+1While I tend to agree with those who say weed should be legalized, the line has to be drawn somewhere, IMO. If we soften on some drugs (ie weed), I think it becomes that much more difficult to be tough on the hardcore drugs. And I would hope most folks would agree we cant go soft on those drugs because they are extremely dangerous and people have proven over and over they cant handle them. If we knew people would only get goofed-up in their own homes and only wreak havoc on their own stuff, fine. Go nuts with whatever. I don't really care if people want to do that to themselves. But its been proven over and over people are not responsible and end up causing problems for and/or hurting other people and we have to try to prevent that as much as possible.
You mean just like alcohol? I know I'm relieved that people only get goofed up on and wreak havoc in their own homes when it comes to alcohol.
The fact that there are a lot of people who obviously can't even handle simple booze should be a very strong argument against keeping even more potent chemicals illegal don't you think? You're not seriously suggesting (because alcohol is legal and people get ####ed up on it) we should make everything people get ####ed up on legal, are you?
No, I am suggesting that it is not the government's responsibility to be making those decisions for us. Just because there a bunch of #### ups that abuse drugs doesn't mean that everyone that uses them is a #### up. By that same logic, we should also be banning alcohol. We all know how that worked out, yet we are willingly making the same mistake again. Prohibition does little more than create a black market and a new subculture of criminals. It allowed organized crime to gain power the first time around and is doing so again. By legalizing said "more potent chemicals", the government can do what it does best. Regulate and tax.

Alas, we would rather keep our population of potential prisoners as large as possible so we can fulfill our contracts to keep the prisons at an acceptable occupancy level.
Just their responsibility to help those people who make horrible choices and then have no where else to turn, right?
Build your Strawman in another thread chief.

 
Not sure how this evolved into a drug discussion. My views on that, like so many others, have changed since my libertarian years. I'm good with making pot legal, a few others possibly. But- I'd prefer not to live in a society where heroin and crack are free to use.
Heroin and crack are widely available. If you want them, it is not hard to find. So you just want people that use them to be punished? Or do you think the policies are working we are just on the verge of finally catching the last few drug dealers? Otherwise, it might be time to re-examine our approach on the issue.

As for why the drug angle? I think if you trace back many of the real inner city issues whether it be on the side of the police or the citizens, one of the massive root causes is the war on drugs.

 
Arrest them and take them in. My issue isn't with the arrest, it's with turning an arrest into a beat down.
I think they tried that. I think that was their exact intent until our friend Flores chose Option 2 (aka "the hard way").

Dude was caught. Rather than just comply and make the best of it, he makes the choice to make a bad situation worse by trying to swallow the evidence. Even when been hit repeatedly, he would not give it up. What does that tell you about that man that he'd go to that length right in front of his pregnant girl and another child? Lets say the cops are not able to keep him from swallowing the ####. He either chokes on it or ODs and then the headline changes from 'cops beat unarmed man' to 'cops allow family man to die in front of his pregnant girlfriend and a child' and people are #####ing that the cops didn't do more to save him. The cops were put in a no win situation when Flores decided he was going to do it his way. Again, I am NOT saying what they did was totally right. But it was Flores' choice to resist and (as everyone should know by now) when you resist you are asking for trouble. As far as the woman goes, maybe if she had been speaking English the cops could have more easily understood what she was saying before she approached them. As far as that goes, do we know if those two were here legally? Reports are they didn't show up for court date after this. Oh, and ask some cops if they've ever been hit, kicked, scratched, bit, shot at, stabbed, etc by a pregnant woman. They don't know what she's going to do...only that she's approaching them screaming.
First bolded is funny..Second is part of the issue. Resisting arrest or trying to hide drugs shouldn't result in battery. Ultimately, this is a big grey area and one that needs to be addressed as a country.

 
Not sure how this evolved into a drug discussion. My views on that, like so many others, have changed since my libertarian years. I'm good with making pot legal, a few others possibly. But- I'd prefer not to live in a society where heroin and crack are free to use.
Heroin and crack are widely available. If you want them, it is not hard to find. So you just want people that use them to be punished? Or do you think the policies are working we are just on the verge of finally catching the last few drug dealers? Otherwise, it might be time to re-examine our approach on the issue.

As for why the drug angle? I think if you trace back many of the real inner city issues whether it be on the side of the police or the citizens, one of the massive root causes is the war on drugs.
Is the root cause the war on drugs, or the drugs themselves? Or, just maybe we don't live in a world that's simply black and white, and it's actually a bit of both?
 
Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
What's the proposed alternative? Legalize all drugs, only some drugs? Soften penalties? I'm admittedly ignorant as to the current thinking here, but I can't imagine that letting drugs like heroine, crack, and meth go unchecked would be an overall positive thing for any society.
This

 
Not sure how this evolved into a drug discussion. My views on that, like so many others, have changed since my libertarian years. I'm good with making pot legal, a few others possibly. But- I'd prefer not to live in a society where heroin and crack are free to use.
Heroin and crack are widely available. If you want them, it is not hard to find. So you just want people that use them to be punished? Or do you think the policies are working we are just on the verge of finally catching the last few drug dealers? Otherwise, it might be time to re-examine our approach on the issue.

As for why the drug angle? I think if you trace back many of the real inner city issues whether it be on the side of the police or the citizens, one of the massive root causes is the war on drugs.
Is the root cause the war on drugs, or the drugs themselves? Or, just maybe we don't live in a world that's simply black and white, and it's actually a bit of both?
Yeah, drugs are a huge issue also. We can't legislate drugs away. We can legislate our way out the war on them. Maybe there is a more efficient and effective approach?
 
Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
What's the proposed alternative? Legalize all drugs, only some drugs? Soften penalties? I'm admittedly ignorant as to the current thinking here, but I can't imagine that letting drugs like heroine, crack, and meth go unchecked would be an overall positive thing for any society.
This
And treat the drug addicted as sick rather than criminals.

 
Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
What's the proposed alternative? Legalize all drugs, only some drugs? Soften penalties? I'm admittedly ignorant as to the current thinking here, but I can't imagine that letting drugs like heroine, crack, and meth go unchecked would be an overall positive thing for any society.
This
And treat the drug addicted as sick rather than criminals.
Costs a lot less than incarceration.

 
So Anderson interviewed this officer who is insisting it was not a choke hold on Eric. It was neck compression and it's different from a choke hold. Uh, he did both? Choke hold to get him down then compress his neck, sir? Then he goes on to point out Eric had other medical problems that contributed to his death. Uh he most likely would not have died that day had he not been man handled the way he was with his neck compression still continuing after saying multiple times he can't breath? :tinfoilhat: The medical examiner said he died from the choke hold. No that was the preliminary public report he says. The grand jury didn't just see the one video we are seeing on tv, but 4 and it was clear.

Ok so my question is if it's so clear, why the hell not release what they saw to the public so we can see too? What's to hide except maybe that they made the wrong call? :jawdrop:

Such :bs: Anderson was obviously flustered with this guy who had an answer for everything, that didn't quite add up..

 
Not sure how this evolved into a drug discussion. My views on that, like so many others, have changed since my libertarian years. I'm good with making pot legal, a few others possibly. But- I'd prefer not to live in a society where heroin and crack are free to use.
Heroin and crack are widely available. If you want them, it is not hard to find. So you just want people that use them to be punished? Or do you think the policies are working we are just on the verge of finally catching the last few drug dealers? Otherwise, it might be time to re-examine our approach on the issue.

As for why the drug angle? I think if you trace back many of the real inner city issues whether it be on the side of the police or the citizens, one of the massive root causes is the war on drugs.
There's not an argument you can give me about legalizing drugs that I haven't read before; there's actually not many that I haven't MADE before . I know that heroin is easily accessible . I know that it would be better to treat the people that use it as sick rather than criminals. I agree with all that. And yet I believe it would fundamentally weaken us as a society if we ever made it legal. I can't get behind that. As for crack, we saw what it did to the inner cities of this country. So destructive. We are still paying the cost of it's spread, like a disease far worse than Ebola .

 
Not sure how this evolved into a drug discussion. My views on that, like so many others, have changed since my libertarian years. I'm good with making pot legal, a few others possibly. But- I'd prefer not to live in a society where heroin and crack are free to use.
Heroin and crack are widely available. If you want them, it is not hard to find. So you just want people that use them to be punished? Or do you think the policies are working we are just on the verge of finally catching the last few drug dealers? Otherwise, it might be time to re-examine our approach on the issue.

As for why the drug angle? I think if you trace back many of the real inner city issues whether it be on the side of the police or the citizens, one of the massive root causes is the war on drugs.
There's not an argument you can give me about legalizing drugs that I haven't read before; there's actually not many that I haven't MADE before . I know that heroin is easily accessible . I know that it would be better to treat the people that use it as sick rather than criminals. I agree with all that. And yet I believe it would fundamentally weaken us as a society if we ever made it legal. I can't get behind that. As for crack, we saw what it did to the inner cities of this country. So destructive. We are still paying the cost of it's spread, like a disease far worse than Ebola .
Again, there are other options beyond just making all drugs legal.
 
Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
What's the proposed alternative? Legalize all drugs, only some drugs? Soften penalties? I'm admittedly ignorant as to the current thinking here, but I can't imagine that letting drugs like heroine, crack, and meth go unchecked would be an overall positive thing for any society.
This
And treat the drug addicted as sick rather than criminals.
Costs a lot less than incarceration.
Incarceration also makes a ton of money

 
Not sure how this evolved into a drug discussion. My views on that, like so many others, have changed since my libertarian years. I'm good with making pot legal, a few others possibly. But- I'd prefer not to live in a society where heroin and crack are free to use.
Heroin and crack are widely available. If you want them, it is not hard to find. So you just want people that use them to be punished? Or do you think the policies are working we are just on the verge of finally catching the last few drug dealers? Otherwise, it might be time to re-examine our approach on the issue.

As for why the drug angle? I think if you trace back many of the real inner city issues whether it be on the side of the police or the citizens, one of the massive root causes is the war on drugs.
There's not an argument you can give me about legalizing drugs that I haven't read before; there's actually not many that I haven't MADE before .I know that heroin is easily accessible . I know that it would be better to treat the people that use it as sick rather than criminals. I agree with all that. And yet I believe it would fundamentally weaken us as a society if we ever made it legal. I can't get behind that. As for crack, we saw what it did to the inner cities of this country. So destructive. We are still paying the cost of it's spread, like a disease far worse than Ebola .
:lmao:

 
Has there been a more destructive policy and series of actions in modern America than the war on drugs? It seems like almost all of these incidents stem lead back to a nightmarish approach that has poisoned our streets.
What's the proposed alternative? Legalize all drugs, only some drugs? Soften penalties? I'm admittedly ignorant as to the current thinking here, but I can't imagine that letting drugs like heroine, crack, and meth go unchecked would be an overall positive thing for any society.
This
And treat the drug addicted as sick rather than criminals.
Costs a lot less than incarceration.
Incarceration also makes a ton of money
For who?

 
Live about 10-12 blocks from Barclays Centsr and I've been listening to helicopters all night
Should drown out the bell.
She went home around 8...Tomorrow calls for heavy rain and wind, we'll see how dedicated she is.

On another note, I'm supposed to be on a flight early Wednesday, would a ####ty weather day tomorrow impact the flight Wednesday morning?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top