212: 99% of the truth is missing

Please feel free to discuss Dan's shows.

Moderators: Loki, exposno1, Parrot, Quasigriz, NickDupree, nmoore63, robroydude, Spinny Spamkiller

Re: 212: 99% of the truth is missing

Postby Runicmadhamster » Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:08 pm

Atanamis wrote:
Runicmadhamster wrote:What it seems like they are saying is that any order that comes out of the police officers mouth on site should be interpreted as the law and if you disobey said order then you are breaking the law. This is beyond ridiculous. Also the "file a complaint" idea that the courts are spouting is stupid, a protest would lose momentum if it went away to file a complaint, as opposed to just disobeying the orders of the police officer.
Agreed. A police officer acting unlawfully has no more right to be obeyed than any other criminal.


Its like they think that all police officers are the gods of law, and every order that has ever come out of their mouths is 100% fair and legal. What has annoyed me the most is that this delusion has spread from the courts and into the general populace, i am constantly running into people who tell me how naughty those protesters where for disobeying orders, and how they deserved to be pepper sprayed. It is even more horrible when i hear people in the Main Stream Media spout similar sounding tripe.
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: 212: 99% of the truth is missing

Postby raistian77 » Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:24 pm

Runicmadhamster wrote:
Atanamis wrote:
Runicmadhamster wrote:What it seems like they are saying is that any order that comes out of the police officers mouth on site should be interpreted as the law and if you disobey said order then you are breaking the law. This is beyond ridiculous. Also the "file a complaint" idea that the courts are spouting is stupid, a protest would lose momentum if it went away to file a complaint, as opposed to just disobeying the orders of the police officer.
Agreed. A police officer acting unlawfully has no more right to be obeyed than any other criminal.


Its like they think that all police officers are the gods of law, and every order that has ever come out of their mouths is 100% fair and legal. What has annoyed me the most is that this delusion has spread from the courts and into the general populace, i am constantly running into people who tell me how naughty those protesters where for disobeying orders, and how they deserved to be pepper sprayed. It is even more horrible when i hear people in the Main Stream Media spout similar sounding tripe.



Same here, mystifies me as much as it does you two. A local radio DJ this morning made a joke about it. After the very bad joke he commented if it was his call every OWS protester would be behind bars. "Isn't tampering with wall-street an act of terrorism?" is what he ended with.
The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Oh Wait, You're Serious? Let Me Laugh Even Harder!

-"No matter how bad things seem--- "
"They could be worse."
"Nope. No matter how bad they seem, they can't be any better, and they can't be any worse, because that's the way things fucking are, and you better get used to it, Nancy. Quit yer bitching."
User avatar
raistian77
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Clarksville, TN

Re: 212: 99% of the truth is missing

Postby Runicmadhamster » Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:29 pm

raistian77 wrote: A local radio DJ this morning made a joke about it. After the very bad joke he commented if it was his call every OWS protester would be behind bars. "Isn't tampering with wall-street an act of terrorism?" is what he ended with.


Radio DJs seem to be the worst when it comes to this type of incident, especially talk back radio hosts. Unlike TV news hosts these guys seem to get a huge pat on the back when they bring up controversial issues that make people angry, and they never get reprimanded for it. It is infuriating to a extremely high degree
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: 212: 99% of the truth is missing

Postby Runicmadhamster » Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:47 pm

I posted something a while back that went like this..........

Runicmadhamster wrote:Its funny i have heard Dan say many times that the politicians would have the people of America fighting amongst themselves rather than fighting them, because that way no one group could get organized enough to force the government into doing major reforms. And you know their tactic has worked perfectly, when i come onto this broad every day all i see is the left wings types abusing/insulting the right wing types. Yes intelligent debate does occur and that's why i stay, but really the tea party and ows are both examples of people trying to unify and force the government into reform, and what happens on this broad. "the tea party are terrible blah blah blah" or "OWS is nothing but jobless blah blah blah". Come one guys, you are smarter than that. Untied you stand, divided you will fall.


The debate surrounding this pepper spray incident has distracted America perfectly, many people are running around arguing about the legal technicality of the incident, ignoring the actual issue, the issue being that the American law enforcement are now a paramilitary organisation, the fact that said law enforcement are willing to use violence against protesters (as opposed to negotiation) and the fact the people got hurt and assaulted and that nothing will be done to compensate the victims. And if i am proved wrong on my last point then i will be a very happy man
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: 212: 99% of the truth is missing

Postby Taliesin » Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:10 pm

Runicmadhamster wrote:Its like they think that all police officers are the gods of law, and every order that has ever come out of their mouths is 100% fair and legal. What has annoyed me the most is that this delusion has spread from the courts and into the general populace, i am constantly running into people who tell me how naughty those protesters where for disobeying orders, and how they deserved to be pepper sprayed. It is even more horrible when i hear people in the Main Stream Media spout similar sounding tripe.


I can't speak for anyone else, and I certainly can't speak for the media. But it seems to me that a police officer giving an illegal order cannot be "just like any other criminal," because he is, in fact, not just like them. He is not acting as a private citizen; he is acting as an agent of the relevant authorities (city, county, state, or federal government), and that factor must color the proper response to their behavior. It doesn't appear ludicrous that some measure of deference be given to police officers - even those who appear to be acting illegally - beyond that which is given to criminals. I don't think that the "proper deference" should go quite as far as other posters have claimed courts are taking it, but individuals don't have the right to unilaterally declare the police illegitimate because they believe their acts illegal. That's for the law to decide. We're a country of laws and not men.
"Come back clowny-shoes and argue with me some more!"
-DBTrek
Taliesin
Senior Member
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:19 pm

Re: 212: 99% of the truth is missing

Postby Atanamis » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:30 pm

Taliesin wrote:He is not acting as a private citizen; he is acting as an agent of the relevant authorities (city, county, state, or federal government), and that factor must color the proper response to their behavior. It doesn't appear ludicrous that some measure of deference be given to police officers - even those who appear to be acting illegally - beyond that which is given to criminals.
This is not true. A police officer acting illegally is NOT the agent of relevant authorities, he is acting in violation of those authorities. This is also true of EVERYONE in his command line up to and including the elected executive. The relevant authority IS the legislature, and if an officer is acting illegally he is acting in opposition to the relevant authority. It is ludicrous to suggest that someone who is committing a crime (such an a police officer acting illegally) is not a criminal. This is the DEFINITION of criminal. A criminal is by definition a person who is committing crimes, and a police officer acting illegally is therefore a criminal. Deference SHOULD be paid to officers because if you are incorrect you will legitimately face charges for hindering the legal actions of an agent of the law, but at the same time an agent of the law who is using that position unlawfully should face a far more serious penalty for their violation than had a mere random citizen committed the same offense. After all, their offense is from a position of trust and a place of knowledge.
User avatar
Atanamis
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 8042
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: 212: 99% of the truth is missing

Postby Taliesin » Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:44 pm

Atanamis wrote:This is not true. A police officer acting illegally is NOT the agent of relevant authorities, he is acting in violation of those authorities. This is also true of EVERYONE in his command line up to and including the elected executive. The relevant authority IS the legislature, and if an officer is acting illegally he is acting in opposition to the relevant authority. It is ludicrous to suggest that someone who is committing a crime (such an a police officer acting illegally) is not a criminal. This is the DEFINITION of criminal. A criminal is by definition a person who is committing crimes, and a police officer acting illegally is therefore a criminal. Deference SHOULD be paid to officers because if you are incorrect you will legitimately face charges for hindering the legal actions of an agent of the law, but at the same time an agent of the law who is using that position unlawfully should face a far more serious penalty for their violation than had a mere random citizen committed the same offense. After all, their offense is from a position of trust and a place of knowledge.


Of course the officer - even if acting illegally - is still an agent of their jurisdiction. They don't stop being an agent of the jurisdiction until they get fired or go off duty. Their status as agents doesn't mean they can't act criminally, and it doesn't mean that they shouldn't pay the price for their actions. In fact, because they have been entrusted with not only obeying the laws but enforcing them and keeping the public peace, any breach of the law by an officer should be treated more severely than an equivalent act committed by a private citizen. We're arguing the same thing here, but you're using the argument to say that any officer who does something that is viewed to be illegal loses their privilege immediately. I argue that the officer should face heavier penalties if their conduct is found to be illegal, but in the moment it is not the individual citizen's place to pass judgment. That is for the law to do.
"Come back clowny-shoes and argue with me some more!"
-DBTrek
Taliesin
Senior Member
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:19 pm

Re: 212: 99% of the truth is missing

Postby Runicmadhamster » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:00 pm

Taliesin wrote:
Of course the officer - even if acting illegally - is still an agent of their jurisdiction. They don't stop being an agent of the jurisdiction until they get fired or go off duty. Their status as agents doesn't mean they can't act criminally, and it doesn't mean that they shouldn't pay the price for their actions. In fact, because they have been entrusted with not only obeying the laws but enforcing them and keeping the public peace, any breach of the law by an officer should be treated more severely than an equivalent act committed by a private citizen. We're arguing the same thing here, but you're using the argument to say that any officer who does something that is viewed to be illegal loses their privilege immediately. I argue that the officer should face heavier penalties if their conduct is found to be illegal, but in the moment it is not the individual citizen's place to pass judgment. That is for the law to do.

Well it is hypocritical to say........
I represent the law, and whilst you cant break without being called a criminal, i can break the law yet still remain and officer (for the time being)

Its exactly the type of thinking that makes police officers think they can get away with things like the pepper spray incident with little more than a good telling off
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: 212: 99% of the truth is missing

Postby Taliesin » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:03 pm

Runicmadhamster wrote:Well it is hypocritical to say........
I represent the law, and whilst you cant break without being called a criminal, i can break the law yet still remain and officer (for the time being)

Its exactly the type of thinking that makes police officers think they can get away with things like the pepper spray incident with little more than a good telling off


Yes. But that's what discipline, background checks, training, Internal Affairs departments, and prosecutors are for. Frankly I don't see how you can have a police force that's at all effective without at least some elevation over individual citizens in the moment.
"Come back clowny-shoes and argue with me some more!"
-DBTrek
Taliesin
Senior Member
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:19 pm

Re: 212: 99% of the truth is missing

Postby Runicmadhamster » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:09 pm

Taliesin wrote:
Runicmadhamster wrote:Well it is hypocritical to say........
I represent the law, and whilst you cant break without being called a criminal, i can break the law yet still remain and officer (for the time being)

Its exactly the type of thinking that makes police officers think they can get away with things like the pepper spray incident with little more than a good telling off


Yes. But that's what discipline, background checks, training, Internal Affairs departments, and prosecutors are for. Frankly I don't see how you can have a police force that's at all effective without at least some elevation over individual citizens in the moment.


And yet none of those things, discipline, background checks, training, Internal Affairs departments, and prosecutors, have prevented either the pepper spray incidents, every act of violence towards the OWS protesters and the general violent reaction exhibited by the US police force to all peaceful protests
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: 212: 99% of the truth is missing

Postby NickDupree » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:30 pm

Glenn Greenwald wrote:...The intent and effect of such abuse is that it renders those guaranteed freedoms meaningless. If a population becomes bullied or intimidated out of exercising rights offered on paper, those rights effectively cease to exist. Every time the citizenry watches peaceful protesters getting pepper-sprayed — or hears that an Occupy protester suffered brain damage and almost died after being shot in the skull with a rubber bullet — many become increasingly fearful of participating in this citizen movement, and also become fearful in general of exercising their rights in a way that is bothersome or threatening to those in power. That’s a natural response, and it’s exactly what the climate of fear imposed by all abusive police state actions is intended to achieve: to coerce citizens to “decide” on their own to be passive and compliant — to refrain from exercising their rights — out of fear of what will happen if they don’t.

The genius of this approach is how insidious its effects are: because the rights continue to be offered on paper, the citizenry continues to believe it is free. They believe that they are free to do everything they choose to do, because they have been “persuaded” — through fear and intimidation — to passively accept the status quo. As Rosa Luxemburg so perfectly put it: “Those who do not move, do not notice their chains.” Someone who sits at home and never protests or effectively challenges power factions will not realize that their rights of speech and assembly have been effectively eroded because they never seek to exercise those rights; it’s only when we see steadfast, courageous resistance from the likes of these UC-Davis students is this erosion of rights manifest.

Pervasive police abuses and intimidation tactics applied to peaceful protesters — pepper-spray, assault rifles, tasers, tear gas and the rest — not only harm their victims but also the relationship of the citizenry to the government and the set of core political rights. Implanting fear of authorities in the heart of the citizenry is a far more effective means of tyranny than overtly denying rights. That’s exactly what incidents like this are intended to achieve....
Full article: The roots of the UC-Davis pepper-spraying - Salon.com
Nick

"Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any other controlling private power." – President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Simple Truths message to Congress (April 29, 1938)
User avatar
NickDupree
Resident Medicaid Wonk
 
Posts: 5737
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:30 am
Location: New York, NY

Re: 212: 99% of the truth is missing

Postby Taliesin » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:47 pm

NickDupree wrote:
Glenn Greenwald wrote:...The intent and effect of such abuse is that it renders those guaranteed freedoms meaningless. If a population becomes bullied or intimidated out of exercising rights offered on paper, those rights effectively cease to exist. Every time the citizenry watches peaceful protesters getting pepper-sprayed — or hears that an Occupy protester suffered brain damage and almost died after being shot in the skull with a rubber bullet — many become increasingly fearful of participating in this citizen movement, and also become fearful in general of exercising their rights in a way that is bothersome or threatening to those in power. That’s a natural response, and it’s exactly what the climate of fear imposed by all abusive police state actions is intended to achieve: to coerce citizens to “decide” on their own to be passive and compliant — to refrain from exercising their rights — out of fear of what will happen if they don’t.

The genius of this approach is how insidious its effects are: because the rights continue to be offered on paper, the citizenry continues to believe it is free. They believe that they are free to do everything they choose to do, because they have been “persuaded” — through fear and intimidation — to passively accept the status quo. As Rosa Luxemburg so perfectly put it: “Those who do not move, do not notice their chains.” Someone who sits at home and never protests or effectively challenges power factions will not realize that their rights of speech and assembly have been effectively eroded because they never seek to exercise those rights; it’s only when we see steadfast, courageous resistance from the likes of these UC-Davis students is this erosion of rights manifest.

Pervasive police abuses and intimidation tactics applied to peaceful protesters — pepper-spray, assault rifles, tasers, tear gas and the rest — not only harm their victims but also the relationship of the citizenry to the government and the set of core political rights. Implanting fear of authorities in the heart of the citizenry is a far more effective means of tyranny than overtly denying rights. That’s exactly what incidents like this are intended to achieve....
Full article: The roots of the UC-Davis pepper-spraying - Salon.com


Rights by themselves are meaningless. Rights only make sense in a social context in which they can be exercised, and the ways in which they can be exercised are restricted in turn by that social context. Polarization. Populism. The coarsening of politics into something that bumptious Jacksonian red-necks and scurrilous and slanderous Fleet Street Hacks would recognize and approve of. Protests that seek to confront society rather than work within it. All these things affect the ways in which rights are understood and practiced. You don't exercise rights "against" the government, and if you think that you do, you don't get the point. Government and its apparatus is an instrument empowered by the collective will of the people to protect their well-being and enable them to prosper. But government (and even the collective "people") are separate entities removed from individuals. Rights are codes that govern the interaction between individuals and the collective entities of which they are a part. Confrontation or adversarial relationships between them is schizophrenic at best; the one is a product of the other. In a schizophrenic context rights, being the rules which normally govern interaction, mean nothing because the relationship isn't normal.

Oh, and if you think that the founders were somehow better than us? Remember what happened to Shay's Rebellion. General Washington didn't take too kindly to populism either. Remember that the Constitution was signed specifically to inhibit the excesses of state and local government, and provide for a stable national power. Remember that those founders like Paine and Lafayette who supported the populists of the French Revolution tended to get their heads chopped off.

Cut the hyperbole.
"Come back clowny-shoes and argue with me some more!"
-DBTrek
Taliesin
Senior Member
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:19 pm

Re: 212: 99% of the truth is missing

Postby Taliesin » Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:50 pm

Runicmadhamster wrote:
And yet none of those things, discipline, background checks, training, Internal Affairs departments, and prosecutors, have prevented either the pepper spray incidents, every act of violence towards the OWS protesters and the general violent reaction exhibited by the US police force to all peaceful protests


I know, and the institutional failure is awful. But at the same time, pepper spray is marketed specifically for those circumstances. And amidst all the indignation it might be good to remember that we've come a long way from the pinkertons and the national guard shooting down strikers.
"Come back clowny-shoes and argue with me some more!"
-DBTrek
Taliesin
Senior Member
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:19 pm

Re: 212: 99% of the truth is missing

Postby Runicmadhamster » Wed Nov 30, 2011 7:15 pm

Taliesin wrote:
Runicmadhamster wrote:
And yet none of those things, discipline, background checks, training, Internal Affairs departments, and prosecutors, have prevented either the pepper spray incidents, every act of violence towards the OWS protesters and the general violent reaction exhibited by the US police force to all peaceful protests


I know, and the institutional failure is awful. But at the same time, pepper spray is marketed specifically for those circumstances. And amidst all the indignation it might be good to remember that we've come a long way from the pinkertons and the national guard shooting down strikers.


While you do raise a good point with we've come a long way from the pinkertons and the national guard shooting down strikers. It still does nothing to distract from the vileness of the pepper spray incident. Like i said eariler Chemical burns hurt.
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: 212: 99% of the truth is missing

Postby NickDupree » Wed Nov 30, 2011 9:17 pm

Taliesin wrote:Oh, and if you think that the founders were somehow better than us? Remember what happened to Shay's Rebellion. General Washington didn't take too kindly to populism either. Remember that the Constitution was signed specifically to inhibit the excesses of state and local government, and provide for a stable national power. Remember that those founders like Paine and Lafayette who supported the populists of the French Revolution tended to get their heads chopped off.

Cut the hyperbole.

A hyperbolic comparison. Shay's Rebellion was about paying for the revolutionary war people wanted. The bills came due, and it sucked for all concerned, but that's war for you, you can't wage one without giving up some wages.

The UC Davis incident is about something far more basic...is there freedom of assembly or not? Will the right to protest only exist to the extent you can endure the pain of pepper spray, batons to the gonads, etc?

Students, my generation, are being asked to watch their futures dissolve in a rancid pool of corruption and government idiocy, but told they can't protest it where they live (on campus). We're told we can't protest anywhere; that we're in an Orwellian state where we must get permission from The Powers That Be in order to protest against The Powers That Be, and it is not permitted, because permits won't be issued. We are supposed to fight the wars, pay debts we had no say in, submit to taxation without representation, no one representing the youth; crushing responsibilities but no corresponding rights. Assembly and Freedom to Protest? Get back to work on your responsibilities and don't expect any rights....

How does that line up with our God given inalienable rights enshrined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights? How does that line up with our founding principles? How does that line up with anything America is about? How does that line up with anything fair and just and good?

It doesn't. And the citizens of the United States have every right to be outraged.
Nick

"Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any other controlling private power." – President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Simple Truths message to Congress (April 29, 1938)
User avatar
NickDupree
Resident Medicaid Wonk
 
Posts: 5737
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:30 am
Location: New York, NY

PreviousNext

Return to Discuss the Common Sense Show

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hschuylerh and 4 guests