Posted on 10/29/2008 5:06:39 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner
You do call the cops at your own peril. My house was burglarized several years ago. The wife called the police when she got home, then called me. The Police were told the door was adjar, and she did not know if anyone was still in the house. I got to the house 45 minutes after she called me and cops still no show. Tired of waiting, I cleared the house myself. When cops finally got around to putting down radar guns and donuts, and showed up the chewed me out for going into my own house and treated me like a suspect. Cops, political institutions, are not your friend and they do not exist to protect you. They exist to forward the interest of the State, the needs of the State and the will of the politician.
I am a conservative Republican with a libertarian bent.
I am a conservative Republican with a libertarian bent.
I’m not a big law and order type either.
While don’t have anything against police officers in general, I do believe they are an ever-expanding extension of government. Then there is the problem with the being coddled by the criminal justice system.
I’m not a big law and order type either.
While don’t have anything against police officers in general, I do believe they are an ever-expanding extension of government. Then there is the problem with the being coddled by the criminal justice system.
Wow, you have the double post demon. I had it a while back.
Perhaps. But without a professional police force, law enforcement becomes ad hoc and would probably end up being based on angry mob justice. Police are generally unable to prevent a crime, but they can investigate the crime and arrest the perpetrators. That has a very effective detterent effect.
The police aren't able to prevent a crime, generally, if the perpetrator is determined to commit such crime. However, the knowledge that arrest, conviction and punishment are a very real possibility, deters a lot of potential criminals (or, at the very least, deters them from committing more serious crimes).
The internet connection at work is crap.
I agree, somewhat. My biggest problem with the police, is that there's too many. Hence they must FIND more criminals to justify their existence. The way it's going, everyone will be a criminal in a decade. Except for the cops, of course.
If all we had were investigators, and a few stand-bys for violent bad-guy pursuits, AND the populace knew that was the case. Most of the petty burglers and the like would wind up face down in a pool of their own blood.....meaning fewer criminals.
I feel sorry for folks who live in the big cities like Obama's, where burglaries and shootings are nightly affairs. I wouldn't live there. I wouldn't live where burglary suspects are running through my yard and where I might get shot if I go outside.
The problem with these high crime areas is it encourages folks to trade away their safety for freedom. We already do just that in a thousand different ways in motor vehicle safety. We have empowered all levels of government to stop cars for a myriad of reasons. I object to that and will accept higher risk and less safety for more freedom and less officer friendly monitoring of my activities.
What I am trying to say is it is one thing to advocate personal freedom it is quite a different level of commitment to the principal of personal freedom to accept a higher level of risk.
It’s just a matter of how much risk you are willing to trade for personal freedom. Me, I will accept quite a high level of risk in return for personal freedom. That makes me very powerful.
We are not given enough info to decide one way or another. I will say this: If he shot with no more justification than it appears he needs to be tried for murder.
correction to last post most of it disappeared!
Just want to give everyone something to think about. This is the money quote. If these "suspects" were not arrested, did not have enough evidence to warrant an arrest, how did this cop feel justified in shooting someone he only thought was one of the suspects. A suspect whose crime was not bad enough to be arrested for but he could be shot for it. Think about it, why did this cop shoot this man? What are they leaving out of the story, either about the man who was shot or the cops intentions. Making no assumptions here except to say if these guys were not guilty enough to arrest why was this cop ready to shoot? Or was he?
We are not given enough info to decide one way or another. I will say this: If he shot with no more justification than it appears he needs to be tried for murder.
Are you sure there wasn’t a dog there they also shot? Just to be safe, you know.
I doubt it. We’ve seen plenty of it regardless of who is in office. Statist jackasses come in all political affiliations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.