|
Bob James posted:Elected judges are in my state's constitution. You are going to have to try again with something that isn't blatantly unconstitutional. State constitutions are much easier to amend than federal.
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
Hey Actus and Dead Reckoning, Do you think systemic racism exists? If yes, please explain how it is specifically unfair. Then please explain how you would address each problem thoroughly and how each suggestion would work legally. ActusRhesus posted:I've previously suggested a public integrity unit at the statewide level tasked with prosecuting all government officials including cops, and eliminating elected judges and DAs. That's where I would start. This answer isn't good enough for example. You should very thoroughly state what is wrong with our legal system (laws, courts, law enforcement) and then thoroughly explain how you would legally fix each issue. If you guys can spend pages and paragraphs telling people that they have no idea what they are talking about, you should be able to spend just as much time, if not more time, actually providing the very kind of suggestions (and criticisms of the system) that you demand of everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Hey Actus and Dead Reckoning, Phone posting. Can you wait until Saturday?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If I could prove to you that statistically this was not true, how would you change your position? If you could prove it conclusively , you'd have done it long ago. If you think you have something germane, post it, stop teasing it like a clickbait headline.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Phone posting. Can you wait until Saturday? Absolutely!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If I could prove to you that statistically this was not true, how would you change your position? Good luck with that. It would be tough with statistics to prove that cases like Eric Garner's was not an example of the police being above the law, because according to the law, the cop committed no crimes because there were no charges. How could that possibly shake out to anything but "actually, what cops are doing is all fine"? If there's only one conclusion, then the "statistics" aren't proving much. You'd also get cases like Philip Seidle, who yeah, is obviously going to be charged with murder. If you shoot someone in broad daylight, multiple times, and half a half-hour standoff with the police, nobody's getting away with that. It still won't mean that the cops as an institution don't have issues. So they'd probably have to be pretty great statistics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:Do you think it happens enough that it needs to be addressed? I sure do. This is why they're apologists, how can there be hundreds of posts of police abuse yet none of them indicate a problem? They argue there is no problem at all, that's the problem, they're so disconnected from reality that they believe it's not real or that it doesn't happen every day. It's the same stupid bullshit that people spew when talking about race or sexuality, they don't experience the persecution and harassment so to them it must not exist. blarzgh posted:I don't think it happens enough to rewrite our most basic human rights, no. You're wrong, you're not the target of abuse so you see no problem. Raerlynn posted:I would argue that we already violate that on a daily basis since cops don't seem to get charged with the same frequency as civilians and statistics seem to belie a bias in charging patterns. It's only a violation of our sacred constitution if it negatively affects heroes, criminals don't get those benefits, it's all 3 strikes and minimum sentencing for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Shut up Dead Reckoning, you know I'm not some legal expert who'd know how to draft the amendment so it'll help prevent future injustice against black people by the police. Next you'll tell me that a layman needs to be a car expert to be able to say that this new car that explodes if its driver is black should be redesigned. Bob James posted:You seem to be stupid, or at the very least confused about where you are at. This isn't a Constitutional Convention where we lay out the specific wordings of law. This is somethingawful.com where we discuss things and call each other retards. Lemming posted:It sounds like blarzgh thinks that first part would violate basic human rights and be unconstitutional, since it would be violating article 10 of the constitution and not charging everyone equally. Does what he says have any merit as a criticism?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Having a different set of lawyers charge government officials under the same set of laws is different from having a different set of laws to charge government officials. Understand? So you seriously approve of my ideas then? That independent boards to hold police misconduct accountable isn't unworkable?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:See above. Your unconstitutional suggestion? No thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Why should anyone listen to you then? What's your suggestion to make the situation better then? Otherwise same to you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Having a different set of lawyers charge government officials under the same set of laws is different from having a different set of laws to charge government officials. Understand? So, again, the gist of the suggestion was "we shouldn't have people who are friends with the local cops investigate and prosecute the cops" and the gist of ActusRhesus suggestion was the same. The difference was just in the understanding of how you'd go about doing that. Sounds like instead of worthlessly nitpicking the suggestion, you should be doing things like saying "ok, that wouldn't work because of X, but I can see what you're saying, and Y would be a better way of doing that." Which is what you'd be doing if you were in this conversation in good faith and wanted to improve the criminal justice system. But instead people like you say "no that's stupid and you're an idiot. That wouldn't work because of X, Y, and Z. If you're not going to educate yourself you're just a worthless screaming child." Which obviously kills the discussion and bogs everything down in your stupid bullshit. Edit: Also, I really like this part: Dead Reckoning posted:Why should anyone listen to you then? You're admitting that you're operating on the same level as a screaming child who wants mommy to make his booboo go away. You're saying you lack the intellectual capacity to understand the things that upset you or the desire to learn about them, but you want everybody to hear how mad you are until some authority figure comes along to tell you how to make it all better. Black people who are upset about racial inequality in America who aren't cops or lawyers: idiot screaming children. Lemming fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Jul 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Why should anyone listen to you then? You're admitting that you're operating on the same level as a screaming child who wants mommy to make his booboo go away. You're saying you lack the intellectual capacity to understand the things that upset you or the desire to learn about them, but you want everybody to hear how mad you are until some authority figure comes along to tell you how to make it all better. You really have an inflated sense of self worth if you think you're posts are shining gems of knowledge and insight. You don't post sources or cite laws, you don't provide any information other than "whaa, you're wrong". You sound like an idiot. In your head you must feel like a genius, pointing out all the problems to these plebes who lack the capacity to match your intellect, but you have not proven that in this thread. All you've proven is that you think anyone complaining about police abuse is an idiot, you've provided no proof or substantial argument against what anyone has said in this thread. At least other posters in this thread are capable of expressing their lovely ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:State constitutions are much easier to amend than federal. Oh, so you are in favor of changing the law to better serve the public. Why the gently caress are your rebuttals a constant moan of "we can't do that it's unconstitutional"? You know this makes you sound like a retard, right? Dead Reckoning posted:Well, I suppose I could start interacting with this thread at the level of effort commensurate with posters who have zero inclination to educate themselves about what they intend to discuss, but stopping in to post "lol" every time oohboy or Lemming posts would get old fast. Do you masturbate to pictures of dead kittens?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Your unconstitutional suggestion? No thanks. That is not really helping the discussion. You do understand the difference between amending a state constitution and amending the us constitution, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Bob James posted:Oh, so you are in favor of changing the law to better serve the public. I am in favor of looking for ways to improve the system that don't involve making GBS threads on the bill of rights and I think elected judges are bullshit. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Bob James posted:Elected judges are in my state's constitution. You are going to have to try again with something that isn't blatantly unconstitutional. My condolences on you living in a lovely state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I am in favor of looking for ways to improve the system that don't involve making GBS threads on the bill of rights and I think elected judges are bullshit. Yes. Then specifically state "I think that's a good/bad idea here is why." Saying "we can't do that it's unconstitutional" is beyond useless in a discussion specifically about changing the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:That is not really helping the discussion. We're living in fantasy land anyway, why not dream big?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:My condolences on you living in a lovely state. You already quoted this once. Glad you had you go around a second time for that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Bob James posted:Then specifically state "I think that's a good/bad idea here is why." Saying "we can't do that it's unconstitutional" is beyond useless in a discussion specifically about changing the status quo. Yeah, I'm more interested in learning about the unintended consequences or issues with the suggestions since none of the things we suggest in these threads is going to be implemented anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:My condolences on you living in a lovely state. My idea isn't perfectly workable? ... Sucks to be you I guess! And you wonder why we aren't sitting here in awe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Yeah, I'm more interested in learning about the unintended consequences or issues with the suggestions since none of the things we suggest in these threads is going to be implemented anyway. The problem however is when blarzgh or I try to do that we get ad hominems spewed at us, defend ourselves, and then some rear end in a top hat hits the report button. It would be a lot easier to have a discussion is disagreement wasn't grounds for suspension. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
reignofevil posted:My idea isn't perfectly workable? Protip: snark tends to get answered with more snark. Seriously though...state constitution amendments are pretty easy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The problem however is when blarzgh or I try to do that we get ad hominems spewed at us, defend ourselves, and then some rear end in a top hat hits the report button. It would be a lot easier to have a discussion is disagreement wasn't grounds for suspension. Uh, it's obviously not. Go back and look at the posts that get the probations, they're all the dumb posts that contribute nothing. Sorry about your persecution complex.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Protip: snark tends to get answered with more snark. Seriously though...state constitution amendments are pretty easy. Lemmie try to engage honestly. The implication that if a suggestion is currently illegal that it should be changed is literally the argument you were previously against. If you feel like passing a law fifty separate times (and let me just remind you; this process has been a complete FAILURE in the united states which has been taking abnormally long periods to even do things like desegregate loving proms) is really a better solution than moving whatever barriers necessary to getting this done on a federal level (which; given the EXTREME manner in which the U.S. government has been able to stretch its powers in the past I severely doubt is as legally insurmountable as you believe) is essentially an admission on your part that some people are simply going to get hosed over by the justice system for the next 50 to 100 years and that is an abhorrent plan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Man it sucks when you're just defending yourself from abuse and you end up getting punished by the system instead of the aggressor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Yeah, I'm more interested in learning about the unintended consequences or issues with the suggestions since none of the things we suggest in these threads is going to be implemented anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
reignofevil posted:Lemmie try to engage honestly. The implication that if a suggestion is currently illegal that it should be changed is literally the argument you were previously against. If you feel like passing a law fifty separate times (and let me just remind you; this process has been a complete FAILURE in the united states which has been taking abnormally long periods to even do things like desegregate loving proms) is really a better solution than moving whatever barriers necessary to getting this done on a federal level (which; given the EXTREME manner in which the U.S. government has been able to stretch its powers in the past I severely doubt is as legally insurmountable as you believe) is essentially an admission on your part that some people are simply going to get hosed over by the justice system for the next 50 to 100 years and that is an abhorrent plan. Except the suggestions seen here would completely contradict fifth amendment, sixth amendment, and due process protections. The Feds have a lot of muscle to flex on civil rights issues, but they can't unwrite the bill of rights. And that's what a lot of people here are suggesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Except the suggestions seen here would completely contradict fifth amendment, sixth amendment, and due process protections. The Feds have a lot of muscle to flex on civil rights issues, but they can't unwrite the bill of rights. And that's what a lot of people here are suggesting. We are talking about you right now I will put on my police cap and patrol these streets for unconstitutional suggestions after we get past your blatantly dishonest arguing and your desire to dodge every important issue in my previous post. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Except the suggestions seen here would completely contradict fifth amendment, sixth amendment, and due process protections. The Feds have a lot of muscle to flex on civil rights issues, but they can't unwrite the bill of rights. And that's what a lot of people here are suggesting. If the suggestion is coming from a layperson, it's guaranteed to have issues. What matters more is the sentiment of what they're trying to accomplish. Like with Raerlynn's suggestion, which was essentially the same as yours, in that local cops and prosecutors probably shouldn't be the ones trying to charge the local cops because of biases. There's nothing wrong with pointing out issues with suggestions, but you harp on them constantly as if the person is not willing to amend them and as if they went in with the full understanding, all while using that as a tool to sidestep the main issue they were trying to address. Feel free to point out someone here who has made a suggestion and stubbornly stuck to it without listening to anyone else about its viability if I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The problem however is when blarzgh or I try to do that we get ad hominems spewed at us, defend ourselves, and then some rear end in a top hat hits the report button. It would be a lot easier to have a discussion is disagreement wasn't grounds for suspension. You are currently getting ire because you are incapable of communicating your ideas in a clear and concise manner to help further discussion. "Elected judges are bad and state constitutions are easier to amend and are a better solution". This is good. Has specific points to talk about. "We can't do that it's unconstitutional." Completely loving worthless. Go kill yourself. The first had to be wrangled out of you after vomiting the second for pages on end. As far as actual discussion I agree that elected judges are terrible, but let me go back to this: ActusRhesus posted:My condolences on you living in a lovely state. This is why state level action isn't a solution for millions of people. Any real solution is going to involve the feds dragging lovely states kicking and screaming to whatever that solution is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
My point is that you say the problem as "systemic,' without understanding the system. Your belief is the offspring of you opinions of certain incidents; you presume those results are the fault of the system. I argue that this is a faulty presumption.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
My limited grasp of the workings of law is why I hesitate to throw suggestions in on these issues, but here goes: Why not make homicide under color of authority a federal crime, handled by federal prosecutors and federal courts? States' rights? Seems like that'd be the "simplest" way to move the decision-making process from the same local prosecutors who are supposedly throwing cases against cops.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The problem however is when blarzgh or I try to do that we get ad hominems spewed at us, defend ourselves, and then some rear end in a top hat hits the report button. It would be a lot easier to have a discussion is disagreement wasn't grounds for suspension. You poor guys, the mods just must have it out for you I guess
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:My point is that you say the problem as "systemic,' without understanding the system. Your belief is the offspring of you opinions of certain incidents; you presume those results are the fault of the system. http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf Sounds like the whole system here sucks rear end. I'm sure it's fine everywhere else, though. Unless you want to post some evidence for your position beyond "no u" I'm not sure how this is supposed to be substantive discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Lemming posted:What matters more is the sentiment of what they're trying to accomplish. And this is why these discussions never progress. When the group has no desire to hold people to their ideas, or to challenge the veracity or practicality of their opinions. When your 'debate and discussion' is really just a care-off, then its not a debate or a discussion anymore. So when someone like me says, "the system doesn't work that way, the change you want would have unintended consequences." The response is, "you're a cold hearted sack of poo poo, and disingenuous and a bigot and a government shill because you don't share my outrage!" Because, like you said, its not the actual suggestion that matters - its making sure everyone knows you have the right opinion, and the right emotions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
I do not think that the difficulty of passing a hypothetical piece of legislation has any relevance to a discussion of hypothetical changes to the law. No one here is drafting or sending bills to congress. Who cares how hard it is to change the constitution. If you want to discuss why a change simply would not function as intended, then I think that is perfectly valid, but if the only counter point to someone's suggestion is "you would need to change the constitution and that is really hard", then that is pretty pointless. Who cares? A discussion like this is about identifying problems, not roleplaying politicians.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:My point is that you say the problem as "systemic,' without understanding the system. Your belief is the offspring of you opinions of certain incidents; you presume those results are the fault of the system. Why are you making worthless posts like this when you were about to provide proof that police receive the same treatment as non-police. Come on, man, you were about to blow the case wide open, don't stop now. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...YDzK/story.html quote:The Methuen police department gave preference to job candidates who said they wouldn’t arrest relatives or fellow officers for drunken driving, the Massachusetts Civil Service Commission found.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
Lemming posted:http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf You know what I read? That an independent federal agency has investigated and reported on a police department; that the system you want to change is working.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 19:39
|
|