Police are scum and beneath our contempt. (3 Viewers)

[L]

m8 it's a known fact that only the best and brightest in society become police officers.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

haha

 

[cosmo kramer]

^ Hurr durr the police protect my interests and aren't generally biased, power hungry beaters of protesters derp

kill yourself you fucking juvenile imbecile

your adolescent political dogma is only a stage in your life that you will hopefully grow out of

but maybe youre just so stupid youre going to be one of those guys working as a data entrist and attending some useless rally comprised of five people protesting the alleged mistreatment of the palestinians on the weekend

you useless, braindead marxist faggot

 

[TacoTerrorist]

^ Rofl, suck my balls you ludicrously idiotic conservatard.

 

[scarybunny]

What's the alternative? Because if I get assaulted or something I want to be able to call someone who will set the dogs on them.

 

[Lipin]

Get a gun.

 

[katie tully]

What's the alternative? Because if I get assaulted or something I want to be able to call someone who will set the dogs on them.

Do a self defense course!

In 6 hours the other day I learnt how to totally disable any cunt who comes at me with a fist, a knife, a baseball bat, etc.

Providing they don't have a gun, if you do a self defense course you're going to be well equipped to fuck *them* in the arse.

Also I wouldn't bother going to the cops if I got assaulted. Maybe if some cunt glasses me in the eye, but I would only bother if the assault ended with grievous bodily harm, otherwise the rigmarole of going through the cop bullshit for a piss weak sentence.

And then I retribution.

 

[cosmo kramer]

[youtube]tatl1PBYim4[/youtube]

 

[Lipin]

get off there suck me off dumb dog

haha:
[youtube]PJ8EgWUVdqc[/youtube]

 

[abbeyroad]

What's the alternative? Because if I get assaulted or something I want to be able to call someone who will set the dogs on them.

we take away the state's power to make and enforce laws and minimize its role to such an extent that it becomes a private security company and then boom no more armed thugs with badges ???

 

[scarybunny]

Then there would just be armed thugs with security company badges. The same people who join the police force would join these companies.

 

[bazrah]

Basically, this thread is a bunch of school kids cranky because they aren't allowed to do drugs.

 

[cosmo kramer]

run
run
run gordon

its the police man

 

[abbeyroad]

Then there would just be armed thugs with security company badges. The same people who join the police force would join these companies.

no one's saying that won't happen, bad men will still do bad things regardless of the form of government, but when these armed thugs do commit a criminal act in a minarchist society they will no longer be able to hide behind sovereign immunity because huh sovereignty???

 

[Optimus Prime]

ugh cops are the fucking worst

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

no one's saying that won't happen, bad men will still do bad things regardless of the form of government, but when these armed thugs do commit a criminal act in a minarchist society they will no longer be able to hide behind sovereign immunity because huh sovereignty???

firstly 'minarchist' societies still retain a minimal state so yes there would still be such a thing as state sovereignty

and secondly, police officers are not protected by sovereign immunity; they are protected by 'statutory authority' only when it applies

different concepts guvna

 

[abbeyroad]

firstly 'minarchist' societies still retain a minimal state so yes there would still be such a thing as state sovereignty

and secondly, police officers are not protected by sovereign immunity; they are protected by 'statutory authority' only when it applies

different concepts guvna

what the fuck? are you fucking dumb? A minarchist state is not sovereign. Its sole role is to protect individuals from transgressions against their right to life, liberty and property. It is not supreme. It does not make laws, it does not collect taxes, it does not have a monopoly on violence nor does it have any authority over a given area. Look up "sovereignty" in the dictionary you imbecile.

Sovereign immunity refers to the idea that the state cannot be held liable for criminal conducts. Police officers are authorized by the state to exercise its police power. As agents of the state, when police officers do commit a criminal act during the execution of said power they (and the state) may not be prosecuted later on as long as they acted within the confines of the powers that were delegated to them; you can't sue the government because it's immune and you can't sue the police either as they were just "doing their job" thus you're left with no legal recourse. That's what I meant by hiding behind sovereign immunity you dumb fuck. Know your shit before you attempt to correct someone or you'll end up looking like a fucking fool. fuck I can't believe how stupid some of the people on this board are.

 

[zombie omie jay]

run
run
run gordon

its the police man

hahahahaa fuck

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

what the fuck? are you fucking dumb? A minarchist state is not sovereign. Its sole role is to protect individuals from transgressions against their right to life, liberty and property. It is not supreme. It does not make laws, it does not collect taxes, it does not have a monopoly on violence nor does it have any authority over a given area. Look up "sovereignty" in the dictionary you imbecile.

that makes no sense whatsoever

one of the preconditions of a state, minarchist or not, is that it is a sovereign entity you retard. this means territorial integrity and supreme authority within that territory.

otherwise, how could it be expected to uphold rights and liberties at all? if it had no laws, what rights and liberties would it even be upholding? how could it be considered legitimate? hopefully in your weird version of a minarchist state everyone carries locke's two treatises on government around with them so they have something to cite in court or to the defence agency to justify the enforcement of their rights.

what you have described is a private defence agency that competes with other private defence agencies. this is DIFFERENT to the minarchist state.

Sovereign immunity refers to the idea that the state cannot be held liable for criminal conducts. Police officers are authorized by the state to exercise its police power. As agents of the state, when police officers do commit a criminal act during the execution of said power they (and the state) may not be prosecuted later on as long as they acted within the confines of the powers that were delegated to them; you can't sue the government because it's immune and you can't sue the police either as they were just "doing their job" thus you're left with no legal recourse. That's what I meant by hiding behind sovereign immunity you dumb fuck. Know your shit before you attempt to correct someone or you'll end up looking like a fucking fool. fuck I can't believe how stupid some of the people on this board are.

what the hell are you on about?

firstly it's not 'sovereign immunity' (which is not automatic in this country anyway and is therefore irrelevant here), its statutory fucking authority because it is authorised by statute; not that hard to figure out

secondly there is no blanket immunity for police for any criminal act (rather it is delivered piecemeal within the statute books); any immunity that they do have must promote any law enforcement they are involved in. basic eg, a police officer who shoots to kill is authorised to do so ONLY in appropriate law enforcement circumstances. if police commit a criminal act that does NOT promote law enforcement whilst exercising their duties, they get their asses handed to them on a platter by the courts

thirdly any such immunity is legitimate if the underlying law enforcement is legitimate. in the minarchist state, police (or any other enforcement agency) will require some form of basic immunity to uphold individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the state. if someone has initiated force by disrespecting the personal freedoms of another in a minarchist state then police or other authority must retaliate to nullify the force, which may require some form of legal authority to detain them. if this cannot be done then that malefactor will not be punished. how fucking hard is that to understand?

take away any right to immunity and you have a toothless organisation like the ICC, which cannot assert itself and those it represents against the supposed rights of other entities.

i am dumbfounded that i have to explain these ideas to you in such basic terms

 

[abbeyroad]

that makes no sense whatsoever

one of the preconditions of a state, minarchist or not, is that it is a sovereign entity you retard. this means territorial integrity and supreme authority within that territory.

otherwise, how could it be expected to uphold rights and liberties at all? if it had no laws, what rights and liberties would it even be upholding? how could it be considered legitimate? hopefully in your weird version of a minarchist state everyone carries locke's two treatises on government around with them so they have something to cite in court or to the defence agency to justify the enforcement of their rights.

what you have described is a private defence agency that competes with other private defence agencies. this is DIFFERENT to the minarchist state.






i am dumbfounded that i have to explain these ideas to you in such basic terms

"oh noez itz caldd a state therefore it must haz suprm authrotiz ova a territori11!1!" cool story bro a minarchist state stripped down to its most basic function is a private defense agency you dogmatic fuck. A minarchist state differs from a private defense agency in name only.

what the hell are you on about?

firstly it's not 'sovereign immunity' (which is not automatic in this country anyway and is therefore irrelevant here), its statutory fucking authority because it is authorised by statute; not that hard to figure out

secondly there is no blanket immunity for police for any criminal act (rather it is delivered piecemeal within the statute books); any immunity that they do have must promote any law enforcement they are involved in. basic eg, a police officer who shoots to kill is authorised to do so ONLY in appropriate law enforcement circumstances. if police commit a criminal act that does NOT promote law enforcement whilst exercising their duties, they get their asses handed to them on a platter by the courts

"its statutory fucking authority because it is authorised by statute" which is in turn derived from the doctrine of sovereign immunity you idiot. The state extends this immunity to police officers acting in their official capacities through codified law, as lawsuits against agents acting in their official capacities are tantamount to suits against the entity for which they represent, ie the state. Officers can't be sued for criminal acts committed whilst enforcing the law on behalf of the state as long as these acts fall within the confines of the power given to them. The fact is, the powers granted to police officers are too broad. The line "I was merely acting within the limits of the power delegated to me " has allowed officers to get away with criminal acts ranging from arbitrary arrest and detention to murder of ordinary citizens for looking "funny". An officer not "promoting law enforcement" is not exercising the police power given to him by the state nor is he acting in his official capacity so of course he's not immune. I said this earlier so kewl story bro.

in the minarchist state, police (or any other enforcement agency) will require some form of basic immunity to uphold individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the state. if someone has initiated force by disrespecting the personal freedoms of another in a minarchist state then police or other authority must retaliate to nullify the force, which may require some form of legal authority to detain them. if this cannot be done then that malefactor will not be punished. how fucking hard is that to understand?

take away any right to immunity and you have a toothless organisation like the ICC, which cannot assert itself and those it represents against the supposed rights of other entities.

no they won't. the sole responsibility of a minarchist state is not to "uphold individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the state", but to protect an individual's life, liberty and property. It may only act when an individual's sovereignty has been encroached or is about to be encroached - ie an imminent threat to his or her person. "disrespecting the personal freedoms of another" is not a crime. Defense of others/defense of self is a complete justification for the use of force, even deadly force, in most jurisdictions; in common law jurisdictions a citizen already has the power to arrest and detain another citizen if the arresting citizen had reasons to believe that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed by the detainee. Therefore, your argument that the police would still require "some form of basic immunity" or else "that malefactor will not be punished" in a miniarchist society is moot.