d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Police Abuse Pedestrians - Opinions?
Prev13456713Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 2,943
Joined: Jun 2 2021
Gold: 476.99
Oct 26 2021 07:31pm
Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Oct 26 2021 07:30pm)
If the court decided it was legal then they were charged, and had to spend money on a lawyer to defend themselves, and had to give up time and money because of it.


Yeah, well? The officers had to waste their time dealing with two idiot degenerates instead of possibly saving someone's life on a domestic call. Those idiots suck up public resources every time they do this, so it makes sense that they should have to give money back to the system they stole from.

Moral of the story, I guess:

Don't be a dumb cunt - it can be expensive.

This post was edited by LoverManGenius on Oct 26 2021 07:32pm
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Oct 26 2021 07:32pm
Quote (LoverManGenius @ Oct 26 2021 08:31pm)
Yeah, well? The officers had to waste their time dealing with two idiot degenerates instead of possibly saving someone's life on a domestic call. Those idiots suck up public resources every time they do this, so it makes sense that they should have to give money back to the system they stole from.


No, the police wasted their time harassing individuals for legal activity.

Quote (JessiWan @ Oct 26 2021 08:31pm)
Anyway, the police most likely won't have to explain anything to anyone in the vast majority of interactions they have with the public. Only very few cases make it to a court, where they do indeed have to prove to the judge that they had probable cause to investigate someone for suspicious behavior. What you just suggested, the po-po having to justify it each and every time they have an interaction with the public, does not work in real life. Can you imagine the cops having to explain to someone every time they pull someone over? Who would they even have to explain it to?


I never said they should have to explain every stop every time. I said they should be able to explain it every time. As in, they don't pull people over for no reason.

What I just suggested is literally how the system already works. If the police can't articulate a suspicious set of facts the charges will be dropped and either the police or the city can be sued for false arrest, detainment, etc.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Oct 26 2021 07:34pm
Member
Posts: 33,927
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,528.52
Oct 26 2021 07:35pm
Can I get a tl;dr that actually describes what happened?
Member
Posts: 2,614
Joined: Sep 17 2021
Gold: 0.00
Oct 26 2021 07:35pm
Quote (LoverManGenius @ Oct 26 2021 07:53pm)
Only a lunatic deals in absolutes.


u are absolutely a [redacted]
Member
Posts: 2,943
Joined: Jun 2 2021
Gold: 476.99
Oct 26 2021 07:35pm
Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Oct 26 2021 07:32pm)
No, the police wasted their time harassing individuals for legal activity.


And so now we arrive at the cyclical portion of this argument.

As a general rule, if two people come to this point, the truth and most acceptable plan of action is to find a compromise somewhere in the middle. There can be objectively very little wrong with both points of view and that we are simply victims of circumstance.


Annoying cunt who wastes public time for attention on tiktok meets officer who is willing to waste said time because he takes it a little too personally. Who is in the wrong? The answer is neither, technically - it depends who you ask.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Oct 26 2021 07:36pm
Quote (EndlessSky @ Oct 26 2021 08:35pm)
Can I get a tl;dr that actually describes what happened?


Two kids flip off police officer.

Officer pulls over and detains them. Says they are "wandering around randomly" and that's grounds for detainment.

It isn't, and flipping off a police officer is protected speech, and there are no loitering laws they are breaking.

Police are getting sued for abusing their power.
Member
Posts: 38,137
Joined: May 28 2006
Gold: 0.00
Oct 26 2021 07:37pm
Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Oct 27 2021 04:36am)
Two kids flip off police officer.

Officer pulls over and detains them. Says they are "wandering around randomly" and that's grounds for detainment.

It isn't, and flipping off a police officer is protected speech, and there are no loitering laws they are breaking.

Police are getting sued for abusing their power.


this is what you voted for pighead
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Oct 26 2021 07:37pm
Quote (LoverManGenius @ Oct 26 2021 08:35pm)
And so now we arrive at the cyclical portion of this argument.

As a general rule, if two people come to this point, the truth and most acceptable plan of action is to find a compromise somewhere in the middle. There can be objectively very little wrong with both points of view and that we are simply victims of circumstance.

Annoying cunt who wastes public time for attention on tiktok meets officer who is willing to waste said time because he takes it a little too personally. Who is in the wrong? The answer is neither, technically - it depends who you ask.


You keep saying it's the "annoying cunt" who wasted public time, but it wasn't. It was unambiguously the police officer that wasted public time.

In this case, it doesn't depend who you ask. It is blatantly illegal for the cops to act the way they did. If you think the police had grounds to do what they did then you simply don't value the rights layed out in the constitution.
Member
Posts: 22,265
Joined: Aug 17 2021
Gold: 1,546.83
Warn: 30%
Oct 26 2021 07:39pm
Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Oct 26 2021 06:36pm)
Two kids flip off police officer.

Officer pulls over and detains them. Says they are "wandering around randomly" and that's grounds for detainment.

It isn't, and flipping off a police officer is protected speech, and there are no loitering laws they are breaking.

Police are getting sued for abusing their power.


But I mean, if contempt of court is a thing, shouldn't contempt of the police also be a thing? They are both authority figures that people should at least try not to defy too obviously.
Member
Posts: 2,943
Joined: Jun 2 2021
Gold: 476.99
Oct 26 2021 07:39pm
Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Oct 26 2021 07:37pm)
You keep saying it's the "annoying cunt" who wasted public time, but it wasn't. It was unambiguously the police officer that wasted public time.

In this case, it doesn't depend who you ask. It is blatantly illegal for the cops to act the way they did. If you think the police had grounds to do what they did then you simply don't value the rights layed out in the constitution.


Well if you thought that I did, that was your very first mistake.

I do not value basic human rights for everyone - and instead think that certain people qualify to have their constitutional rights revoked. A perfect example would be sex offenders - they should be treated like the shit piles they are and eligible for whatever abuse society could throw at them, up to and including murder.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev13456713Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll