Declaring war on the police?

[muzzard]

I disagree spade, I think most cops destroy lives on a daily basis. That's pretty much the job. I'm not sure I go along with the "I was only following orders". I think you have to take responsibility for your own actions on an individual basis. If a cop wrecks someones life for smoking pot, they should't try and blame "the system" - the cop needs to blame himself.

As Cool Hand Luke says "Calling it your job don't make it right".

Your opinions are so warped, beyond any rational kind of discussion, its funny.

 

[Ismene]

Who cares about John Lennon? What has that got to do with the argument? Thanks for pointing out who he is, I had no idea who John Lennon was... thanks

Er...let me explain...you said you didn't think the police destroyed anyones life for drug possession. I pointed out they destroyed one of the richest, most famous and powerful men of the 20th century by busting him for drug possession. If they can destroy John Lennons life then they can destroy anyones.

I think that's your argument firmly rammed down the nearest shitpot don't you?

 

[Ismene]

Your opinions are so warped, beyond any rational kind of discussion, its funny.

So you don't think a cop should take responsibility for his own actions?

And you think I'm bizarre spade?

 

[muzzard]

Er...let me explain...you said you didn't think the police destroyed anyones life for drug possession. I pointed out they destroyed one of the richest, most famous and powerful men of the 20th century by busting him for drug possession. If they can destroy John Lennons life then they can destroy anyones.

I think that's your argument firmly rammed down the nearest shitpot don't you?

No because that wasn't my argument at all. Try actually reading.

 

[Ismene]

So do you think the police destroy peoples lives for drug possession or not? That was your argument wasn't it?

 

[muzzard]

So you don't think a cop should take responsibility for his own actions?

And you think I'm bizarre spade?

Again I did not say that. Any discussion is futile as you do not read and comprehend fully or try to twist words. When you learn to read and have a decent discussion without trying to twist words or call an orange an apple, then fine, I'll discuss.

Until then, stick to your bigoted view points.

 

[muzzard]

So do you think the police destroy peoples lives for drug possession or not? That was your argument wasn't it?

no that was not my argument

 

[Ismene]

Again I did not say that. Any discussion is futile as you do not read and comprehend fully or try to twist words. When you learn to read and have a decent discussion without trying to twist words or call an orange an apple, then fine, I'll discuss.

Until then, stick to your bigoted view points.

Er...I know you didn't say that muzzard. I was talking to spade - that's why I said "spade" at the end of the fucking post.

Perhaps you should learn to read eh?

 

[Ismene]

no that was not my argument

I thought you said "I doubt they destroy many lives based on drug convictions".

 

[muzzard]

Er...I know you didn't say that muzzard. I was talking to spade - that's why I said "spade" at the end of the fucking post.

Perhaps you should learn to read eh?

I also said about it being their job and following the letter of the law etc. So it would seem that would apply to me too.

 

[muzzard]

I thought you said "I doubt they destroy many lives based on drug convictions".

Jeez, that was a view point, sure if you want to agree or disagree with that assumption then fine. That wasnt the point of the whole argument.

Whether it destroy lives or it doesn't is irrelevant somewhat to the basis of my whole argument. I'll break it down for you.

1. A law is a law, breaking said law repeatedly does not make your action lawful. Whether this is one person or society as a whole. For example speed limits, everyone breaks them, that doesn't make it right to break them.

2. If you decide to break that law and the consequences of being caught/punished to the full extent of that law 'destroy your life' then:

a) You either did not think about the consequences, therefore you have nobody to blame but your self

or

b) You thought about the consequences, but decided the chances of you being caught were slim/minimal or/and the punishment wasn't so severe that you were willing to take the risk. Again, if you did get caught/punished, then nobody to blame but yourself if it 'wrecked your life'

c) You thought about the consequences and decided they were pretty harsh and would wreck your life if caught/punished, but still carried on breaking that specific law. Again, nobody to blame but yourself.

PS I am not saying that drugs laws are 'correct' in my view point. I thoroughly believe decriminalisation is the way forward. However, that is not the way it is at the moment and people doing/drugs getting caught isn't going to persuade the legislature to change things. So we must accept the way things are at the moment and accept the consequences if we wish to break the current drug laws.

 

[TheSpade]

Are you capable of some kind of reasonable discussion that doesn't involve you calling an orange an apple?

The simple answer is NO. He really isn't. You'll go round and round and round and still get nowhere. Mainly because Issy is a troll and the internets biggest joker and wind up merchant but still he manages to suck us in every time.

I'm not sure I go along with the "I was only following orders". I think you have to take responsibility for your own actions on an individual basis. If a cop wrecks someones life for smoking pot, they should't try and blame "the system" - the cop needs to blame himself.

You're contradicting yourself Issy. You are right though people need to take responsibility for their own actions which is why if you get busted for drugs you need to blame yourself not the copper. You wrecked your own life by choosing to ignore the law and smoke that pot, the cop merely caught you out. The cop is in no way at fault here. Obviously the cops are just a bit smarter than you.

 

[MrM]

I'm not sure I go along with the "I was only following orders". I think you have to take responsibility for your own actions on an individual basis. If a cop wrecks someones life for smoking pot, they should't try and blame "the system" - the cop needs to blame himself.

I agree with this.

Which is why i find it disgusting that you would gain satisfaction from a policeman being shot in the face without knowing for sure if that particular policeman was individually responsible for ruining peoples lives.

If you can't use the excuse of 'only following orders' as a policeman then the flipside is when out on your vendeta you can't assume all pigs are the same or justify feeling a 'warm ready brek glow' on hearing of one being shot in the face by someone else.

If, as you say, when a cop wrecks someone's life you can't blaim the system, you must blaim the cop, then it follows that you can't blaim all the other cops (part of the system) for that cops actions. Individual responsibility works like this.

If you shoot a random police officer sod's law dictates you'll get the one police officer who doesn't particularly agree with drug law and considers it their individual responsibility to show discretion in the way they carry out their job. I've met such an individual at least once. Admitedly this isn't very likely but i oppose the death penalty on principle due to the same small % chance innocent people will die.

 

[Ismene]

a) You either did not think about the consequences, therefore you have nobody to blame but your self

No, I can't go along with that I'm afraid. Some laws are so unjust that to break them is a dignified and human response. To punish someone for breaking an unjust law can never be justified. To cower in fear from brutal cops may be the safest response but you should never "blame" yourself for disobeying an evil and unjust law.

If we follow the logic of "a law is a law" then we could blame any oppressed people. You could claim the kids in Tianemen square had no-one to blame but themselves for getting shot down because they wern't doing what they were told.

 

[StoneHappyMonday]

Seems your mates shop only gets ignorant people with a very low IQ as customers then

Nope. Just the general public in a rural area.

if they all wanted to see more dead coppers.

And that's not true either. Where did I say all?

I'm reporting to you a significant number of people telling me they were pissed off Moat turned out to be a pussy.

You don't seem capable of debating anything in other than black and white terms and tainting me with views I don't hold.

After 30000 posts you've learnt a lot Spadey boy ain'tcha?

 

[muzzard]

No, I can't go along with that I'm afraid. Some laws are so unjust that to break them is a dignified and human response. To punish someone for breaking an unjust law can never be justified. To cower in fear from brutal cops may be the safest response but you should never "blame" yourself for disobeying an evil and unjust law.

If we follow the logic of "a law is a law" then we could blame any oppressed people. You could claim the kids in Tianemen square had no-one to blame but themselves for getting shot down because they wern't doing what they were told.

Here we go again, an orange is an apple. Throwing random shit out from any time/country/situation that really has no bearing on this conversation at all.

I live in the UK, I presume you do to? We don't have laws that are unjust and evil imo, if you could point one out to me, then go ahead. Personally, I don't have any major issues with any laws at present. One or two possibly, but these are in very specific circumstances and won't impede on general cases going to court etc. I have a degree in law, so I do at least know something about the law and the legal system in the UK.

The conversation and points I made specifically relate to the drug laws with in the UK at this present time.

Not to any dictatorships/or where there is oppression etc. Given the fact you cant even spell Tiananmen correctly gives me some inkling that you really don't know that much about it anyway. But that's beside the point.

Don't take quotes from me and totally throw them out of reasonable context.

Also, the rambling you just gave has nothing to do with point a)

a) You either did not think about the consequences, therefore you have nobody to blame but your self

If your saying you need to break unjust and evil laws as a dignified human response, then obviously you have thought about the consequences and have rendered yourself a martyr of some kind to try and fight the establishment. So you really haven't addressed or argued against my point, just talked about something which is different. A pretty common theme in most your posts.

If you are trying to say that the drug laws in this country are unjust and evil, then fair enough, I'd agree to some extent. To the extent that the war on drugs is futile and law/enforcing that law is:

a) Highly costly
b) Will never be able to win 'the war on drugs'
c) criminalising people who have caused little harm to any other apart from themselves
d) lots of benefits for decriminalising, including massively reduced costs for enforcing the law, improved quality and consistency of quality for the consumer ( therefore less deaths due to cuts and overdoses), reduce the illegal drug trade, etc etc

But by no way is the current legislation evil to any extent.

 

[Ismene]

Here we go again, an orange is an apple. Throwing random shit out from any time/country/situation that really has no bearing on this conversation at all.

.

Quit the bollocks and try and make a point would you muzz?

I live in the UK, I presume you do to? We don't have laws that are unjust and evil imo, if you could point one out to me, then go ahead

Casey Hardison.

 

[Ismene]

If, as you say, when a cop wrecks someone's life you can't blaim the system, you must blaim the cop, then it follows that you can't blaim all the other cops (part of the system) for that cops actions. Individual responsibility works like this.

But cops don't work like this do they. If one cop arrests you for possession of pot another cop doesn't come along, bash him over the head and set you free does he? They both fucking lock you up.

So they're all as guilty as each other arn't they?

 

[muzzard]

Quit the bollocks and try and make a point would you muzz?

I live in the UK, I presume you do to? We don't have laws that are unjust and evil imo, if you could point one out to me, then go ahead

Casey Hardison.

That's not a law, that is a person. I don't really want to read any material no the guy, it will mainly be pro or anti drug. Suffice to say I gather he's using his 'Human Rights' as some kind of protection for breaking the drug laws.

BTW, I am making a point, just you don't seem to be able to grasp what it is, or counter it. You just talk about things which don't really have anything to do with my points.

People will disagree with the drugs policy, as do I. But how is the drug policy EVIL?

 

[MDMAhead]

People will disagree with the drugs policy, as do I. But how is the drug policy EVIL?

This whole arguement is becoming boring (the thread is up to its 18th page FFS!!!)

It now seems to be about semantics - to some people, the words 'evil' and 'wrong' are interchangeable, whereas to other people, 'evil' is referring to motives (and you would hope that the motives behind our drug laws are good, although given the right-wing press' influence over our politicians, that's debatable).

Anyway, I have another very interesting (and as yet unmentioned) point to make about the death of Raoul Moat. But I'll wait for this silly arguement to end before making it