King Nobody Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 I wonder what Glen Becks defense will be to this one.What was Glenn Beck's defense for the last one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazydog7 Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 What was Glenn Beck's defense for the last one?Exactly. I'm sure its going to start with something along the lines of...awful tragedy but.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser_not_appearing_yet Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 It wasn't a dog that was killed this time:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_police_search_girl_killedWTF? How do you accidentily shoot a sleeping kid? Shit is nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldLordPlumm Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 I hate the police, especially when they do this.Police bust man for streaming live rape of 4yr old onlineI hate them even more when they cooperate internationally.FBI tip off leads to sydney child porn arrest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Nobody Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 I hate the police, especially when they do this.Do you still "hate" the police when they do this?http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/child-pornography-sextinghttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29017808/Or this?http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/man_charged_with_statutory_rap.htmlOr even this?http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-10-10/iowa-collector-charged-for-allegedly-obscene-mangaBecause it's people with your "Won't somebody please think of the children!" attitude that allows shit like this to happen.The second case you posted doesn't have the desired affect for me either. This opinion may be unpopular, but those men didn't hurt anyone. I won't go so far as to call it a "victimless crime", because there was a victim, they just weren't the ones who victimized them, and they shouldn't be treated as though they did. I do support the police in the first case though, because there was an actual victim who was saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldLordPlumm Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 Do you still "hate" the police when they do this?http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/child-pornography-sextinghttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29017808/Or this?http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/04/man_charged_with_statutory_rap.htmlOr even this?http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-10-10/iowa-collector-charged-for-allegedly-obscene-mangaBecause it's people with your "Won't somebody please think of the children!" attitude that allows shit like this to happen.The second case you posted doesn't have the desired affect for me either. This opinion may be unpopular, but those men didn't hurt anyone. I won't go so far as to call it a "victimless crime", because there was a victim, they just weren't the ones who victimized them, and they shouldn't be treated as though they did. I do support the police in the first case though, because there was an actual victim who was saved.I care that cops rescue kids being raped therefore I don't wish to see all of them tarred with the same brush, so that makes me someone who allows bad police to flourish? I don't believe so.I don't have the Mrs Lovejoy attitude, point was police can do good, great, bad and terrible things as individuals or as an organisation and anyone indiscrimanately calling for the heads of the entire organisation or every single cop might as well condemn mentioned children to their fates. And yes same as not calling for Royal Commisions (government investigations) into bad cops would condemn innocent victims of police corruption or mispractice (including other cops) to their fates.BTW anime or manga depicting kids getting rude or fucked is illegal down under, so no problem there for me anyway.So you don't support police busting people caught with pictures or videos of kids posing nude and suggestively, masturbating themselves, each other, fucking each other, being touched by adults, fucked by adults etc? I'm not ranting on there to attack you, I just want to be sure that you understand.Noob your view won't necessarily be unpopular, I think alot of people probably don't realise there is a victim. You should read this EDIT: this is a psych report from a restitution court case of one of the most well known child porn victims in the states.At the [sentencing] Hearing, the . . . court received as evidence a `Forensic Psychological Examination (`Report) prepared by Randall L. Green, a clinical psychologist. Dr. Green interviewed Vicky on April 10, 2009 and . . . concluded that Vicky `suffered significant, permanent psychological damage as a direct result of the knowledge that images of her victimization, humiliation and exploitation have been downloaded and viewed by numerous individuals. Dr. Green believes that Vicky will `continue to suffer from the knowledge and belief that those images of her childhood abuse are at high probability to continue to be downloaded for prurient purposes.Among the specific harms Vicky suffered or continues to suffer, Dr. Green . . . reduced academic performance, alcohol abuse, anger/resentment, anxiety, depression, distrust of men, lost earnings, insomnia and sleep disturbances, `reactivation of trauma-related reminders and shame and embarrassment. . . . [ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slim da reaper Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 OldLordPlumm are we really saying the reprehensible acts done by individual police officers is necessary because there is also good being done by individuals as well?Nothing would ever change if this was the case, no civilisation would ever stop what is an intolerable act just because it is part of that civilisation, if there's a need to change something which is so wrong then that civilisation will change completely. If we didn't we'd still have old fashioned slavery, or we'd still be forced to give 10% of our earnings to the local vicar, or the economically poor and women would still not be able to vote.I do actually think the police are just a symptom of a much larger problem, which is that some people need to have someone in charge, that someone will be them if and when possible, vicariously at other times, and they have this need because they themselves are out-of-control. Because one of their base ideas within their philosophy of how to live is: Might makes Right, that the strongest are automatically right, do I need to explain why this is so very wrong? You always need someone in control fails because no-one is ever in control to the extent desired, if they were they'd be no need for the rest of us, and also it is completely unfeasible for with a rise in the need to control there is an equal if not greater rise in uncontrolable elements. Because that is the true state of affairs, nothing is in control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 OldLordPlumm are we really saying the reprehensible acts done by individual police officers is necessary because there is also good being done by individuals as well?Err... No? That's not what he said , or implied. His point was simply that the police does both good and bad, and that we should try to maximize the good and minimize the bad. Personally I should note that I consider hatred a pretty unproductive emotion. (as opposed to anger, which is often very useful) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Nobody Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 I don't have the Mrs Lovejoy attitude, point was police can do good, great, bad and terrible things as individuals or as an organisation and anyone indiscrimanately calling for the heads of the entire organisation or every single cop might as well condemn mentioned children to their fates. And yes same as not calling for Royal Commisions (government investigations) into bad cops would condemn innocent victims of police corruption or mispractice (including other cops) to their fates.I don't think saving a kid every now and then is enough to exempt them of all the wrong the police are doing as a whole to society. I will agree that there are some great police who do great things, but I think they are a minority, and I think using them as a shield to say that everything is fine is wrong. I don't even think saving a child removes all doubt about that police officer's character. He could save a child one day and beat on the homeless for fun the next.BTW anime or manga depicting kids getting rude or fucked is illegal down under, so no problem there for me anyway.You're fine with people who have harmed absolutely no one, even indirectly, having their lives ruined? It's lines on paper, not a child.So you don't support police busting people caught with pictures or videos of kids posing nude and suggestively, masturbating themselves, each other, fucking each other, being touched by adults, fucked by adults etc? I'm not ranting on there to attack you, I just want to be sure that you understand.No, I don't support the police busting these people, unless they were the ones who created it. Noob your view won't necessarily be unpopular, I think alot of people probably don't realise there is a victim. You should read this EDIT: this is a psych report from a restitution court case of one of the most well known child porn victims in the states.She has my sympathy, but this doesn't really change my opinion. She is too far removed from the people who view her images for me to consider her a direct victim of their actions. If two people get into a fight and someone films it should the people who view it be punished as though they were involved in the assault? Should people who buy from Nike be charged as though they were running a child sweatshop? She also claimed all of this while in court for restitution, meaning she had to prove there were damages to be compensated. This doesn't mean what she said is false, but anything said for the purpose of receiving money does kind of place doubt on the truth of what is being said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 The second case you posted doesn't have the desired affect for me either. This opinion may be unpopular, but those men didn't hurt anyone. I won't go so far as to call it a "victimless crime", because there was a victim, they just weren't the ones who victimized them, and they shouldn't be treated as though they did. That's interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Nobody Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 That's interesting.Elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 to say that everything is fine is wrongHas ANYONE said this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockroi Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 Detroit police searching for a homicide suspect burst in and an officer's gun went off, fatally striking the girl in the neck, family members say.See? Its true, guns DO just kill people. This gun "went off"; notice the author of the story (who was probably taught not to write in the passive voice) stated that the gun just "went off"; that's a relief because I would have thought that the police officer would have "shot the gun", but no. Apparently this gun just "went off." I am relieved. I think its safe to say that the point of this thread is not to convince everyone that ALL police do horrible acts, all the time. Yes, the police do very good things, every day. But the continued militarization of the police will lead, invariably, to MORE of these stories, not less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 Elaborate?No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Nobody Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 No.Then why even bother posting in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 Then why even bother posting in the first place?To bring attention to a part of your post that others might have glossed over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Nobody Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 To bring attention to a part of your post that others might have glossed over.Why bring attention to it if you don't have a problem, or something to say about it? There's obviously something you want other people to see and/or comment on, why not save us all the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 Why bring attention to it if you don't have a problem, or something to say about it? There's obviously something you want other people to see and/or comment on, why not save us all the time?No, not really. I just want people to notice. That's all. Honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 See? Its true, guns DO just kill people. This gun "went off"; notice the author of the story (who was probably taught not to write in the passive voice) stated that the gun just "went off"; that's a relief because I would have thought that the police officer would have "shot the gun", but no. Apparently this gun just "went off." I am relieved. Or that it just "went off" during a "physical altercation" with a shadowy figure in the house who happened to be the girl's grandmother, whose side of the story was that the cop simply bumped into her. The fact that this man, who killed a young girl while she slept, is on paid administrative leave, is sickening. He should be behind bars. There are no excuses or reasoning for this to have happened, especially after neighbors warned the cops that there were children in the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser_not_appearing_yet Posted May 17, 2010 Share Posted May 17, 2010 Elaborate?I don't know if I'd support people like that being arrested and locked up, but I would support them getting psych evaluations, and having the police keep a close eye on them.They are after all, the prime candidates for subsequent child abuse/rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.