I know it has, there was a case a few years ago that was quickly forgotten.
My opinion on the matter is that OSHA needs to take the matter of tasers out of the ATF's hands and dictate that all police issued tasers need to be OSHA yellow for the entire body. Some are today already but others are just safety yellow on the front face.
Yep, especially with many of them being shaped like a pistol. A quick search and I found a few that depending on circumstances could be mistaken for a gun.
Yeah, at least Canadian police have the courtesy to let you know they're executing you on purpose by tazing you over and over in quick succession until you die. No "oopsie shootsie!", just "he's still spasming, fire again!".
I'm under the impression that the gun and taser are kept on opposite sides of the body to prevent situations like this from happening under stressful circumstances. This all sounds more and more like the officer lady was just braindead stupid, and the only real argument is if the black man was dumber to try to run away or not.
If I was on a jury and a charge was illegal possession of a firearm I would vote not guilty by default on that charge. Jury nullification is the way to go on 2A. If you have one person on every jury doing this you are assuring a hung jury and forcing the state to either let the guy go or spend more money on another trial. This happens enough times they'll either change the law or they're going to tell cops to stop bringing them just possession charges.
uh yeah. This is why we should execute people who we deem unable to be rehabilitated into society. That said, I don't trust the current system to pass judgment on anyone. The whole thing is rotten and needs to be refreshed.
And that's where things go wrong. Without universal agreement, "we" will always be subjective, and it gets really fucking scary with those statements when you absolutely know your enemies would justify themselves with the exact same notion against you.
We have people who are serving life sentences in prison. That is functionally deeming someone unfit to rejoin society. This kind of judgment is already being passed on people, we just don't have the balls to be humane and kill them.
I readily give you your point that people would abuse this to persecute their enemies. The fact that our society is so divided takes many solutions off the table, as they only function in a more cohesive society. Instead we're just gonna careen down the road to anarchy and/or tyranny because the populace is divided against itself.
Exactly. the laws suck ass, we need them changed. the guy was an irresponsible asshole but it shouldn't have been illegal to posess a gun to begin with.
It just requires a very clear standard and visible enforcement.
We used to have that.
If people know that the punishment for murder, rape, kidnapping, aggravated assault with a weapon, or armed robbery is to be immediately marched out after conviction and strung up in the town square...
People will generally do a good job of steering clear of those behaviors.
Ambiguous enforcement begets dubious behavior. Make stark examples, and the occasions when you need to make them will be rare (eventually).
The thing is, our communities used to be the visible enforcement, and the visible standard. Much like everything else, we outsourced it. When your neighbor is also an enforcer of social norms, you're less likely to squirt a cream filled dildo in his face.
We are very community based animals. The most destructive forces are those that destroy the foundations of our society. The family is the bedrock, but the people we interact with are the cornerstones. Modern society has devastated both.
The thing is, our communities used to be the visible enforcement, and the visible standard.
That kind of thinking legitimizes the leftist perception of an oppressive, bigoted culture.
The Saxons used to appoint their law enforcers (shire reeves, origin of sheriff) by elevating able commoners held in esteem by the community and given the assent of the landholding elite. But when the Normans appeared on the scene they found this system to be far too corrupt and inconsistent. So their addition was the bailiff, which was controlled centrally by the crown, trained and held to a consistent standard, and largely resembles the court we have today.
The Britons initially hated this system for being different but by the reign of King John the stabilizing effect of having a reliable judiciary free of local influence (either the whims of barons or the seething common mob) was generally regarded as a very good thing to be preserved and improved.
Law is an artificial thing, something that we have invented wholecloth. I think to a degree it HAS to be controlled centrally in order for it to actually be impartial, otherwise every community will enforce its own much narrower view of what is acceptable.
Law is an artificial thing, something that we have invented wholecloth.
What we know as law now, I agree. But I think it has an organic basis in cultural norms upheld by communities.
There wasn't any need to write down the rules, they were chiseled into your brain by being raised within that particular social environment. I don't have any reason to believe that this would fail as a system to enforce order - the common criticism of "subjective" loses meaning when everyone involved shares the values and outlooks that give weight to that subjectivity.
Eventually, communities consider dealing with people outside their community. Whether it's the formation of a large town or even the simple tolerance of a merchant, these communities end up being asked and expected to produce a concrete list of rules that must be followed. The purpose is clear: to allow outsiders to interact with the community without accidentally breaking the rules. This easily shifts to allowing outsiders to comingle, immigrate and integrate successfully.
However, it invites some dangers. First, now any time that the community has a need to update its rules/values, it must engage that concrete list to update it. What was a simple process of communal understanding now demands the extra step of formalization, but this may involve negotiating with a law master when the community has to share territory with other communities. Second, because the purpose of the concrete ruleset is to be understood by outsiders, these outsiders must be consulted when writing the rules because what's easy for the community to understand may be hard for outsiders to understand. So now you've got outsiders able to sneak loopholes in with clever wording. Third, it invites outsiders to challenge the rules as written. Challenge is a good thing, but the process of making the results concrete can create the start of legalese by making the rules overcomplicated or harder to understand. Example:
Say a community has the rule "don't eat meat on rainy days". An outsider would challenge it, saying "rainy days" is too broad because one might eat meat for breakfast and end up breaking the rule due to rain at noon. So now the rule is "don't eat meat during periods of rainfall". Well what if the meat's in your mouth when it starts raining? "don't put meat in your mouth if it is currently raining". How much rain counts as raining? "don't put meat in your mouth if it is currently raining audibly". My hearing isn't good, can you give another indicator? "don't put meat in your mouth if it is currently raining audibly or the rain is enough to cover your hands in water" etc etc until you need to create a new job for the sole purpose of translating the rules.
The history example you give is solid. My only proper counter is that while the positives outweigh the negatives, the positives do not increase over time while the negatives do increase over time. It only really demands reform and/or rebellion, but that can get really messy.
Even with all this, I can't quite say that making communal rules into a concrete form for outsiders is a doom flag. I am autistically bitter about it, though.
[tagging u/exilde since I'm butting into the conversation]
I don't have any reason to believe that this would fail as a system to enforce order
It wouldn't fail on order.
It would fail to respect liberty.
Eventually, communities consider dealing with people outside their community.
History shows quite convincingly that communities with strongly enforced cultural norms inevitably choose a very specific way of "dealing" with outsiders.
I remember the 90's. The word Bosnia will always be a synonym for "fucking slavic neighborhate shitstorm" to me.
That's difficult to counter. On a level, I agree, and I'm forced to side with liberty. On another level, it is not inherently impossible for an insider to challenge their community's values/rules and succeed in creating an exception. I think that's a basic form of liberty. Obviously it becomes a problem when a community punishes every insider challenge with death, but I'd also say that such a community has doomed itself to annihilation. Similarly, I could go so far as to say that the ability to engage liberty by permitting insider challenge is an essential quality for long term success.
History shows quite convincingly that communities with strongly enforced cultural norms inevitably choose a very specific way of "dealing" with outsiders.
Yes, and those often caused problems for otherwise successful communities. But I have to consider "strongly enforced" to be a bit loaded because to me that means that they went beyond banishing undesirable members and violently threatened them into compliance, which I'd consider a liberty violation and proof of failure. Then it's a matter of how many outsiders they'll try to drag down with them before the outsiders hopefully make use of their successful policies to find sufficient military aid. And that is messy and ugly, but I think it's acceptable.
I'm unfamiliar with Bosnia, so maybe I've missed your meaning. If they're bothering people outside their own territory, I'd say they're inviting retaliation. If they're keeping to their own turf and being assholes, just cut off all exchange with them.
Fair analysis. That said, we currently see the effects of too centralized control. I believe it's unsustainable to the root. Strengthening community bonds now stands to minimize the anarchy that could follow this little era.
we should execute people who we deem unable to be rehabilitated into society
My solution is both more and less cruel but not as permanent so in case further evidence is discovered the individual can be brought back and compensated
absolute solitary confinement and reversible surgical blindness to significantly decrease the chances of them ever causing a problem again
implant a drug dispenser in their spine that can render them unconscious for things like medical exams, treatments and in case they act out
give them the equivalent of Alexa (with no external connection) and a library of every recorded music and every audio book ever made.
give them the resources to learn braille by touch and the ability to request physical copies of books in braille
provide regular medical exams and non-heroic treatment to keep them alive
provide a button in their cell that will flood it with nitrogen after a 5 minute delay (along with a method to cancel the countdown) and the last thing they hear a human say is instructions on how to use that button
Could you re-draft this? I'm seeing several problems.
You've taught all felons marketable skills for working with the blind. Is that the intent..? Put all ex-felons to work as aides for the blind?
I think this would be more expensive than our current silly system. Even substituting out all four surgeries, I think the cost would still be too high.
What happens if they're already blind?
If the last thing they hear a human say is the suicide instructions, how are the medical exams handled without communication? Logistically, how do you learn braille without help? Both of those things seem much harder if you can't hear any speech.
heh I don't know how much I want to elaborate but since it sounds psycho enough as it is but since we are running with it...
not all felons, only as a substitute for capital punishment and life without parole - so only the ones who are found to be wrongly convicted if new evidence is discovered would be issues with re-integration. For those I assume there would be a compensation that would be substantial enough that they really didn't have a motivation to re-offend unless they were truly unable to control themselves
Is there a high number of blind people committing capital crimes? the blindness and solitary isn't meant as punishment, though it will suck, but to ensure that the convicted was highly unlikely to cause problems during their sentence.
For medical exams and dental work they would be conducted the same way vets examine animals that are potentially dangerous.
How do they learn braille without help? They have a lot of time on their hands, verbal insturctions could be part of their media library along with education tools.
Ah, a replacement for sentences where re-integration is not planned. At the least, it sounds frightening and that would be a potential motivator to dissuade some criminals. I do like the idea of seperating such offenders from the ones that can rejoin society, as a prisoner with no hopes is likely to make everyone around them miserable on purpose.
Is there a high number of blind people committing capital crimes?
I doubt it, but I wouldn't be surprised at a newly blind guy getting up to something crazy. Maybe not on a comic book villain level, but I imagine it being a traumatic change that could distort a person's values. Most guys wouldn't have henchmen available to facilitate crazy plans.
I was assuming the blindness to be meant as punishment. Why bother with it at all? Just putting them in isolation sounds sufficient. Give them light and normal books, take away the Alexa. Drug their food when you want to give them a checkup. You wouldn't even need them to hear instructions for the suicide button, you could have a sign.
I see the blindness as sort of an ultimate means escape-proofing, how could they even attempt to exploit weaknesses in the system when their guards effectively had superpowers compared to them
Tim has a point, Federal Law supersedes any state law, especially if its backed by the Constitution. This poor fool should have taken the L, gotten arrested and then had his day in court.
And if he hadn't resisted arrest he'd be alive and could try fighting MN's bullshit gun laws.
Basically this is a story about how two dumb people crossed paths.
Holy shit, that's the best deception of what happened that I have read.
Two morons with guns enter.
Everyone suffers.
At least we're admitting that everyone was a fucking retard in this interaction.
I still want to know how you mistake a gun for a taser. Has that happened before?
I know it has, there was a case a few years ago that was quickly forgotten.
My opinion on the matter is that OSHA needs to take the matter of tasers out of the ATF's hands and dictate that all police issued tasers need to be OSHA yellow for the entire body. Some are today already but others are just safety yellow on the front face.
Yep, especially with many of them being shaped like a pistol. A quick search and I found a few that depending on circumstances could be mistaken for a gun.
Well, fuck the ATF in general.
Yeah, at least Canadian police have the courtesy to let you know they're executing you on purpose by tazing you over and over in quick succession until you die. No "oopsie shootsie!", just "he's still spasming, fire again!".
I'm under the impression that the gun and taser are kept on opposite sides of the body to prevent situations like this from happening under stressful circumstances. This all sounds more and more like the officer lady was just braindead stupid, and the only real argument is if the black man was dumber to try to run away or not.
Somewhere there's gotta be an innocent black guy that got shot by the police. These BLM idiots just don't know about him.
If I was on a jury and a charge was illegal possession of a firearm I would vote not guilty by default on that charge. Jury nullification is the way to go on 2A. If you have one person on every jury doing this you are assuring a hung jury and forcing the state to either let the guy go or spend more money on another trial. This happens enough times they'll either change the law or they're going to tell cops to stop bringing them just possession charges.
That's like 5 steps too deep for nignog brain activity. How about street gun battles instead?
Enjoy being disqualified from that jury before the trial starts.
not a problem because I possess this superpower called "lying"
In the context of jury selection, you mean perjury.
That's why you don't tell them you're going to go for jury nullification.
Liberty is contingent on a populations self-restraint. The constitution is inadequate for the current American population.
uh yeah. This is why we should execute people who we deem unable to be rehabilitated into society. That said, I don't trust the current system to pass judgment on anyone. The whole thing is rotten and needs to be refreshed.
And that's where things go wrong. Without universal agreement, "we" will always be subjective, and it gets really fucking scary with those statements when you absolutely know your enemies would justify themselves with the exact same notion against you.
We have people who are serving life sentences in prison. That is functionally deeming someone unfit to rejoin society. This kind of judgment is already being passed on people, we just don't have the balls to be humane and kill them.
I readily give you your point that people would abuse this to persecute their enemies. The fact that our society is so divided takes many solutions off the table, as they only function in a more cohesive society. Instead we're just gonna careen down the road to anarchy and/or tyranny because the populace is divided against itself.
The only people that get away with executions are leftists and leftist governments.
That's why you should control the inputs, rather than trying to sort the outputs. Garbage in, garbage out.
Exactly. the laws suck ass, we need them changed. the guy was an irresponsible asshole but it shouldn't have been illegal to posess a gun to begin with.
Laws always take away liberty. That's their point.
The people are the problem, not the law.
It just requires a very clear standard and visible enforcement.
We used to have that.
If people know that the punishment for murder, rape, kidnapping, aggravated assault with a weapon, or armed robbery is to be immediately marched out after conviction and strung up in the town square...
People will generally do a good job of steering clear of those behaviors.
Ambiguous enforcement begets dubious behavior. Make stark examples, and the occasions when you need to make them will be rare (eventually).
The thing is, our communities used to be the visible enforcement, and the visible standard. Much like everything else, we outsourced it. When your neighbor is also an enforcer of social norms, you're less likely to squirt a cream filled dildo in his face.
We are very community based animals. The most destructive forces are those that destroy the foundations of our society. The family is the bedrock, but the people we interact with are the cornerstones. Modern society has devastated both.
That kind of thinking legitimizes the leftist perception of an oppressive, bigoted culture.
The Saxons used to appoint their law enforcers (shire reeves, origin of sheriff) by elevating able commoners held in esteem by the community and given the assent of the landholding elite. But when the Normans appeared on the scene they found this system to be far too corrupt and inconsistent. So their addition was the bailiff, which was controlled centrally by the crown, trained and held to a consistent standard, and largely resembles the court we have today.
The Britons initially hated this system for being different but by the reign of King John the stabilizing effect of having a reliable judiciary free of local influence (either the whims of barons or the seething common mob) was generally regarded as a very good thing to be preserved and improved.
Law is an artificial thing, something that we have invented wholecloth. I think to a degree it HAS to be controlled centrally in order for it to actually be impartial, otherwise every community will enforce its own much narrower view of what is acceptable.
What we know as law now, I agree. But I think it has an organic basis in cultural norms upheld by communities.
There wasn't any need to write down the rules, they were chiseled into your brain by being raised within that particular social environment. I don't have any reason to believe that this would fail as a system to enforce order - the common criticism of "subjective" loses meaning when everyone involved shares the values and outlooks that give weight to that subjectivity.
Eventually, communities consider dealing with people outside their community. Whether it's the formation of a large town or even the simple tolerance of a merchant, these communities end up being asked and expected to produce a concrete list of rules that must be followed. The purpose is clear: to allow outsiders to interact with the community without accidentally breaking the rules. This easily shifts to allowing outsiders to comingle, immigrate and integrate successfully.
However, it invites some dangers. First, now any time that the community has a need to update its rules/values, it must engage that concrete list to update it. What was a simple process of communal understanding now demands the extra step of formalization, but this may involve negotiating with a law master when the community has to share territory with other communities. Second, because the purpose of the concrete ruleset is to be understood by outsiders, these outsiders must be consulted when writing the rules because what's easy for the community to understand may be hard for outsiders to understand. So now you've got outsiders able to sneak loopholes in with clever wording. Third, it invites outsiders to challenge the rules as written. Challenge is a good thing, but the process of making the results concrete can create the start of legalese by making the rules overcomplicated or harder to understand. Example:
Say a community has the rule "don't eat meat on rainy days". An outsider would challenge it, saying "rainy days" is too broad because one might eat meat for breakfast and end up breaking the rule due to rain at noon. So now the rule is "don't eat meat during periods of rainfall". Well what if the meat's in your mouth when it starts raining? "don't put meat in your mouth if it is currently raining". How much rain counts as raining? "don't put meat in your mouth if it is currently raining audibly". My hearing isn't good, can you give another indicator? "don't put meat in your mouth if it is currently raining audibly or the rain is enough to cover your hands in water" etc etc until you need to create a new job for the sole purpose of translating the rules.
The history example you give is solid. My only proper counter is that while the positives outweigh the negatives, the positives do not increase over time while the negatives do increase over time. It only really demands reform and/or rebellion, but that can get really messy.
Even with all this, I can't quite say that making communal rules into a concrete form for outsiders is a doom flag. I am autistically bitter about it, though.
[tagging u/exilde since I'm butting into the conversation]
It wouldn't fail on order.
It would fail to respect liberty.
History shows quite convincingly that communities with strongly enforced cultural norms inevitably choose a very specific way of "dealing" with outsiders.
I remember the 90's. The word Bosnia will always be a synonym for "fucking slavic neighborhate shitstorm" to me.
That's difficult to counter. On a level, I agree, and I'm forced to side with liberty. On another level, it is not inherently impossible for an insider to challenge their community's values/rules and succeed in creating an exception. I think that's a basic form of liberty. Obviously it becomes a problem when a community punishes every insider challenge with death, but I'd also say that such a community has doomed itself to annihilation. Similarly, I could go so far as to say that the ability to engage liberty by permitting insider challenge is an essential quality for long term success.
Yes, and those often caused problems for otherwise successful communities. But I have to consider "strongly enforced" to be a bit loaded because to me that means that they went beyond banishing undesirable members and violently threatened them into compliance, which I'd consider a liberty violation and proof of failure. Then it's a matter of how many outsiders they'll try to drag down with them before the outsiders hopefully make use of their successful policies to find sufficient military aid. And that is messy and ugly, but I think it's acceptable.
I'm unfamiliar with Bosnia, so maybe I've missed your meaning. If they're bothering people outside their own territory, I'd say they're inviting retaliation. If they're keeping to their own turf and being assholes, just cut off all exchange with them.
Fair analysis. That said, we currently see the effects of too centralized control. I believe it's unsustainable to the root. Strengthening community bonds now stands to minimize the anarchy that could follow this little era.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE?
My solution is both more and less cruel but not as permanent so in case further evidence is discovered the individual can be brought back and compensated
No, I'd class this approach as evil. You're just maiming and torturing someone.
this reads like someone's fetish novel wtf
Ok buffalo bill
Could you re-draft this? I'm seeing several problems.
You've taught all felons marketable skills for working with the blind. Is that the intent..? Put all ex-felons to work as aides for the blind?
I think this would be more expensive than our current silly system. Even substituting out all four surgeries, I think the cost would still be too high.
What happens if they're already blind?
If the last thing they hear a human say is the suicide instructions, how are the medical exams handled without communication? Logistically, how do you learn braille without help? Both of those things seem much harder if you can't hear any speech.
heh I don't know how much I want to elaborate but since it sounds psycho enough as it is but since we are running with it...
not all felons, only as a substitute for capital punishment and life without parole - so only the ones who are found to be wrongly convicted if new evidence is discovered would be issues with re-integration. For those I assume there would be a compensation that would be substantial enough that they really didn't have a motivation to re-offend unless they were truly unable to control themselves
Is there a high number of blind people committing capital crimes? the blindness and solitary isn't meant as punishment, though it will suck, but to ensure that the convicted was highly unlikely to cause problems during their sentence.
For medical exams and dental work they would be conducted the same way vets examine animals that are potentially dangerous.
How do they learn braille without help? They have a lot of time on their hands, verbal insturctions could be part of their media library along with education tools.
Ah, a replacement for sentences where re-integration is not planned. At the least, it sounds frightening and that would be a potential motivator to dissuade some criminals. I do like the idea of seperating such offenders from the ones that can rejoin society, as a prisoner with no hopes is likely to make everyone around them miserable on purpose.
I doubt it, but I wouldn't be surprised at a newly blind guy getting up to something crazy. Maybe not on a comic book villain level, but I imagine it being a traumatic change that could distort a person's values. Most guys wouldn't have henchmen available to facilitate crazy plans.
I was assuming the blindness to be meant as punishment. Why bother with it at all? Just putting them in isolation sounds sufficient. Give them light and normal books, take away the Alexa. Drug their food when you want to give them a checkup. You wouldn't even need them to hear instructions for the suicide button, you could have a sign.
I see the blindness as sort of an ultimate means escape-proofing, how could they even attempt to exploit weaknesses in the system when their guards effectively had superpowers compared to them
I agree.
Tim has a point, Federal Law supersedes any state law, especially if its backed by the Constitution. This poor fool should have taken the L, gotten arrested and then had his day in court.