Attitudes towards the police

[Meekychuppet]

You didn't miss anything in my statement. Meeky wants to add to my statement with pejoratively slanted words. I wouldn't let him.

I think I about got that roughly 2 mins after posting!

Meeky.
I think the problem is that while the Police are 'supposed' to uphold the law it's hard to complain when they do even if a law is naff. The two discussions might impact on each other but are separate by nature. Surely it would be clearer to pull out where the abuse (actions beyond the law) is justified by laws that don't require said abusive response. I haven't read all the posts to this point in detail and if people have suggested that because a law is broken any abuse is justified, clearly that would be wrong - and illegal.

To be fair, I didn't bring the plant thing up, but when I saw two supposed clear thinkers advocating absolute subservience to such laws I commented.

My complaint was that the police are fucking useless but seem to above the law at the same time.

[floppit]

advocating absolute subservience to such laws

I simply did not see that suggested by any other poster but if I post again kick my fecking arse - I need sleep!

[Meekychuppet]

advocating absolute subservience to such laws

I simply did not see that suggested by any other poster but if I post again kick my fecking arse - I need sleep!

It was implied, and when I asked for further clarification they ran away. Well, Tigger didn't, but neither of them elaborated on it. If they don't want to that's okay. I took exception to Zilla pretending to be smart when he's really just trying to argue without arguing.

[Tigger]

advocating absolute subservience to such laws

I simply did not see that suggested by any other poster but if I post again kick my fecking arse - I need sleep!

It was implied, and when I asked for further clarification they ran away. Well, Tigger didn't, but neither of them elaborated on it. If they don't want to that's okay. I took exception to Zilla pretending to be smart when he's really just trying to argue without arguing.

I only meant that if you're aware of the law - no matter how silly it may be, or you perceive it to be - then you can't expect anything but whatever penalty had been agreed in law if you break it, no matter how silly the penalty, or how silly you deem it to be. I think some laws are stupid - the maximum fine of £250 for driving an uninsured car e.g. - but I know what'll happen if I break them, so I don't. This, however, is digressing away from the police aspect of the thread.

My opinion about the police is quite high, to be honest, although I have come across a couple of occasions where they could have done better. Like any profession. I always wonder in cases where there has been an injury in custody, say, why the person was there in handcuffs in the first place. It's not that easy to wind up in cuffs.

[sandinista]

I think the blind acceptance of any law is an extraordinarily dangerous thing.

[JimC]

I think the blind acceptance of any law is an extraordinarily dangerous thing.

If this means that citizens should be aware as much as possible of the laws in their state, then fine. In addition, it is reasonable to critically assess them, and if you disagree with them, take proper steps to complain/protest/use the democratic process to attempt to get them changed.

While they are still on the books, if you decided to break the law, then you need to have the balls to accept the consequences. Naturally, these should not include police officers behaving illegally. It is important that there are robust, independent mechanisms to investigate allegations against police - we have such an authority in Victoria.

[sandinista]

I think the blind acceptance of any law is an extraordinarily dangerous thing.

take proper steps to complain/protest/use the democratic process to attempt to get them changed.

seriously, thats funny. "the democratic process". canaduh almost legalized a few years back till the US came here and told us we couldn't, so much for the "democratic process".

[Meekychuppet]

I think the blind acceptance of any law is an extraordinarily dangerous thing.

take proper steps to complain/protest/use the democratic process to attempt to get them changed.

I am so, so glad you said this. The last protest we had was G20. What happened there? The death of Ian Tomlinson. The police found the only person on the area not involved in the protest, and killed him. The subsequent inquiry decided that the officer should not face charges (look the assault up on YouTube and tell me if you think a civilian would have been exonerated), and would you believe it? The strangest coincidence took place. By the time the inquiry concluded the Statute of Limitations expired and the family are now unable to bring a prosecution for commoon assault against the murderer.

The law is an ass.

[Feck]

advocating absolute subservience to such laws

I simply did not see that suggested by any other poster but if I post again kick my fecking arse - I need sleep!

It was implied, and when I asked for further clarification they ran away. Well, Tigger didn't, but neither of them elaborated on it. If they don't want to that's okay. I took exception to Zilla pretending to be smart when he's really just trying to argue without arguing.

I only meant that if you're aware of the law - no matter how silly it may be, or you perceive it to be - then you can't expect anything but whatever penalty had been agreed in law if you break it, no matter how silly the penalty, or how silly you deem it to be. I think some laws are stupid - the maximum fine of £250 for driving an uninsured car e.g. - but I know what'll happen if I break them, so I don't. This, however, is digressing away from the police aspect of the thread.

My opinion about the police is quite high, to be honest, although I have come across a couple of occasions where they could have done better. Like any profession. I always wonder in cases where there has been an injury in custody, say, why the person was there in handcuffs in the first place. It's not that easy to wind up in cuffs.

You get cuffed if you get arrested in this city always !

[Meekychuppet]

advocating absolute subservience to such laws

I simply did not see that suggested by any other poster but if I post again kick my fecking arse - I need sleep!

It was implied, and when I asked for further clarification they ran away. Well, Tigger didn't, but neither of them elaborated on it. If they don't want to that's okay. I took exception to Zilla pretending to be smart when he's really just trying to argue without arguing.

I only meant that if you're aware of the law - no matter how silly it may be, or you perceive it to be - then you can't expect anything but whatever penalty had been agreed in law if you break it, no matter how silly the penalty, or how silly you deem it to be. I think some laws are stupid - the maximum fine of £250 for driving an uninsured car e.g. - but I know what'll happen if I break them, so I don't. This, however, is digressing away from the police aspect of the thread.

My opinion about the police is quite high, to be honest, although I have come across a couple of occasions where they could have done better. Like any profession. I always wonder in cases where there has been an injury in custody, say, why the person was there in handcuffs in the first place. It's not that easy to wind up in cuffs.

You get cuffed if you get arrested in this city always !

I thought it was standard procedure for the police to handcuff those they arrest.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I saw two supposed clear thinkers advocating absolute subservience to such laws I commented.

Where the FUCK did I say anything about "absolute subservience". You really are making this shit up as you go along and it's pissing me off.

[Meekychuppet]

I saw two supposed clear thinkers advocating absolute subservience to such laws I commented.

Where the FUCK did I say anything about "absolute subservience". You really are making this shit up as you go along and it's pissing me off.

Then say what you actually think.

[Ian]

I saw two supposed clear thinkers advocating absolute subservience to such laws I commented.

Where the FUCK did I say anything about "absolute subservience". You really are making this shit up as you go along and it's pissing me off.

He doesn't really think like that (I hope). Meeky just likes to argue for the sake of argument and pushes buttons as his SOP. Ignore the runt.

[Meekychuppet]

I saw two supposed clear thinkers advocating absolute subservience to such laws I commented.

Where the FUCK did I say anything about "absolute subservience". You really are making this shit up as you go along and it's pissing me off.

He doesn't really think like that (I hope). Meeky just likes to argue for the sake of argument and pushes buttons as his SOP. Ignore the runt.

I don't need a spokesperson thanks.

[Robert_S]

I saw two supposed clear thinkers advocating absolute subservience to such laws I commented.

Where the FUCK did I say anything about "absolute subservience". You really are making this shit up as you go along and it's pissing me off.

He doesn't really think like that (I hope). Meeky just likes to argue for the sake of argument and pushes buttons as his SOP. Ignore the runt.

I don't need a spokesperson thanks.

So you refuse the right to legal council?