Why good cops can't turn in bad cops

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Benito
A lot of these mass shooters are on drugs - prescription drugs.

Why not prevent people on prescription drugs from owning firearms?

Seems a better option compared to banning the prescription drugs.


This is an interesting idea, one that I've considered before and one that I support.

The counter, of course, is the rights of those who are so prescribed. If their condition is "treated", then the law, in many cases, views them as whole...not restricted in any way.

So, restricting one selected right, of their many rights, becomes a challenge...


We need to realize that these sorts of prescription drugs are a recent development and in widespread use.

So their effects are worthy of further investigation and NEW laws may need to be introduced.

It's a pity our politicians are incapable of leading us on this. But in many regards, they are a reflection of a population more interested in emotion and soundbites.

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: Benito

We need to realize that these sorts of prescription drugs are a recent development and in widespread use.

So their effects are worthy of further investigation and NEW laws may need to be introduced.

It's a pity our politicians are incapable of leading us on this. But in many regards, they are a reflection of a population more interested in emotion and soundbites.


It'll never happen. The pharmaceutical lobby is very influential! More is spent on advertising and marketing than R&D.

 

[Benito]

Any new laws would restrict firearm ownership by those using the drugs. It wouldn't be about restricting the drug.

 

[Mystic]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: Mystic

Some people here have made a big deal of the police stopping a car with a headlight out, or talking to a couple of guys walking around at 3:00 AM. The cops have to have the right to do their jobs.


I think what you see are people standing up for their constitutional rights. Rarely do we agree with all of them, but they are rights granted to us by our founding fathers. You appear to hold the second amendment in high regards, others hold the fourth very highly. All are rights that should be vigorously defended against an overbearing government. I see the same people that resist an infringement on the second amendment have no problem restricting voting rights, abortion while at the same time supporting mass collection of data on law abiding citizens.


Do they have a constitutional right to drive around with a headlight out? Doesn't that endanger other people and their rights?

When it comes to voting rights, I don't want anybody denied their voting rights. But that does not mean that people with no ID should be allowed to vote. You bring up all of this other stuff that are separate issues from what is being discussed. When it comes to mass collection of data by the government, I think they need to target the likely terrorists and not everybody. I personally don't like the idea of abortion except in certain circumstances (I have a right to my opinion, right?) and the videos I have seen where fetus parts were being harvested were sickening to me.

All of this other stuff needs to be in different posts-Don't you think?

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: Benito
Any new laws would restrict firearm ownership by those using the drugs. It wouldn't be about restricting the drug.


Okay. So you tell a patient if you are prescribed this drug, we're taking your guns.

Let me know how that conversation goes.

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: Mystic

Some people here have made a big deal of the police stopping a car with a headlight out, or talking to a couple of guys walking around at 3:00 AM. The cops have to have the right to do their jobs.


I think what you see are people standing up for their constitutional rights. Rarely do we agree with all of them, but they are rights granted to us by our founding fathers. You appear to hold the second amendment in high regards, others hold the fourth very highly. All are rights that should be vigorously defended against an overbearing government. I see the same people that resist an infringement on the second amendment have no problem restricting voting rights, abortion while at the same time supporting mass collection of data on law abiding citizens.


Do they have a constitutional right to drive around with a headlight out? Doesn't that endanger other people and their rights?

When it comes to voting rights, I don't want anybody denied their voting rights. But that does not mean that people with no ID should be allowed to vote. You bring up all of this other stuff that are separate issues from what is being discussed. When it comes to mass collection of data by the government, I think they need to target the likely terrorists and not everybody. I personally don't like the idea of abortion except in certain circumstances (I have a right to my opinion, right?) and the videos I have seen where fetus parts were being harvested were sickening to me.

All of this other stuff needs to be in different posts-Don't you think?


They're all rights currently being infringed on, I see no reason why they shouldn't all be defended together. I said nothing about the right to drive around with a headlight out, afaik that isn't a constitutional right.

 

[qwerty1234]

I think this topic is getting so debated because the U.S. and Canada have clearly different laws? Of course, U.S. laws are complicated by the 50 different States. I am not against honest citizens owning guns. I am against the lax consequences of criminals owning guns. On the surface, Chicago, has some of the toughest gun laws in the U.S.. However, enforcement is very lax. A gang member will usually receive felony probation for their 1rst ILLEGAL gun charge.

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: Benito
Any new laws would restrict firearm ownership by those using the drugs. It wouldn't be about restricting the drug.


Okay. So you tell a patient if you are prescribed this drug, we're taking your guns.

Let me know how that conversation goes.


Well if we truly want something done, we need to analyze the ROOT causes of the problem and then take some kind of action to tackle the ROOT cause.

Those who make a big noise about mental health as the ROOT cause, need to then offer up the actual changes that are required to prevent that from continuing being the ROOT cause. Otherwise they are just throwing around red heddings.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
I think this topic is getting so debated because the U.S. and Canada have clearly different laws? Of course, U.S. laws are complicated by the 50 different States. I am not against honest citizens owning guns. I am against the lax consequences of criminals owning guns. On the surface, Chicago, has some of the toughest gun laws in the U.S.. However, enforcement is very lax. A gang member will usually receive felony probation for their 1rst ILLEGAL gun charge.


On this, then, we agree...lax enforcement does not support public safety....

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
When it comes to voting rights, I don't want anybody denied their voting rights. But that does not mean that people with no ID should be allowed to vote. You bring up all of this other stuff that are separate issues from what is being discussed. When it comes to mass collection of data by the government, I think they need to target the likely terrorists and not everybody. I personally don't like the idea of abortion except in certain circumstances (I have a right to my opinion, right?) and the videos I have seen where fetus parts were being harvested were sickening to me.


The statistics and facts show there is no meaningful levels of voter fraud. Thus the laws that were introduced by certain states had an AGENDA.

If you believe otherwise, you've been hoodwinked.

The full facts of the Planned Parenthood video tell a different story then you've been fed. Again, you've been hoodwinked.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/

What's worse is that there's also hypocrisy going on. One of those who is displaying the most false outrage, themselves used fetal tissue for research.

http://time.com/3996458/ben-carson-fetal-tissue/

 

[qwerty1234]

On this, then, we agree...lax enforcement does not support public safety.... [/quote]

Agreed

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: Benito


Well if we truly want something done, we need to analyze the ROOT causes of the problem and then take some kind of action to tackle the ROOT cause.

Those who make a big noise about mental health as the ROOT cause, need to then offer up the actual changes that are required to prevent that from continuing being the ROOT cause. Otherwise they are just throwing around red heddings.


Trouble is that government of all levels has consistently proven itself incompetent to even identify, let alone treat mental illness.

Alot of this has to do with the fact that way too much politics gets mixed up in medicine.

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Alot of this has to do with the fact that way too much politics gets mixed up in medicine.


And now it's vice-versa as well. And the stupidity apparently cuts both ways.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
In practice its a right. People have a right to travel to work and such. Eventually a court case will clarify it.

I wonder if one has anywhere in North America. And people don't have a constitutional right to drive around drunk or without insurance. Safety is often given as the reason to trample on gun rights. Yet, automobiles are far more dangerous. The laws up here with respect to checking vehicles has remained the same for decades. I don't see any creep of police powers or enforcement of them. The police have been using their authority responsibly.

Originally Posted By: qwerty1234
Garak, you see a junker and they pull you over??

An officer sees a junker, and he pulls it over because a junker is more likely to be in violation, including vehicle equipment regulations and insurance. The officer isn't sitting there and thinking he wants to stick it to someone who has less money.

And, I'm not disregarding gun violence victims. Are you? I posted a link ages ago, and did you read it? I also gave the short version in my posts, how these guns and the perpetrators are found driving around in vehicles. And, if they're not worried about following the laws with respect to guns, they're probably not following the traffic laws. What do you think the solution is to gun violence? Knocking door to door and asking the poor and downtrodden if they want to dispose of any unnecessary firearms, or asking them if they wish to turn over illegal drugs at the same time?

Illegal guns are caught on the road. Drugs are caught on the road. Stolen property is caught on the road. People with warrants are caught on the road.

It's interesting, qwerty1234, that you mention that gun violence is primarily targeting the poor in America and occurs in the the poor neighbourhoods of America. Yet, if law enforcement is conducting operations in the poor neighbourhoods of America and pulling over poor people, you consider that unfair. What is it that you really want?

 

[qwerty1234]

Garak, I know you have no clue as to inner city urban U.S. life. Should the Chicago police in Englewood, Austin, Garfield Park, Humbolt Park, Roseland, ect...concentrate on traffic scofflaws when there are drugs sold openly and gunshots daily? They do drive by shootings on mountain bikes because they can't afford to drive. Back to the original post, I think the police do a great job in my city and I support law enforcement for the most part.

 

[Garak]

Hmmm, why is this always passed off as a lack of understanding? Yes, only the States has violence and poverty. It doesn't exist elsewhere. Let me ask, in Chicago, do they have neighborhoods where no one has indoor plumbing or running water? We do have that up here. And no, drugs are never sold openly outside of urban America, right?

I never said that police should concentrate on traffic problems and ignore everything else. I'm simply telling you why a significant amount of police resources are dedicated to traffic enforcement. And you always indicate that you're perplexed by police doing traffic checks.

The drugs didn't get into Englewood, Austin, Garfield Park, Humboldt Park, or Roseland on dogsled, I'd wager.

 

[yeti]

Turtlevette hasn't figured out that the US and Canada have different legal frameworks...both are derived from English common law, of course, but you can't throw US understanding at Canadian situations and make any reasonable judgements...

TV, how about spending three months in Alberta, take some courses, research provincial law in addition to Canadian law and report back once you've answered your own question? [/quote]

They keep telling us they are more free and a better place than the US. There are a lot of snobby European countries that have the same attitude. The ones that tried to take the worlds freedoms away less than 100 years ago. Now all of a sudden they are liberal bastions of democracy.

I have no interest in their system. They need to learn our system.

Once you start accepting the loss of some liberties, they keep creeping more restrictions in. The fact that garak thinks this stuff is legal and is he is comfortable with it is scary.

[/quote]

astro -- here you go again, using logic and facts in your posts, to some that don't understand these words.

turtle -- you state "they keep telling us... . they meaning canucks. there are only 3 or 4 canucks that post on a regular basis.since they is plural, that could mean all 3 or 4 state the above quote. would you please give the names of the accused canucks? garak asked you, but you did not respond.
or, it could be just be one of the many internet exaggerations on bitog.
have a good night. [/quote]






turtlevette -- still waiting to hear the names of the canucks that you state made comments about the americans. or, is this just made up internet beee sss?
one way or another, be a man and respond. you don't want to lose credibility on bitog.
garak, as well, asked "who are they?"
have a good day.

 

[turtlevette]

They mean the Europeans in general. But since you want to limit it to Canadians, I really don't see any of you supporting us. And there are a hand full who continue to take pot shots. If it goes the other way they get incensed. Somehow it's acceptable to criticize the USA but, racism is claimed when it goes the other way.

The funny thing about it is there are now so many immigrants here that youre wishing friends and relatives harm when you wish us harm.

 

[yeti]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
They mean the Europeans in general. But since you want to limit it to Canadians, I really don't see any of you supporting us. And there are a hand full who continue to take pot shots. If it goes the other way they get incensed. Somehow it's acceptable to criticize the USA but, racism is claimed when it goes the other way.

The funny thing about it is there are now so many immigrants here that youre wishing friends and relatives harm when you wish us harm.



thank you for your reply.but, you DID mean canucks, since in the following sentence, you THEN mentioned Europeans.
as well, you didn't give the canucks' names, as garak and I asked --"who are they?"
AGAIN, "who are they" that are giving these pot shots, as you state.
when one says that people from another country are giving pot shots at americans, it only makes sense that said people should be named. if not, then that statement has zero credibility, and is only internet bee sss.
if you cannot give names, then that amounts to spreading falsehoods, and you are in violation of bitog's rules, and therefore, subject to discipline.of course, nothing would ever happen.
not giving names tells all in bitogland that turtlevette's statements cannot be believed.just give the names, and you keep your credibility, and call it a day.
I've stated the same thing 3 times to no avail, so i'll not waste my time posting again on the issue.
your backpeddling in your post above would rival that of a politician.
at any rate,thanks for your time,and have a good evening.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette


Overkill links to a cop forum with one cops opinion. We discussed this before about finding stuff on the net that supports a preconceived position. Its garbage.


Yeah, you've really latched onto that one eh?

It was simply a note of what they do when they pull you over, it wasn't supporting some "preconceived position", is your tinfoil hat on too tight? And it sounds about right. They run your info. There were plenty of more officer posts in the linked thread stating what they do.

But hey, if you have a problem with what the officer stated, you are more than welcome to walk your posterior down to the nearest department and ask them what they pull up for information when they've stopped somebody.