TakeYouToTasker

This is fair, and I think we were talking past each other. Just to give you a clear understanding of where I'm coming from on this: I come from a family with a calling to service both in the military and as LEOs. My younger brothers are both LEOS, two of my cousins are detectives, and my uncle is a Police Chief. I have experienced, first hand, a different treatment because of what my last name is. I know this phenomenon is real.

It's two separate problems. I think the solution has to start with an open declaration that we are a nation of laws, and that the law must be enforced as it exists. If the enforcement of the law is deemed unjust, then we should change the law such that we are a nation of laws rather than a nation of benevolent dictators living within their own carved out fiefdoms. This needs to be addressed as an entirely separate issue from unequal or preferential enforcement.

That's because you have no understanding of cause and effect or how markets work. This might be the dumbest thing you've ever said.

You're an unmitigated moron who doesn't understand English. Another argument in favor of corruption and a two tiered justice system, this time including a reasoned exemption for racketeering. ... Good grief. No, you don't. You have different standards for different people based on their job or associations. You arrest people in other fields for that exact same behavior. And those people are idiots, I'm sure you'd agree.

"Unequal enforcement of law" implies that we're talking about the same law or regulation, you muppet. You've referenced two different laws being enforced differently. I'll give you some help: "different" and "same" are not synonyms. Unequal enforcement would be if one person were punished, and one person not, for the same crime or infraction, by the same person.

Again, you're making a poor argument, and doing it poorly. The existence of bad law has nothing to do with the systemic unequal enforcement of law.

Discretionary policing is part of the job when done well, and uniformly. This is entirely different than what I'm discussing. No, your argument is for a two tiered justice system, and used the existence of bad law as a justification. That's both a poor argument, and a poorly made argument.

A rare moment of honesty about what "climate change" politics is all about.

So... to be clear, you're argument is that the law givers should live under a different set of rules than they enforce because anal sex isn't permitted under the UCMJ? That's an incoherent jumble on non-sequitur nonsense, but if that's what you want to go with, feel free.

The law is the law, and a system of government is unjust when it has different legal standards for different groups of people. That you choose to describe corruption in the way to do speaks volumes.

A gross mischaracterization made for the purposes of rationalizing a legal caste system and institutionalized corruption.

An argument in favor of a legal caste system under which the law givers are exempt from standards they impose on others is a terrible argument.

This is one of the dumber things I've ever seen posted here. One of the few just and proper functions of the federal government is the protection of our sovereignty which is defined by our national defense, enforcement of our national borders, and our immigration and naturalization policies. This is the case because it is literally the entire purpose of the nation state, and a nation state cannot exist without these things. The Fifth Amendment addresses this exact situation with the language: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This is entirely different, in every conceivable way from being forced to purchase a commodity by the government against one's will. Your argument is, quite literally, "since the government enjoys the just power to compel some behaviors, it must enjoy the just power to compel all behaviors," which is a stupid argument.

We're long overdue for a conversation about the real world effects of gaming.

There is everything wrong with the enforcers having different standards for the rules they live under and the rules they impose on others. It speaks to a lack of ethics, and such a lack of ethics is a disqualifier from service as it segregates those they propose to serve from equal justice under the law. In other industries treating insiders preferentially is criminal. The equivalent in my field is insider trading. Only in government is this "acceptable", and it's only acceptable because in their arrogance the watchers know that no one is watching them.

Individuals who don't evenly enforce the law don't deserve the respect afforded the duty. It's no different than the likes of the Clintons living by different standards than they would impose on others.

That's not a strong libertarian argument at all. You should stop making arguments from authority (which is a logical fallacy), especially when you don't understand the positions you're arguing from authority on. Libertarians believe that the government has proper and well defined Constitutional authorities. These are derived from the belief that rights are sacrosanct, and nation states are the best way to enshrine their protection from outside aggressors. As such, the proper province of a federal government is to define and protect borders, and to define the rules for residence and citizenship. And so, while they agree that large scale government action is less than ideal, they understand that there is no other entity capable of this primary necessary function of the nation state. As such, it is appropriate for the federal government to undertake this role, just as it does in maintaining our military. The provision of the Fifth Amendment which states "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" was put in place for exactly this reason. There is no clearer Constitutional case for the seizure of private land for public use than the defense of national borders. The states do not enjoy any rights in regards to naturalization, immigration, or the protection of sovereign national borders. These are federal duties, as logically these controls must be uniform as they are among the foundational principals which define what a nation is. This is not a libertarian argument in any way. Again, this is part of naturalization, immigration, or the protection of sovereign national borders, which fall under the purview of the federal government. You cannot have a nation unless you control these things, as they are foundational. This is a bare assertion and has nothing to do with a libertarian argument. Again, this has nothing to do with a libertarian argument; and disregards that fact the wall, no matter how stationary and single purposed, serves an expressly libertarian purpose. It makes human trafficking much more difficult, and strikes a massive blow against modern day human slavery.

Many individuals are approaching fully grown at the age of 14, and many more are large enough that they can do physical harm to an adult if they so choose. Through resisting the lawful authority of the responding officer, the individual in question expressed his willingness to do exactly that.

Your "understanding" of what is permissible during the commission of a crime is uninformed. In Georgia, as in most places, it is lawful for a private citizen to detain or subdue someone who is destroying or stealing private property: https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-17/chapter-4/article-4/17-4-60 Individuals have every right to stop and detain someone who is committing a crime. As far as your second assertion that the police "assaulted" a minor: No, they did not, they used a low level physical force to stop an individual who was resisting their lawful authority.

You're entitled to raise your kids however you want, with the understanding that you lose your individual authority to discipline them when they engage in poor behavior in public settings, such as theft, when you aren't around, or even if you are around and the problem isn't corrected. Your prerogative to raise your child as you see fit does not extend to them being permitted to exhibit criminal behavior without physical corrective action being taken against them. Not raising them in such a way that they have a deep understanding of this, and that their actions have consequences, is doing them an incredible disservice.

I think that's a dopey approach to raising children, and often leads to situations where children don't understand that in life there can be immediate physical consequences to their actions. You also don't get to dictate to the rest of the world how they will handle these sorts of situations, so it would behoove you to come to understand that they best way to raise your kids is to make them acutely aware that there are examples of poor behavior which will justifiably lead to them getting their ass kicked by a peer, a group of peers, or an authority figure. So while you're free to do what you want with your own kids, you share the world with others whom will teach them hard lessons if you don't properly prepare them.

I'm of the belief that most of our societies ills are caused by poor parenting/lack of parenting, and a fundamental lack of respect for the rights of other people; and that many of these problems can be solved with a good ass beating when someone is still young enough to learn that if they behave poorly, they will justifiably get their ass kicked. None of this is relevant in any way to anyone's experience as an occupying soldier. As was mentioned, and you address here: "That part is true. 100%. I'd like to see what happened before." That is my understanding of the lead-in to that encounter. I also disagree that it was excessive force. I attended Catholic schools, and the punishment there was corporal. The Brothers wouldn't hesitate to punch or throw a student for certain types of misbehavior, theft most certainly amongst them; and it was corrective. It worked. And there's nothing wrong with it. Discipline is not the sole province of parents, especially in the absence of parents; or in situations which indicate parents have neglected to discipline.

You would have deserved to be roughed up if you had been confronted by a teacher about the theft, ignoring them; then confronted by the police officer, ignoring them as well. The 14 year old needed a swift lesson in both respect and morality. Great work on the race baiting and the rather irrelevant story, however.

Patreon is in serious trouble. They are suffering a wide berth exodus of content providers dropping them after they banned Sargon of Akkad.

A 5 year old stealing a candy bar deserves deference. A 14 year old stealing a candy bar, after being confronted and told to stop by two authority figures, both legitimate in being vested that authority in that situation, deserves a harsh and swift lesson in both morality and respect. It's clear they hadn't gotten that lesson elsewhere. Nope, I meant tranny. The phrase I quoted is one of the funniest I've ever read here.