Bitcoin Forum

Imagine this situation:

You're traveling down the road, minding your own business, when a uniformed man orders you to stop. He demands to see your papers, brings his buddies over, walks a dog around your vehicle, searches the vehicle, and after much browbeating and attempts at coercion, finally lets you go on your way.

What does this sound like?

Turns out, the State of Illinois.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rJqq6KCOkdM#!

That serves him right! For minding his own business in his car!

I just searched the forum for Kelly Thomas and I'm really surprised nothing came up. Seriously. You would want to watch the 33 minute video if you can stomach it.

The video (audio starts at 20 seconds in). Audio seems poor though. There are other versions where the words are very clear because the audio was dubbed in from the mic on the officer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPaIA5ErHDU

EDIT: actually the audio seems ok on this one. I just didn't sample the correct part. I can clearly hear the words at around 1:20 or so.

Sorry the video was too dull.  What's the Thomas Kelly stuff?

You really don't know?

Believe me, the video is not dull. It's tragic. Note the nightstick twirling at about 1 or 2 minutes. That is showing intent. The officer in question does indeed know Kelly Thomas, despite all the questioning. And the officer does indeed know that Kelly Thomas suffers from mental disorders.

*Truly surprised by the ratio of PoliceHaters/ThoseWhoKnowTheKellyThomasStory on this forum*

It happens all the time, everywhere. To bad there aren't more ppl like the two victims in this video that show what really is going on.

Cops all suped up on adrenaline thinking they are above all.

Shake of weed on the floor, LoL, lmfao, right! Least he got fired and many more to get fired.

I think you're missing the bigger story.

Nope, you thought wrong. I know my rights and know his was raped severely.

I plead the Fif< . First, second, third, fourth and fifth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxE_oQBwrdU

Huh?

You live in the U.S.A? If so, better get to know your rights.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html/

That's all well and good. But I don't see how it pertains to my initial reply to you within the context of my posts inside this thread.

Exactly o.o .

Psychopaths, only explanation, they belong in prison or a psychward, 50%-75% of them belong either in prison or a psychward & lobotomized. The noises, of the beating ugh.

Not allows. Creates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Prison_Experiment

Yes.

As I noted in my several posts before yours, I am a bit surprised by the almost non-existent mention of the Kelly Thomas case anywhere in these forums.

Note that Kelly Thomas was murdered by those thugs. Note the large pool of blood on the concrete. Did you know their lawyers (the officers' lawyers) had the nerve to suggest his death might have been the cause of incompetent paramedics?

It was determined he died of being unable to breathe due to blood from his head trauma entering into his lungs while the officer sat on him. Afterwards, while Thomas lay in the huge pool of blood, the officers joked, and made sure the paramedics tended to their scratches on their arms.

The corrupt Fullerton police deptartment then took a very long time coming to the conclusion that the officers might have been in the wrong.

Yes. In the later part of the video, you can hear Kelly crying out for his father, even though his father wasn't present.

There are numerous key points in the video:

1. The baton twirling.
2. The officer saying: "I'm going f you up." as he puts on the latex gloves.
3. The teasing, taunting and bullying prior to the beating.
4. The complete ignoring of Thomas as he's dying.
5. The relentless tasing.
6. The relentless bashing of his face with the baton.
7. The nonchalance and joking as he lay in a pool of blood.

Dude, I just hope the death penalty still exists in the state where that happened and all those cops die on the electric chair.

To serve and protect, my ass...

+1

--

Also, I ignored firstaccents question because I have no idea what the hell he was asking talking about.

Ramos has been charged with second-degree murder. Death penalty's not going to happen. However, the FBI has opened an independent investigation on the whole matter, which will undoubtedly include probes into the corruption of the Fullerton police department, and the issue with the fired bar bouncer who says the bar owner called the police and made a false claim about Thomas because he didn't want him around outside.

Probably because you didn't read the several posts I made about Kelly Thomas prior to the question (with link provided). Given that, the statement "I think you're missing the bigger story" should have been contextually obvious.

Just explain, stop going in circles with the shit.

I seriously do not have any idea what you want explained to you.

lol. It's alright.

Police haters? I'm pretty sure the people you are talking about would feel the same way about anyone who did that sort of thing, it just happens that most of the time that is people wearing police costumes.

The people I am talking about are the people on this forum who despise the police (understandable) and instead propose the privatization of police.

The observation in question is the fact that the Kelly Thomas case is perhaps the ultimate reason to despise the police and perhaps one of the best examples to demonstrate the abuse of power and corruption within police forces.

Therefore, given the nature of the Kelly Thomas case, and the demographics of this forum, I found it surprising that so few were aware of the case. I did a search to verify this. I then proceeded to make some posts to see how much attention mention of Kelly Thomas would generate. The results I got speak for themselves.

The more people who are aware of the Kelly Thomas case, the better. While I do not advocate the privatization of police, I do think the two specific examples of police behavior presented in this thread are prime examples of what is wrong with police forces in their current form. Much work and reform is necessary.

FirstAscent, are you an Officer of the Law? There is something about you that I don't like, I cannot pin point it nor know why. Just like David_Benz, same feeling.

Have you forgot about Rodney King? Or the truck filled with Mexicans that a few got the stick quite badly? And probably many more that we don;t know of or about. As you stated.

I've never even heard of you, nor do your thoughts and opinions interest me.

That's what I thought. You are officially on my iggy. First one, congrats.

Un sub'd.

Sounds like a win for me. I won't have to endure pekv2's dimwitted commentary on the information I provided on the Kelly Thomas case, among other things.

Maybe it's human nature that creates these kind of circumstances, rather than "the system". You know, power begets power and so on.  Read "Lord of the Flies" for a fictional exploration of this argument (really, this is fundamental reading for anyone interested in politics - it's short and captivating). I agree, however, that the current "system" does accentuate rather than attenuate the probability of abuses and corruption such as this.

I have read it, and it certainly got me thinking. Did you read the linked article? They took randomly selected students, screened them for any psychological issues, and placed them in a prisoner/guard setting. Within days the "guards", without any prompting from the researchers, were horribly mistreating the "prisoners". I shudder to think what might have happened had it continued. If it is, indeed, human nature to exploit these sorts of power relationships, does that not argue for an abolishment of the relationships themselves?

Taken to its extreme, you're suggesting abolishing a very central part of the human experience. We might as well just collectively eliminate ourselves altogether.  Actually, better off nuking the whole damn planet since the entire natural world is full of violent encounters.  Put the plants and animals out of their misery while we're at it.

Alternatively, we could come up with some kind of social contract, which would describe a minimum standard of good behavior to which all society's members are obliged to adhere. That way, we minimize the nasty aspects of humanity, while enjoying the pleasant aspects - like music and good wine to name a couple.

And I'd like you to think about wealth and power.  Do you think they are connected?

You're suggesting that oppression is vital to being human? If that is the case, I agree. Better to nuke ourselves now than to subject the universe to our existence any longer.


Indeed, such a social contract has been designed, and unlike the social contract I suspect you are referring to, it is entirely voluntary, if you decide not to sign the contract, you are not a member of the society, if you do, you are. You are not forced into the society by an assumed contract. http://shiresociety.com/


There are two types of power, which you may have confused. The power to, which wealth gives, and the power over, which is political power. The power to is similar to the scientific definition of power:

It is power over that I seek to abolish, not power to.

Nature is violent and oppressive (A) - observe the underdog in a pack of wolves. We are born of nature (B). We have chosen to suppress our violent nature (C). Eliminate the suppression and our violent nature will re-emerge (D).
You might disagree with A, B, C or D, or even with all of them, and that's fine. There is no way to know without experimenting. Libertarians wax lyrical about how wonderful Somalia is, but it recently came last place in the global peace index (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/12/global-peace-index-2012).

The same can be said for any country on earth: if you don't like it, just leave. Saying things like that doesn't help anyone though (either pro or con), so your point about voluntary social contracts can be safely ignored as a pro-NAP argument.

I'll use your terminology. Can "power to" lead to "power over"? If it can, does it happen automatically or do people with "power to" deliberately avoid developing a "power over"? I hate to say it, but if you think wealth doesn't eventually and inevitably lead to "power over" then you're ignoring pretty much all of recorded human history.

I have read about the Stanford experiments. Wikipedia is really just hearsay, but it does reflect the consensus of its contributors. On the page about the Stanford experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment), it says:

Suppose it *is* human nature to develop abusive and authorative relationships.  Would you still think libertarianism, allowing each individual to decide what constitutes reasonable behavior, would be an ideal basis for society?

Somalia started out a shithole. It's still a shithole. But it's a better shithole that it was.


You are conflating country and society. A society is not geographical. A society is the people. You can leave the society without leaving the land you live on.


Wealth does not automatically lead to power over other people. Any power over other people due to your wealth is voluntary, usually because they would like to have some of that wealth.


Not only ideal, but the only just way to do it. Imagine if they told the prisoners in that experiment that they were free to leave at any time. How many would have stayed?

It's easy for things to improve when you're in a shithole. Improving things when you're in a highly complex, functional and wealthy society... not so easy.

So any member of a NAP society can leave that society at any time? Therefore he is no longer bound by its rules or his prior contracts.  You're ignoring the fact that any significant NAP society must have some geographic extent. Otherwise it is meaningless - by what authority would a non-NAPster be subject to arbitration with a NAPster?

Or perhaps the need to have some of that wealth, therefore not voluntary.

They were free to leave (http://www.prisonexp.org/faq.htm#prisoners):
Will there be prisoners in NAPland so? If so, are you suggesting they will be free to leave at any time?

That's been the point all along. NAP has no provision for enforcing NAPism on its population.

Well, there is some truth to this. But should we shirk from seeking to improve because it is hard?


None whatsoever. Of course, it should be pointed out that by exiting the society, you're also exiting the protections of that society. Just as the non society member could not be subject to arbitration with a member, neither would a member be subject to arbitration with a non-member. The original definition of "outlaw" meant simply outside the law, neither bound nor protected by it. A person who has left the society would be an "outlaw" in that original sense.


You mean aside from the fact that other people have as much, if not more wealth, and if given freedom to choose, people will pick a better work environment over a higher wage?


Very rarely, and no. But there are restrictions on that, as my example will show. Only in instances of flight risk, or where there was sufficient harm done to warrant it. A good example of what such a case might look like is here (http://www.bigheadpress.com/eft?page=546). The incident which the arbitration is about starts here (http://www.bigheadpress.com/eft?page=476).

Not true. A wealthy individual can still have protection. Individuals can organize and devise a government. They are not outlaws, especially since NAP does not rule out the above examples. No doubt there are more examples as well.

Then that would be their society. And as long as it didn't attack the other society, there would be no conflict. I think you're beginning to grasp the concept.