6 ms·
Before anyone says, "Why harass these people? They're just trying to make a living." Think about it for a little while.
by PaintBucket 15y ago
Before anyone says, "Why harass these people? They're just trying to make a living." Think about it for a little while.
- watty 15y agoSorry, they didn't "target" the AZDPS and there were no good intentions involved. They are vultures and I'm guessing one of them that lives nearby cracked an insecure wireless network and stole some shared docs.
- kylemaxwell 15y agoThat's appropriate on many levels... As you intended, no doubt.
- PaintBucket 15y agoI'm glad one person got it.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- TomOfTTB 15y agoHave you bothered to "think about" this? Police officers have a sworn duty to uphold the law. They don't write it. If you have a problem with the law your issue is with the Legislators not the cops. (This is the very definition of "killing the messenger")
- barry-cotter 15y ago"I was only following orders." Speaking as a supporter of democracy in the Arizonan context.
- bsiemon 15y agoPolice have a great deal of latitude in how they enforce the law. Ever been to court when it was your word against a police officer? Who would you imagine the court, jury or your peers will believe?
- roc 15y agoI'm guessing you've never been in a car when a cop plays the "I smell pot Joe. What do think?" game. Police officers do have a sworn duty. But some of them do not uphold their oaths. Some of them even break the law outright. It's therefore quite possible to have an issue with law enforcement, separate from the laws themselves.
- watty 15y agoSome cops are crooked so screw them all? This happens in every profession, not just law enforcement. Edit, to the poster below: There have been many cases where a man and women have sex and the woman later claims she was raped. Try to find a case of word vs. word (no other evidence) and the man was found not guilty. Now, try to find the opposite.
- bsiemon 15y agoEvery profession does not grant you the ability to send people to jail based on your word.
- blendergasket 15y agoOr shoot people lying prostrate on the ground in the back and kill them.
- ImprovedSilence 15y agoCouldn't agree more. Also, im sure there are undercover po and border patrol risking their lives to keep parts of AZ from ending up like the Mexican border towns. Giving up that kind of information and risking those lives is in-excusible. Also, names and adresses of family! are u serious? That makes you no better than the gang bangers. While I do believe the war on drugs is bs, as well as that bill AZ has, there are still a lot of persons down there that would kill you just because they were told to, or kidnap you for the money. And the police and border patrol are risking themselves to keep your dumbass safe. I realize most of Arizona isn't that bad, but the police are still ther to serve and protect. can't we just send a bunch of taquitos and a bag of weed to whoever wrote up that bill or something?
- splat 15y agoI don't see how you can justify upholding laws with lethal force if you don't agree morally with the law. Just because you wear a badge on your chest doesn't mean that you aren't morally responsible for your actions as a human being. If some state passed a law which outlawed red hair, I would hope that the police would refuse to enforce it, rather than saying "take it up with your legislator." "I was just following orders" is never an excuse for your actions.
- watty 15y agoIf you can't uphold the law as a cop you would lose your job. Laws don't just magically appear, right? By the time they pass as a law the cop is just doing their job. We didn't do our job as voters and the correct action now is to "take it up with your legislator".
- potatolicious 15y ago> "If you can't uphold the law as a cop you would lose your job." Your responsibility to humanity (particularly as an officer of the law) trumps your right to be fed. Also, the world at large has upheld, many times over, that "following orders" is not a sufficient defense. "But I have a mortgage" - the new and improved Nuremberg Defense (with apologies to Thank You For Smoking). Hell, the people who relied on the Nuremberg defense would've been shot for violating said orders. Being fired is peanuts in comparison.
- TomOfTTB 15y agoYou're wrong on this (or at very least looking at the issue without nuance). More often than not "just following orders" IS a sufficient defense. Only in the most heinous of acts is it considered insufficient (if that weren't the case there'd be no reason to define what is and is not a "war crime") Deporting someone, even if you feel it's unjustified, is a far cry from a War Crime. That's the cogent point. The danger in an officer choosing to enforce the law as he or she sees fit is so great that they aren't excused in doing so unless the act is an atrocity. Because once an officer is selectively enforcing the law they actually become the one making the law. Since officers of the law aren't elected that's unacceptable.
- Confusion 15y agoThe reports of cops breaking the law for their own purposes, and getting away with it, vastly outnumber the reports of cops breaking the law for humane purposes or moral reasons. If reality is they are perfectly happy doing the first, arguing against the second as something they 'should not do' is ludicrous. As long as this is the way the balance tips, any cop that lets an illegal immigrant walk has my blessing.
- InclinedPlane 15y agoThere's nothing noble about lulzsec. If someone rampaged through a neighborhood lock picking or crowbaring doors open and dumping the contents on the street out of some misguided sense of raising awareness about security how would people view them? Why should we view lulzsec any different?
- treetrouble 15y agoWell, if the victims were planning to ethnically cleanse said neighborhood that would in fact shade the issue differently Noble isn't the word I would use by a longshot..in fact I think lulzsec is pretty stupid. but I'm also not going to go out of my way to defend a corrupt institution that happens to have the law on their side
- JshWright 15y agoThe victims are planning nothing of the sort. The voters of Arizona and their elected representatives are the ones responsible for the laws that the officers in question have to enforce.
- bandushrew 15y agoThe enforcers of the law are just as responsible for their own actions as the law makers are for theirs. Separately, I personally would have redacted some of that data.
- treetrouble 15y agoI absolutely agree that they hold more responsibility. However, my point was that this is one criminal organization targeting another morally corrupt organization. I don't find the analogy that InclinedPlane gave to be appropriate
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- clintjhill 15y agoIf you lived in AZ you'd know that DPS had very little to do with 1070 and in some cases spoke against it.