6 ms·

Until taxpayers start demanding more accountability and professionalism from their police force, they should be stuck with those bills. Police do stuff like th

by suresk 13y ago

Until taxpayers start demanding more accountability and professionalism from their police force, they should be stuck with those bills. Police do stuff like this (and get away with it) because the public, generally speaking, assumes that anyone who is abused or treated unfairly by police must have done something to deserve it. The individuals involved should certainly be punished (though they rarely ever are), but the taxpayers have some culpability as well.

brianpgordon 13y ago
I pay taxes. I'm blown away by your assertion that I'm to any extent at blame for this crime. Some people abuse a man and I'm at fault because I don't write to my senator?
- shiven 13y ago
  As a tax-paying citizen, it is your duty to yourself, your family and the society you live in (and leave for the next generation), that you exercise your right to write to your congress-critter/mayor/block-rep, as and when you feel an injustice is happening, especially something that is a gross abuse of authority.
  - ahallock 13y ago
    Writing your congressman is the least you could do. Maybe get out there and start filming the police, raise awareness about jury nullification, encourage peaceful parenting so we don't have bullies on the police payroll--etc. These are more effective than writing some narcissist who cares more about getting re-elected than what's just.
  - DougWebb 13y ago
    Writing your congressman is useless, unless you're signing a check.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  I don't think anyone is accusing you personally. Just that collectively, the taxpayers as a class, elect such people. That's why there's still a war on drugs. If most of the voting population was remotely rational, things would be fixed. So yes, the taxpayers should pay. They, as a group, are responsible. (The individual LEOs involved in this case should be harshly penalized, too.)
  - csense 13y ago
    > If most of the voting population was remotely rational, things would be fixed What if the Democrats and Republicans are both too beholden to the status quo to make changes, and a rational voter figures that their vote means something if they vote for one of the two main parties as the lesser of two evils, whereas voting for a third party is basically throwing their vote away? It's easy to sell me on the idea that most people aren't rational voters, but saying that the situation will automatically be fixed if everyone votes rationally is a much more difficult sell. It would be a good start, but you'd need some other things to happen.
    - MichaelGG 13y ago
      If more people were "rational" then they wouldn't being insane about drug usage, like most of America is. Politicians would respond in kind. Even within the silly two party system, things would improve. But to get there, there'd need to be less than what, 30%? of voters being extremely anti-drug?
  - ahallock 13y ago
    No, they should not. Taxes are not voluntary. You act as if we all merrily signed up for this system, when in fact it was forced upon us since birth. This idea that if we somehow elect the right person that horrors like the drug war will go away, or that something else won't replace it, is a an abdication of true responsibility. The tax payer, like the individual in this story, is a victim of a predatory institution.
    - MichaelGG 13y ago
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  The buck stops with the voter.
  - cookingrobot 13y ago
    But both parties in every election have the same opinion on this issues - which is that the current system is noble and great. How can it be the voter's fault if there's no other option?
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      Never heard of a primary election? The politicians pretty accurately represent their constituents. The voters demand more tough on crime pols and that's exactly what they get.
      - protomyth 13y ago
        A primary election is an excellent place to screw the party leaders. They are looking ahead and sometimes find out that a decently coordinated attack can take away their golden candidate.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  > Some people abuse a man and I'm at fault because I don't write to my senator? "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke The problem with the system is that we've made voters the ultimate arbiters of what happens but then diluted their individual responsibility for the outcomes to such a degree by federalizing and centralizing everything that you don't want to own the consequences of the power you hold. If you had voted for a sheriff who perpetrated this injustice, would you be so quick to absolve yourself of your responsibility? Would you vote for him again? How is it any different when it comes time to vote for his bosses?

by suresk 13y ago

brianpgordon 13y ago

I pay taxes. I'm blown away by your assertion that I'm to any extent at blame for this crime. Some people abuse a man and I'm at fault because I don't write to my senator?

shiven 13y ago
As a tax-paying citizen, it is your duty to yourself, your family and the society you live in (and leave for the next generation), that you exercise your right to write to your congress-critter/mayor/block-rep, as and when you feel an injustice is happening, especially something that is a gross abuse of authority.
- ahallock 13y ago
  Writing your congressman is the least you could do. Maybe get out there and start filming the police, raise awareness about jury nullification, encourage peaceful parenting so we don't have bullies on the police payroll--etc. These are more effective than writing some narcissist who cares more about getting re-elected than what's just.
- DougWebb 13y ago
  Writing your congressman is useless, unless you're signing a check.
MichaelGG 13y ago
I don't think anyone is accusing you personally. Just that collectively, the taxpayers as a class, elect such people. That's why there's still a war on drugs. If most of the voting population was remotely rational, things would be fixed. So yes, the taxpayers should pay. They, as a group, are responsible. (The individual LEOs involved in this case should be harshly penalized, too.)
- csense 13y ago
  > If most of the voting population was remotely rational, things would be fixed What if the Democrats and Republicans are both too beholden to the status quo to make changes, and a rational voter figures that their vote means something if they vote for one of the two main parties as the lesser of two evils, whereas voting for a third party is basically throwing their vote away? It's easy to sell me on the idea that most people aren't rational voters, but saying that the situation will automatically be fixed if everyone votes rationally is a much more difficult sell. It would be a good start, but you'd need some other things to happen.
  - MichaelGG 13y ago
    If more people were "rational" then they wouldn't being insane about drug usage, like most of America is. Politicians would respond in kind. Even within the silly two party system, things would improve. But to get there, there'd need to be less than what, 30%? of voters being extremely anti-drug?
- ahallock 13y ago
  No, they should not. Taxes are not voluntary. You act as if we all merrily signed up for this system, when in fact it was forced upon us since birth. This idea that if we somehow elect the right person that horrors like the drug war will go away, or that something else won't replace it, is a an abdication of true responsibility. The tax payer, like the individual in this story, is a victim of a predatory institution.
  - MichaelGG 13y ago
alexeisadeski3 13y ago
The buck stops with the voter.
- cookingrobot 13y ago
  But both parties in every election have the same opinion on this issues - which is that the current system is noble and great. How can it be the voter's fault if there's no other option?
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    Never heard of a primary election? The politicians pretty accurately represent their constituents. The voters demand more tough on crime pols and that's exactly what they get.
    - protomyth 13y ago
      A primary election is an excellent place to screw the party leaders. They are looking ahead and sometimes find out that a decently coordinated attack can take away their golden candidate.
AnthonyMouse 13y ago
> Some people abuse a man and I'm at fault because I don't write to my senator? "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -Edmund Burke The problem with the system is that we've made voters the ultimate arbiters of what happens but then diluted their individual responsibility for the outcomes to such a degree by federalizing and centralizing everything that you don't want to own the consequences of the power you hold. If you had voted for a sheriff who perpetrated this injustice, would you be so quick to absolve yourself of your responsibility? Would you vote for him again? How is it any different when it comes time to vote for his bosses?