6 ms·

I start with the assumption that "All Cops Are Bastards." It may be prejudicial, but it makes me think before I do anything that anyone could mistake for crimin

I start with the assumption that "All Cops Are Bastards." It may be prejudicial, but it makes me think before I do anything that anyone could mistake for criminal activity. If this makes the "cops who care" uncomfortable, they should put the blame squarely on the "cops who don't care" not on me.

sarciszewski 12y ago
This sort of assumption is prejudicial, but it's the sort of cynicism that leads to erring on the side of caution and making sure your rights are respected. You can't trust most people, cops are no exception. In that regard, it might be viewed as pragmatic.
- thanksgiving 12y ago
  I am sorry you're getting downvoted but this is absolutely right. Remember to never talk to the police. This sounds a little sarcastic but I promise you that it is not. Never, ever "help" the police, even if you are not a suspect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc The police do not have a duty to protect you [nytimes]. Why do you have a duty to help them? [nytimes] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html (If you intend to downvote, please kindly leave a note as to why I am wrong.)
  - sarciszewski 12y ago
    I don't even know why that one got downvoted to oblivion.
    - iwouldwager 12y ago
      I would wager that it was this bit: "it's the sort of cynicism that leads to [...] making sure your rights are respected"
      - sarciszewski 12y ago
        Er, okay, what's wrong with that statement?
        iwouldwager 12y ago
        What you describe is doing everything you can in order to try to avoid a situation in which you might be required to flex your rights. How can you describe it as a strategy for "making sure your rights are respected"? It is on its face an attempt to make the question of whether you have rights or not a no-impact detail.
        sarciszewski 12y ago
        > What you describe is doing everything you can in order to try to avoid a situation in which you might be required to flex your rights. I like to think of it as maintaining a preemptive strategy. I don't like this, but the world we live in is unfair and full of assholes who don't play by their own rules. > How can you describe it as a strategy for "making sure your rights are respected"? A man who faces no wars carries no battle scars. > It is on its face an attempt to make the question of whether you have rights or not a no-impact detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E#t=256 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E#t=256
  - npizzolato 12y ago
    Thank you for posting those links. While the video is long, any US citizen would do well to make the time to watch it.
- npizzolato 12y ago
  It's a sad day when advice to be pragmatic is downvoted. Sure, I shouldn't have to be extra careful when talking to police officers because they should have a duty to protect innocent citizens. But I only get one life, so I'm going to to, just as I'm going to watch for people running red lights when crossing the street and staying in safe, lit areas when walking home alone at night.

sarciszewski 12y ago

This sort of assumption is prejudicial, but it's the sort of cynicism that leads to erring on the side of caution and making sure your rights are respected. You can't trust most people, cops are no exception. In that regard, it might be viewed as pragmatic.

thanksgiving 12y ago
I am sorry you're getting downvoted but this is absolutely right. Remember to never talk to the police. This sounds a little sarcastic but I promise you that it is not. Never, ever "help" the police, even if you are not a suspect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc The police do not have a duty to protect you [nytimes]. Why do you have a duty to help them? [nytimes] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html (If you intend to downvote, please kindly leave a note as to why I am wrong.)
- sarciszewski 12y ago
  I don't even know why that one got downvoted to oblivion.
  - iwouldwager 12y ago
    I would wager that it was this bit: "it's the sort of cynicism that leads to [...] making sure your rights are respected"
    - sarciszewski 12y ago
      Er, okay, what's wrong with that statement?
      - iwouldwager 12y ago
        What you describe is doing everything you can in order to try to avoid a situation in which you might be required to flex your rights. How can you describe it as a strategy for "making sure your rights are respected"? It is on its face an attempt to make the question of whether you have rights or not a no-impact detail.
        sarciszewski 12y ago
        > What you describe is doing everything you can in order to try to avoid a situation in which you might be required to flex your rights. I like to think of it as maintaining a preemptive strategy. I don't like this, but the world we live in is unfair and full of assholes who don't play by their own rules. > How can you describe it as a strategy for "making sure your rights are respected"? A man who faces no wars carries no battle scars. > It is on its face an attempt to make the question of whether you have rights or not a no-impact detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E#t=256 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E#t=256
- npizzolato 12y ago
  Thank you for posting those links. While the video is long, any US citizen would do well to make the time to watch it.
npizzolato 12y ago
It's a sad day when advice to be pragmatic is downvoted. Sure, I shouldn't have to be extra careful when talking to police officers because they should have a duty to protect innocent citizens. But I only get one life, so I'm going to to, just as I'm going to watch for people running red lights when crossing the street and staying in safe, lit areas when walking home alone at night.