Philosophy Forums
Style:


I just got arrested.

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Last

I just got arrested.
darkcrow
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego

Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 4256
Posted 05/19/06 - 01:29 PM:
quote post
#81
Floyd wrote:
Yeah... possession of marijuana and alcohol to minors (and I'm a minor raised eyebrow ). I am pissed. I could not sleep on that god damn metal bed in the cell. What makes me so mad is that my friends and I were not doing anything to anyone; we were just chilling by ourselves, smoking it up. But, these cops come and treat us like animals. And, the cops actually think that they represent justice! I just got bailed out ($10,000 Bond, $1,000 upfront) today, so I was only locked up for like 20 hours; but with my record who knows what will happen in court. I hate cops and I hate the so-called law. mad

Anyway, I am done talking politics, law or anything close to it... Not just now, but permanently on the forum. I am too emotional on the subject to hold genuine objective conversations. So, on this forum I am going to stick to topics that have nothing to do with politics or law at all.

-Floyd

Try as you might, you cannot escape politics for the issue revolves around collectivism and individualism.

"To the success of our hopeless task."
Petunia
silent muse
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2005
Location: Cold North, brrrrrrr

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 1071
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted 05/19/06 - 02:11 PM:
quote post
#82
Floyd wrote:
Where drugs are a problem in your neighborhood, police are a problem in my neighborhood. You’ve seen druggies stab, assault, and even kill people. My black friends get called niggers right to there face and can’t do anything about it, because they are in jail. I’ve seen cops threaten and beat people. I’ve seen cops use their authority to get personal revenge. I’ve watched struggling people's (good people's) lives destroyed by thugs in police uniforms. I’ve watched cops harass innocent people -women and children- with immunity. I’ve seen racist prejudice judges with a god complex send people, many of whom I know and like, to jails where the toilets don't have rims, the food is crap, and the guards are abusive. All this I’ve seen happen to me, the people I know and like, and my community, while knowing that it often gets much worse the world over.
Hearing this brings to my mind two separate conflicts that are occuring in your environment. The first conflict is the impersonal structure of the law and the choice of you and your friends to reject portions of it. The second is the unwritten laws of prejudice and its justification for cruelty. The most chilling aspect I have learned about cruelty is that it is always justified in the eyes of the one inflicting the suffering. The impersonal conflict of breaking the law by using marijuana is used as a springboard to act out the unwritten justification for prejudicial oppression. It is very important to separate these two issues, even though they may occur in tandem. The breaking of a formal law is destroying the credibility of you and your friends to address the more serious issue of prejudicial oppression. These police that are violating decent human ethics need to be punished, but that can only happen if their credibility can be destroyed by someone with stable credibility. I wonder if this is why you used the example of the scantily dressed woman getting raped. She, too, faces a credibility issue that undermines the important issue of victimization. You won't beat the system unless you fight on its turf, with its dialogue, establishing greater credibility than your oppressors. You may not be able to win the fight to justify marijuana use and stop racial cruelty. You may have to choose which battle to fight, choose your strategy, and focus.

Peer over the precipice
Floyd
Cool
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1963

Last Blog: We Can End Poverty

Posted 05/19/06 - 04:19 PM:
quote post
#83
Fiammetta,

Again, appeals to personal responsibility don't absolve the aggressor. I repeat, the provocative actions of a woman doesn't absolve a rapist. The woman knows she might get raped going out late at night; she may be stupid for going out late at night with such knowledge; the rapist who ends up raping her is still an aggressive tyrant and the girl is still a victim. Perhaps she is a stupid victim who could have avoided her victimization by the tyrant, but she is still a victim and the tyrannical rapist is still a tyrant and a rapist.

Petunia,
I believe and act on what Immortal Technique once said, that the problem with working within the system and always being a conformist is that it is not you who will change the system; it is the system that will eventually change you. ["The Poverty Of Philosophy"]

Petunia wrote:
These police that are violating decent human ethics need to be punished…

I do not believe anybody needs to be punished. I do not believe in punishment.


I was mostly trying to compare my general disdain for police and the judicial system (through my anecdotal experience) with your general disdain for druggies (by your anecdotal experience). However, I am sure we can both realize that our true disdain is not with druggies or police, but rather with harmful people of all shapes and forms.

darkcrow wrote:
Try as you might, you cannot escape politics for the issue revolves around collectivism and individualism.

I can escape politics as far as my philosophical endeavors go.

-Floyd

Edited by Floyd on 05/19/06 - 04:28 PM

Short and to the point. | Online Philosophy Club | Book & Reading Forums | My Philosophy Articles

"Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant
Em Renz
Endless Seeker
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 10, 2006
Location: NC, USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 290
Posted 05/19/06 - 05:11 PM:
quote post
#84
The Supreme Court is the only leglislative body with the power to interpret constitutional laws, though they should keep it to a bare minimum at that. Some here seem to have confused constitutional law with state law.

Fiammetta wrote:

Yeah, it's all the cops fault for having to enforce laws written. They are all power-hungry and out for a quick fix. The criminals aren't responsible.

This is such crap. Cops are normal people like you and I. You see the bad ones on the news, and people make the generalization that all cops are control-freaks. It's utter crap. All policeman go through psychological testing to see if they are fit for the job, which includes excluding people for being control-freaks and power hungry. Like everything else, it fails sometimes but the general idea of "If they weren't cops they'd be criminals" is a total crock of shit.

Why is it that criminals always blame the cops first? It's not like you didn't know you had bad tags, and it's not like Floyd didn't know he was breaking the law. Stop blaming everyone else for your screw-up and take some responsibility for your life. You'll find things will go a little easier.


O.K., Fiammetta, perhaps we are at a bit of a misunderstanding. Firstly, all generalizations are false, including this one. "Cops are normal people like you and I", is also a generalization. And yes, I knew I had the wrong tag at the time, yet this does not justify (nor legally require) an arrest! Nor does it require that I be verbally abused by the arresting officer and called a pussy because there was a Marine Corps sticker on the back of my truck (I had just bought the truck used, sticker wasn't even mine to begin with). I did not start letting this cop have it until I'd had enough and realized that he had nothing of consequence on me to begin with. I asked him, while handcuffed in the back seat of the car, why he was arresting me, to which he replied; "Because I feel like it!". This unleashed my fury.

Alot of this depends upon where you live, Fiammetta. Cops are different depending upon the region of the country as well. My great-grandfather had the distinction of being the first motorcycle cop in Long Island. He was a police officer. He was nothing at all like the gung-ho assholes that are so prevalent today.

Que scais je?
Petunia
silent muse
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2005
Location: Cold North, brrrrrrr

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 1071
Posted 05/19/06 - 05:40 PM:
quote post
#85
Floyd wrote:
Petunia,
I believe and act on what Immortal Technique once said, that the problem with working within the system and always being a conformist is that it is not you who will change the system; it is the system that will eventually change you. ["The Poverty Of Philosophy"]
Everything we encounter changes us. The system has already changed you and your friends by forcing you to react to it. All we can do is choose how we wish to react. When we encounter an injustice, should we make efforts to change it or let it be? Regarding prejudice, those who were able to get laws changed in the direction of equality are to be commended for their success working within the system, right? It is interesting to observe the complete discrediting of you and your friends by the police, and likewise the complete discrediting of the legal system by you and your friends. What will the result be if this approach to the conflict continues? Will anything improve in your favor? Do you think anything needs to change, or is your frustration experienced as part of your acceptance? If you wish something to change, then I suggest stepping back, analyze the situation, find out what strategies have worked in the past, and then make change. As you know, indulging rebellious feelings is not a solution to the problem, but one way of embracing it and being indirectly controlled by it. Is the system controlling you or are you finding a way to control it?

In high conflict social environments that function on oppression and cruelty, these fundamental issues are usually neglected in favor of more trivial issues. This happens domestically and it sounds as though such issues as marijuana are being used as scapegoats for the underlying conflict of prejudice. If you continue to play that game, it will reinforce the dysfunction. Be careful not to overly romanticize the trivial to defend the profound. I won't presume to know what details that pertains to in your case (or if it is even relevent), but have observed this dynamic far too many times.

The issue of credibility is paramount in legal and social change. It is not always fair or correct, but that is the way it is. Finding individuals with greater credibility than the police to speak out against them and their treatement of your friends is a first step. Publicizing the wrongful acts committed by the police will lower their credibility as well. Once your position has greater credibility than theirs, change can occur. It can be a long and arduous process, nonetheless.

Floyd wrote:
I was mostly trying to compare my general disdain for police and the judicial system (through my anecdotal experience) with your general disdain for druggies (by your anecdotal experience). However, I am sure we can both realize that our true disdain is not with druggies or police, but rather with harmful people of all shapes and forms.
Yes, I agree with that. I don't actually presume to know what being a "druggie" means. Those instances where mind altering substances makes people more cruel and violent than they would be in their rational mind, and the physical damage it causes, makes me wonder what benefit could be so grand to make up for the harm. I think our natural senses have the capacity to enable us to experience rapture and states of ecstacy. I know mine do and have for some time now.


Edited by Petunia on 05/19/06 - 05:56 PM

Peer over the precipice
Floyd
Cool
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1963

Last Blog: We Can End Poverty

Posted 05/19/06 - 07:02 PM:
quote post
#86
Petunia, a politician may want to remain creditable. I, however, have no interest in creditability with the masses.

Also, I'm not a reformist. I'm a revolutionary.

Petunia wrote:
Is the system controlling you or are you finding a way to control it?

I understand what you mean about spiteful reaction, in that, like reverse psychology, it can be just as controlling as loyalty. However, I don't enjoy hate, spite, or tyrany from anger. There is a difference between spiteful tyranny and defense. Besides, per the Immortal Technique quote, when working within the system I believe the system controls the person. When the person works outside the system, the system does not have control over the person.

Petunia wrote:
The issue of credibility is paramount in legal and social change. It is not always fair or correct, but that is the way it is. Finding individuals with greater credibility than the police to speak out against them and their treatement of your friends is a first step. Publicizing the wrongful acts committed by the police will lower their credibility as well. Once your position has greater credibility than theirs, change can occur. It can be a long and arduous process, nonetheless.
Creditability is subjective. (Some people actually think Fox news is fair and balanced!) The police are extremely discreditable with most of the people I associate with. Similarly, my/our leaders, information sources, and associations are very discreditable to wealthy suburbia and traditionalists, while police, courts, and politicians are creditable to these people. Unfortunately, there is a culture war in these divided (Eminem sticking out tongue) states of America and a huge divide globally. And, on opposite sides of this divide credit is often reversed.

Personally, I believe more people find me and mine more creditable than street cops. I believe more people in the world find Hugo Chavez more creditable then George Bush. Etcetera, etcetera.

Publisize the wrongful acts of cops... already done. Perhaps, you read the wrong publications. (Remember when the Black Panthers patrolled cops.) How do you think I know cops are worse the world the over? My opinions aren't based on my personal anecdotes.

[quote=Petunia]This happens domestically and it sounds as though such issues as marijuana are being used as scapegoats for the underlying conflict of prejudice.[quote] Sure de jure policies are used as scapegoats more often than de facto ones. Often people will harp on the de jure Iraq war more than the the larger de facto neo-colonialism by America. However, the main reason maryjane is being harped on here is that it happens to be what I personally was arrested and abused for this time.

-Floyd

Short and to the point. | Online Philosophy Club | Book & Reading Forums | My Philosophy Articles

"Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant
select
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 22, 2003
Location: Arizona, United States

Total Topics: 91
Total Posts: 1186
Posted 05/19/06 - 09:46 PM:
quote post
#87
Okay, I think you guys are forgetting that there are serious social consequences of having a mob of half-functional and delusional human beings walking around out there. Yes, drugs cause a great deal of harm. And no, I don't really care how Floyd or Libertarians define harm. I'm talking about interpersonal, professional, as well as physical harm.

Reformed Nihilist wrote:
There is arguably some societal harm that comes from smoking pot. It is not reasonably arguable that there is much relative harm (considering the other laws that police can spend resources enforcing) that comes from smoking pot (none that I have heard anyways).

This really isn't something for you, or other citizens, to decide. I agree insofar as police departments should prioritize, and other crimes should be given higher priority. But marijuana use is far more common than higher priority offenses. My intuition is that the police can respond to every homocide, DUI, shooting, and whatever you want to list as having a higher priority, and still have time for drug enforcement (the police I see seem to be pretty bored for the most part). I think it's unreasonable to assume that police are choosing to investigate drug offenses over homocide cases, for example. And if there are too many drug offences, then maybe we need more police, eh? Basically, I think this discussion is about the law and not it's enforcement: whether people should have the right to smoke weed. No one agrees with police brutality but it's certainly no abuse that the police choose to, you know, enforce the law. That's what they are supposed to be doing.

Fiammeta wrote:
Are all dope heads paranoid victims who blame bad laws instead of bad judgment? Or is it just a few?

Well, paranoia is one long-term side-effect of marijuana use.

nosos wrote:
It’s very rare that I’ll lapse into militancy about legalisation but has it occurred to you that maybe that option just seems plain fucking wrong? Why should we have to?

I was speaking in terms of what's practical. You know, it's almost funny how many stoners, when they get caught, then make it out as if they're really protesting a corrupt justice system. Then words like justice and freedom start streaming out as if each one was one man against the system. But the truth is we're only talking about kids wanting to get high. Most stoners are simply not the kind of people who are political activists. Aside from whatever political opinions you have, the best solution for these people is to simply stop using it. Get that crap out of your system. I don't think it's a wise habit in the first place, but it seems to me to be a small thing to give up to make life easier in every other way.

"To create man was a fine and original idea; but to add sheep was a tautology."
Mark Twain
nosos
skeptical
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 24, 2004
Location: Coventry, UK

Total Topics: 145
Total Posts: 2285
Posted 05/20/06 - 01:36 AM:
quote post
#88
select wrote:
Aside from whatever political opinions you have, the best solution for these people is to simply stop using it.

On the contrary, the best solution in any meaningful sense is surely to just not get caught. To instantly stop doing something you enjoy because it involves risk of sanction strikes me as a somewhat odd way of looking at the world.

"The men of the future will yet fight their way to many a liberty that we do not even miss? - Max Stirner

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - JS Mill

"I'd rather be a crying little pussy than a faggy Goth kid." - Butters
nosos
skeptical
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 24, 2004
Location: Coventry, UK

Total Topics: 145
Total Posts: 2285
Posted 05/20/06 - 01:40 AM:
quote post
#89
Indeed wrote:
There isn't a direct connection that necessitates this, and is therefore less obvious than you imply.


P1: I like to perform activity x
P2: Prohibition of an activity prevents me from performing it
C: I don’t want activity x to be prohibited

There’s a fairly direct connection between people enjoying doing something and not wanting to be banned from the doing the thing they enjoy doing.

"The men of the future will yet fight their way to many a liberty that we do not even miss? - Max Stirner

"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - JS Mill

"I'd rather be a crying little pussy than a faggy Goth kid." - Butters
Reformed Nihilist
Oblong
Avatar

Usergroup: Missing Mods
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north

Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7921
Posted 05/20/06 - 03:51 AM:
quote post
#90
select wrote:
Okay, I think you guys are forgetting that there are serious social consequences of having a mob of half-functional and delusional human beings walking around out there. Yes, drugs cause a great deal of harm. And no, I don't really care how Floyd or Libertarians define harm. I'm talking about interpersonal, professional, as well as physical harm.


Any social consequences that smoking pot causes is relatively negligible. I don't smoke the stuff, but even I know this. I am astonished that people would imply otherwise.

This really isn't something for you, or other citizens, to decide.


Not on in individual case by case basis, but the police are public servents, aren't they? It strikes me as an odd thing to say that police are not accountable to the citizenry.

I agree insofar as police departments should prioritize, and other crimes should be given higher priority. But marijuana use is far more common than higher priority offenses.


Yes. It is easier to bust a pot smoker. I just has virtually no social value to do so.

My intuition is that the police can respond to every homocide, DUI, shooting, and whatever you want to list as having a higher priority, and still have time for drug enforcement (the police I see seem to be pretty bored for the most part).


That is why there is so little crime in the US? You don't live in Boston, do you? I would council against basing your argument on such intuitions.

I think it's unreasonable to assume that police are choosing to investigate drug offenses over homocide cases, for example.


It is not unreasonable to think that there is a systemic problem that causes resources that could be spent on busting people smoking pot that could be spent on the prevention of violent or other more deliterious crime. It is actually a fact.

And if there are too many drug offences, then maybe we need more police, eh?


Part of the problem, which is displayed by your use of the blanket term 'drug offenses', is that there is an equivication between pot use and crack or meth use. I don't agree with Floyd that all drug use should be allowed, but I have yet to hear any reasonable justification for the prohibition of pot. Part of the reason that people (like Floyd) arrive at the extreme positions about these matters that they do is in reaction to the unreasonable justification of current laws and their enforcement. You want people to stop respecting the police force, make them enforce unjustifiable laws.

Basically, I think this discussion is about the law and not it's enforcement: whether people should have the right to smoke weed. No one agrees with police brutality but it's certainly no abuse that the police choose to, you know, enforce the law. That's what they are supposed to be doing.


They are also supposed to be human beings with personal accounability. That's the point that I'm making. Although it is hyperbole, I agree to some extent with the analogy of nazi germany (one could also mention abu-garab). It is when people abandon their personal sense of integrety and just do what they are told they are supposed to do, we have problems. Yes the law needs to be changed. In the mean time, police need to stop worrying about busting pot smokers.

Well, paranoia is one long-term side-effect of marijuana use.


Paranoia is a long term side-effect of criminality, not marijuana use.

I was speaking in terms of what's practical. You know, it's almost funny how many stoners, when they get caught, then make it out as if they're really protesting a corrupt justice system. Then words like justice and freedom start streaming out as if each one was one man against the system. But the truth is we're only talking about kids wanting to get high. Most stoners are simply not the kind of people who are political activists. Aside from whatever political opinions you have, the best solution for these people is to simply stop using it. Get that crap out of your system. I don't think it's a wise habit in the first place, but it seems to me to be a small thing to give up to make life easier in every other way.


How do you think political activist are created? It's either through having a vested interest in change (by wanting to smoke pot, for example) or by narcissism and political self-promotion. What do you think justice and freedom are? They are words used to negotiate a person's or group's interests.

Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism

Daniel Dennett
Freedom Evolves
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Last



Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.