|
|
Post by dannusmaximus on Feb 22, 2016 4:37:15 GMT
I've never really understood the 'strawman' thing, so I'll take your word that I committed some egregious logical fallacy.
I have a very difficult time wrapping my head around only having laws which kick in upon negative consequences (like driving drunk is only illegal when you hurt/kill somebody or destroy somebody's property, othewise, cruise on). What do you think about fire codes, whereby one of our FD inspectors can stop a show or prevent a business from operating if they don't comply with fire prevention requirements? Sprinkler requirements, that sort of thing. The need for alarms and extinguishers, fire rated doors, yadda yadda. Better to just sue the building owner if there is a catastrophic fire? Trust the insurance companies to force the builders to enact proper fire protection? Most major code requirements were enacted after horrible fires with apalling loss of life. Until they were forced to take such things into consideration, building owners didn't give a shit about it. Are we enlightened enough now that such things should just be taken on faith, and trust people to do the right thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Feb 22, 2016 5:17:49 GMT
This is and has been probably the chief problem in discussing this with you. No one, myself included, is accusing your wife of anything yet every time these discussions come up you get defensive about this. Reality check, homes... I believe YOU initially brought up Nuremburg and Schindler's list while opining on people 'just following orders' vis a vis enforcing freedom-destroying laws. I'm not good at the copy pasta, but you can review your post where you first started spouting Latin. It's those sentences where you reference Nuremburg and Schindler's List...  Perfectly acceptable for me to counter with the opinion that my wife issuing a speeding ticket ('following orders' to enforce a crime which does not pass your malum test) is not in the same area code as the mass slaughter of Jews and the initiation of the most destructive war in human history, dontchathink? I certainly do.
I sure did bring those up first. I'm not claiming otherwise. Using the excuse "Well the hiring authority said so" is the same as "Just following orders", it's just a matter of degree. In that regard, yup. If your wife does stuff that is wrong but trues to pass the buck by saying "I'm just following policy the hiring authority set", then yes...she's going down the same road as the poor schmuck who collected wallets and valuables at Auschwitz because the lawfully elected government authorities told him to do so. Am I saying that your wife, or most other LEOs in the US are Nazis? Not by a long shot. What I'm saying is that defending or excusing ones actions by saying "I'm just doing what the authorities told me to do" isn't a legitimate excuse and hasn't been recognized as one since the Nuremberg trials. If the Indiana legislature legalized torture in criminal investigations tomorrow, do yo think that would exonerate any LEO who used torture? Of course not, and we all recognize that. Where the potential problem lies in if the Indiana legislature, for example, legalizes stop and frisk, or warrentless searches of vehicles stopped for traffic violations, or a host of other "reasonable" infringements of the publics right to be left alone and the LEO's comply with the legislature because they're just following the hiring authorities instructions.
That's the day when your bride goes from being a protector of the public to an oppressor of the public. It's a slippery slope, no doubt about it, and I can very readily understand why the person in the hot seat might not even recognize when they hit the tipping point. I probably wouldn't in their shoes. That doesn't mean they would be bad people. (BTW, this is what I'm referring to when I say no one is accusing your wife of being a bad person). It's just a profession that has a high potential for being misused and abused by their bosses. BTW....Officer discretion. How does that work again, if failure to prosecute every infraction of the legal code in a jurisdiction because , "and even though LEO's have some latitude in what crimes/infractions they will or will not enforce", Kinda like virginity, you either enforce them all %100 or you don't enforce them all %100. My argument is that LEOs should use that lovely "officers discretion" to ignore unconstitutional laws, and where they might get fired by the hiring authority for doing so, to make enough procedural mistakes that the person is sure to get off in court. Neither you nor I are Constitutional scholars, but I'm pretty sure that both of us can recognize a half dozen laws on the books right now that are UN-Constitutional. And in cases where no one has been harmed I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be a great stretch of ones moral conscience to ignore infractions of such a law. |
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Feb 22, 2016 5:41:12 GMT
I've never really understood the 'strawman' thing, so I'll take your word that I committed some egregious logical fallacy. I have a very difficult time wrapping my head around only having laws which kick in upon negative consequences (like driving drunk is only illegal when you hurt/kill somebody or destroy somebody's property, othewise, cruise on). What do you think about fire codes, whereby one of our FD inspectors can stop a show or prevent a business from operating if they don't comply with fire prevention requirements? Sprinkler requirements, that sort of thing. The need for alarms and extinguishers, fire rated doors, yadda yadda. Better to just sue the building owner if there is a catastrophic fire? Trust the insurance companies to force the builders to enact proper fire protection? Most major code requirements were enacted after horrible fires with apalling loss of life. Until they were forced to take such things into consideration, building owners didn't give a shit about it. Are we enlightened enough now that such things should just be taken on faith, and trust people to do the right thing? I can understand your problem with this. Really. Especially given your profession (and that's not a dig). Your job is all about trying to prevent bad things from happening, and trying to minimize the bad stuff when it does, despite your efforts, happen. Cavet Emptor. Let the buyer beware. Not a sentiment that your profession is going to be comfortable with, the argument most likely begin that the general public doesn't know enough to be aware for those hazards that your profession has trained you to spot. None the less...Cavet emptor. Let the owners of those buildings be sued for every last nickel, every asset and future earning attached without mercy. If a corporation, Let the shareholders be personally held fiscally accountable. Kids have a college fund? Gone. Home? Gone. 401K? Gone? Let the cost of such a disaster be so ruinous that every stockholder in a corporation screams to have the very best in fire suppression and safety technology in all of their holdings. That they would scream for the head of any CEO who tried to cut corners in those areas to be delivered to the next shareholders meeting on a stick. That would get you real measures striving for safety. What you get now is compliance with code and an attempt to limit liability. That and bureaucrats trying to create revenue and job security*. Your right, most safety regulations are "written in red". The implication that the red is blood, but the truth of the matter is that they're written in red ink...cost to the business owner. Period. Aside front he few regulations pushed through on a wave of public indignation following a horrific loss of life, the rest were put through when the cost of settling claims exceeded the cost of preventative measures. What happened is that we as a nation shifted our view of who we held responsible for workplace injuries...dumping the 19th century view that the worker carried his/her own risk for the 20th century view that the employer is responsible for the workers safety and wellbeing while one the job. That's when the lawsuits started to hurt th business owners....right up until they figured out how to layer incorporations to limit liability. So, TLDR: Hold the owners responsible and hang 'em by the short and curies if they failed to take reasonable measures to protect the safety of all those who entered their buildings. What's reasonable? That's for a jury of average, working class, taxpayers to decide. If D. Triumph doesn't want to loose everything he owns then he'll have fantastic and 'YUGE fire prevention measures installed in every building he's associated with. *Not your fault. Those cockroaches try to find a percentage in everything. Even a default on your pension fund. |
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Feb 22, 2016 12:56:45 GMT
Just as a sideline, I enjoy y'all conversations.
#carryonmuhwaywardson
|
|
|
|
Post by dannusmaximus on Feb 22, 2016 16:49:55 GMT
Just as a sideline, I enjoy y'all conversations. #carryonmuhwaywardson Well I'm glad you're enoying it, because they wear me the fuck out... |
|
|
|
Post by NamelessStain on Feb 22, 2016 17:25:39 GMT
DAMN KIDS!!! GET OFF MY DAMN THREAD!!
|
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Feb 23, 2016 1:44:37 GMT
Just as a sideline, I enjoy y'all conversations. #carryonmuhwaywardson Well I'm glad you're enoying it, because they wear me the fuck out... Tiring for both of us, bro. We are without a doubt, those two old geezers arguing philosophy and politics all night at the end of the bar. |
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Feb 23, 2016 17:25:59 GMT
#bombdropped #kittenvideosareawesomedoe
|
|
|
|
Post by NamelessStain on Feb 26, 2016 15:04:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by NamelessStain on Feb 29, 2016 13:20:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Mar 1, 2016 14:07:43 GMT
Can hardly wait for the rapes and stonings.
|
|
|
|
Post by LowKey on Mar 1, 2016 15:25:55 GMT
Can hardly wait for the rapes and stonings. ...but won't it be fun to watch if when that crew and the BLM crew butt heads? *popcorn time* |
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Mar 1, 2016 17:43:11 GMT
Can hardly wait for the rapes and stonings. ...but won't it be fun to watch if when that crew and the BLM crew butt heads? *popcorn time* I think BLM is going to join forces, what gonna be really neat is when the Hispanics throw their hat in the ring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gingerbread Man on Mar 1, 2016 17:44:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by NamelessStain on Mar 1, 2016 17:56:19 GMT
|
|
Perfectly acceptable for me to counter with the opinion that my wife issuing a speeding ticket ('following orders' to enforce a crime which does not pass your malum test) is not in the same area code as the mass slaughter of Jews and the initiation of the most destructive war in human history, dontchathink? I certainly do. 
