Fucking pigs

lschmidt said:
I called 911 when I was driving behind somebody who was clearly impaired. They were swerving back and forth between two lanes, straddling the center line, etc. The 911 operator had me follow the guy and keep updating her on where I was -- she was meanwhile relaying this information to a police officer who was en route to me. The cops showed up, pulled over the guy, questioned me and told me that he was totally fucked up, drunk as well as high on something. I could have very well saved somebody's life that night.
Click to expand...

Wickedfire doesn't like people interfering in situations like that. Sup guerilla ;)
 


lschmidt said:
I called 911 when I was driving behind somebody who was clearly impaired. They were swerving back and forth between two lanes, straddling the center line, etc. The 911 operator had me follow the guy and keep updating her on where I was -- she was meanwhile relaying this information to a police officer who was en route to me. The cops showed up, pulled over the guy, questioned me and told me that he was totally fucked up, drunk as well as high on something. I could have very well saved somebody's life that night.
Click to expand...

A thought experiment:

Would you say that it would have been a moral dilemma for you to ignore the person's swerving?

If so, what moral principle would you have violated if you were to have ignored the person's swerving?

Here is the reason I ask...

In order for a moral principle to be sound, it should be universal. It should apply to everyone. It's worth noting that the driver's swerving in your example had not yet produced a victim. Thus, in my mind, there is no crime. I do not subscribe to the notion of rights by charter, and thus do not equate a crime with a mere violation of a politician's arbitrary edict.

Following the idea that sound moral principles are universal, and presuming - I'm trying to save time by making an assumption. Forgive me if my assumption is incorrect - the moral principle you did not want to violate is allowing a person to endanger others, would you not agree that the same moral principle would demand that you call the cops on the following people...

- A man you know to wear glasses that gets behind the wheel without his glasses.

- A teenage boy in the drivers' seat with his eyes fixated on his stereo system rather than the road.

- A harried mother driving her SUV while turned around and yelling at her kids in the back seat.

- A cop driving his vehicle at high speeds while clearly using his hands to type on the computer with his attention diverted.

In each of these situations, other drivers and pedestrians are in potential danger, a lack of swerving notwithstanding. In fact, if we care to extend the presumed moral principle to its logical end, we can argue that anyone who gets behind the wheel of a huge hunk of metal and hurtles that heap down the road at 55 mph toward others places others in potential danger.

In fact, if we wish to prevent any human from causing harm to any other human, why not simply shackle everybody to the floor?

Here's my point... to repeat, moral principles must be universal in that they must apply to everyone. To be sure, it may feel as if you're doing the right thing - whatever that means, since people seldom equate "doing the right thing" to true universal and logically-consistent moral principles - by calling the cops on someone you presume would have maimed or killed someone.

But I see an inconsistency in the action. Moreover, I see the action as violating a moral principle I personally hold: non-aggression, or first-use of violence, against anyone.

Note that with the above, I'm not actually focusing on whether it is right or wrong to call the cops. That's a different discussion I'd like to avoid for now. Rather, I'm explaining the reason a decision to not do so presents no moral dilemma for me.

Incidentally, I have no intention of going back and forth on this stuff. I have watched others with more talent, smarts, and patience do so without making a major breakthrough. Any hope I might have of accomplishing more would be unreasonable.

Having said that, I thought it important to try to explain - at least, on the surface; this stuff goes deep, a fact to which any student of philosophy can attest - why my not calling the cops presents no moral dilemma for me.

Your mileage may vary. ;)
 
JakeStratham said:
A thought experiment:

Would you say that it would have been a moral dilemma for you to ignore the person's swerving?

If so, what moral principle would you have violated if you were to have ignored the person's swerving?

Here is the reason I ask...

In order for a moral principle to be sound, it should be universal. It should apply to everyone. It's worth noting that the driver's swerving in your example had not yet produced a victim. Thus, in my mind, there is no crime. I do not subscribe to the notion of rights by charter, and thus do not equate a crime with a mere violation of a politician's arbitrary edict.

Following the idea that sound moral principles are universal, and presuming - I'm trying to save time by making an assumption. Forgive me if my assumption is incorrect - the moral principle you did not want to violate is allowing a person to endanger others, would you not agree that the same moral principle would demand that you call the cops on the following people...

- A man you know to wear glasses that gets behind the wheel without his glasses.

- A teenage boy in the drivers' seat with his eyes fixated on his stereo system rather than the road.

- A harried mother driving her SUV while turned around and yelling at her kids in the back seat.

- A cop driving his vehicle at high speeds while clearly using his hands to type on the computer with his attention diverted.

In each of these situations, other drivers and pedestrians are in potential danger, a lack of swerving notwithstanding. In fact, if we care to extend the presumed moral principle to its logical end, we can argue that anyone who gets behind the wheel of a huge hunk of metal and hurtles that heap down the road at 55 mph toward others places others in potential danger.

In fact, if we wish to prevent any human from causing harm to any other human, why not simply shackle everybody to the floor?

Here's my point... to repeat, moral principles must be universal in that they must apply to everyone. To be sure, it may feel as if you're doing the right thing - whatever that means, since people seldom equate "doing the right thing" to true universal and logically-consistent moral principles - by calling the cops on someone you presume would have maimed or killed someone.

But I see an inconsistency in the action. Moreover, I see the action as violating a moral principle I personally hold: non-aggression, or first-use of violence, against anyone.

Note that with the above, I'm not actually focusing on whether it is right or wrong to call the cops. That's a different discussion I'd like to avoid for now. Rather, I'm explaining the reason a decision to not do so presents no moral dilemma for me.

Incidentally, I have no intention of going back and forth on this stuff. I have watched others with more talent, smarts, and patience do so without making a major breakthrough. Any hope I might have of accomplishing more would be unreasonable.

Having said that, I thought it important to try to explain - at least, on the surface; this stuff goes deep, a fact to which any student of philosophy can attest - why my not calling the cops presents no moral dilemma for me.

Your mileage may vary. ;)
Click to expand...

facepalm2ly3rx6_zps7c1f0cca.jpg
 
This is another that happened that same day:

David Perdue was on his way to sneak in some surfing before work Thursday morning when police flagged him down. They asked who he was and where he was headed, then sent him on his way.

Seconds later, Perdue's attorney said, a Torrance police cruiser slammed into his pickup and officers opened fire; none of the bullets struck Perdue.

His pickup, police later explained, matched the description of the one belonging to Christopher Jordan Dorner — the ex-cop who has evaded authorities after allegedly killing three and wounding two more. But the pickups were different makes and colors. And Perdue looks nothing like Dorner: He's several inches shorter and about a hundred pounds lighter. And Perdue is white; Dorner is black.

"I don't want to use the word buffoonery but it really is unbridled police lawlessness," said Robert Sheahen, Perdue's attorney. "These people need training and they need restraint."
Click to expand...
Police seeking Dorner opened fire in a second case of mistaken identity - latimes.com


This is a real training video:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEPu_i-q_NE"]Who Are You? - YouTube[/ame]
 
Coppers have to do something with the 2.6 billion rounds of ammo they just bought. Are you really surprised to find them in our backs?
 
$1M reward offered in manhunt for fired cop


5:38p.m. EST February 10, 2013

LOS ANGELES -- City officials offered a $1 million reward Sunday for information leading to the capture of fugitive ex-cop Christopher Dorner, accusing him of "domestic terrorism'' in targeting law enforcement officers and their families.

Police Chief Charlie Beck said the reward was the largest ever offered in Southern California and includes contributions from businesses and private individuals as well as public funds. Dorner has been accused by police of the shooting deaths of three people, one of them a police officer and another the daughter of a former officer.

"Why so large?'' Beck said. "This is an act, and make no mistake about it, of domestic terrorism. This is a man who has targeted those who we entrust to protect the public. His actions cannot go unanswered.''

Making a show of solidarity, mayors and police chiefs from several affected are communities joined Beck and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in announcing the reward. FBI and U.S. Marshals service officials joined in the announcement.

"We will not tolerate a killer targeting our officers and their families, targeting innocent people in this city and in this region,'' Villaraigosa said.
...
Click to expand...

$1M reward offered in manhunt for fired cop
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back