+1 IMPD

[MikeDVB]

The license of course you turd

This is either the second time in two days he's been called a turd... Or I thought it but didn't type it .

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yep, Brian Anderson murdered his mother and then killed IPD Officer Jake Laird. He was known to be mentally unstable and should've never had firearms. It's people like him that do crazy **** that will ruin it all for the rest of us.

All law abiding persons that aren't diagnosed as being mentally ill should be left alone with no restrictions. In my opinion. I know not everyone here will agree with me, but I am as far right as it gets and I still believe that not everything is as cut and dry as you would like it.

Let's see...

1. Anyone who has been proven to have ever had a bad day to the satisfaction of some bureaucrat who is probably nuttier than a bucket of filberts himself should be banned from a right applicable to all free citizens?

2. You believe in socialized penalties? Why should the actions of the guilty translate into sanctions against others? Why not stand up for safe and sane government instead of conceding that the actions of the few justify whizzing all over the Constitution?

3. People who cannot be entrusted to live free with all their rights should be, in the case of criminals, in prison or executed, and in the case of the criminally insane, institutionalized appropriately. Those who cannot be trusted with their rights should not be roaming free.

4. I am not sure about your self-assessment of representing the furthest position to the right, but the scale of liberty runs at a right angle to the left-right axis. There is right-wing statism (as Texas has a habit of demonstrating) and there is left-wing anarchy. Liberty is found at the point where is just enough 'archy' to maintain a definable society which can be defended from external threats and function as a society. On that note, Merle Haggard famously observed that there was more liberty available to him while he was on parole in 1960 than there was to the citizen who had never been convicted of any crime when he made the remark, in the 1990s if I remember correctly. This illuminates several major problems.

 

[88GT]

That's because you consider yourself a good driver and a responsible gun owner. You have to agree that there are some people that just should not be driving because they are a danger to themselves or others. I agree with you, but there are exceptions for everything. Not everything is cut and dry.

What I consider myself to be is irrelevant. A man is free until he makes choices that result in his incarceration. I don't believe in limiting everybody just because someone *might* do something. You can't prevent crime through legislation or policy.

We have far more children harmed by bad parenting than firearms, and nobody wants to come out for restrictions on becoming parents.

 

[Sheepdog2305]

Let's see...

1. Anyone who has been proven to have ever had a bad day to the satisfaction of some bureaucrat who is probably nuttier than a bucket of filberts himself should be banned from a right applicable to all free citizens?

2. You believe in socialized penalties? Why should the actions of the guilty translate into sanctions against others? Why not stand up for safe and sane government instead of conceding that the actions of the few justify whizzing all over the Constitution?

3. People who cannot be entrusted to live free with all their rights should be, in the case of criminals, in prison or executed, and in the case of the criminally insane, institutionalized appropriately. Those who cannot be trusted with their rights should not be roaming free.

4. I am not sure about your self-assessment of representing the furthest position to the right, but the scale of liberty runs at a right angle to the left-right axis. There is right-wing statism (as Texas has a habit of demonstrating) and there is left-wing anarchy. Liberty is found at the point where is just enough 'archy' to maintain a definable society which can be defended from external threats and function as a society. On that note, Merle Haggard famously observed that there was more liberty available to him while he was on parole in 1960 than there was to the citizen who had never been convicted of any crime when he made the remark, in the 1990s if I remember correctly. This illuminates several major problems.

1. "A bad day" your words, not mine. Mental illness and "a bad day" are a tad different.

2. "You believe in socialized penalties?" Again, your words.
Ummm, no I believe in individualized ones.

3. You want everything to be black and white. It isn't.

4. Am I not free to assess myself? You don't know me, but you do know what I was trying to say.

5. You mad bro?

 

[Sheepdog2305]

What I consider myself to be is irrelevant. A man is free until he makes choices that result in his incarceration. I don't believe in limiting everybody just because someone *might* do something. You can't prevent crime through legislation or policy.

We have far more children harmed by bad parenting than firearms, and nobody wants to come out for restrictions on becoming parents.

I'm not sure where the disconnect is!

I never said limiting everybody, I said "some people", meaning individuals!

Also, I agree with you on the parenting thing.

 

[IndyDave1776]

1. "A bad day" your words, not mine. Mental illness and "a bad day" are a tad different.

2. "You believe in socialized penalties?" Again, your words.
Ummm, no I believe in individualized ones.

3. You want everything to be black and white. It isn't.

4. Am I not free to assess myself? You don't know me, but you do know what I was trying to say.

5. You mad bro?

1. I understand the point you are trying to make. The problem is that in practice any mental health requirement beyond the present 'adjudicated mentally deficient' can and will be whatever the hell some politician and/or bureaucrat wants it to be, translated we will be wide open to be arbitrarily denied our rights. Plenty of these people believe anyone (other than themselves) wanting a gun is necessarily mentally unstable on account of wanting a gun. Way too much room for abuse. I would rather take my chances with the odd nut here or there than turn the .gov loose with sweeping new powers to arbitrarily deny rights.

2. Whenever 'one/a few ruin it for everyone' that is a socialized penalty (i.e., punishing everyone for the deeds of the one or the few). I am not suggesting that you consider this proper, but it is important to understand that we cannot afford to tolerate it either if we are to remain a free people.

3. While this is often true, a right either does or does not exist. If it exists, it necessarily is immutable and not subject to conditions, restriction, revocation, or being selectively denied. If any of those conditions apply, you have a privilege, not a right, by definition.

4. You are absolutely free to assess yourself and your beliefs. I don't know you and will not challenge you on this aside from evidence you supply to the contrary, which you haven't.

5. Not at all. If nothing else, it is more refreshing to discuss a matter from differing perspectives (openly antagonistic exceptions notwithstanding) than to be trapped in an echo chamber. My perspective is that the biggest and most unseen danger in any government intervention is the unintended consequences. When reasonable people try to think of solutions or are considering proposed solutions, they naturally treat them as if they are to be implemented in a reasonable manner. Unfortunately for us, government and criminals tend to think alike here--when given an opportunity they do not ask what they should do but rather what they can get away with. Abuse of asset forfeiture laws is a prime example of this in action. Whenever considering possible solutions for problems, even those whose eradication is dear to my heart, my first question is how that solution can be wrongly used against me rather than rightly used for its intended purpose. That sets me in opposition to plenty of things that may solve problems I would like to see solved.

 

[88GT]

I'm not sure where the disconnect is!

I never said limiting everybody, I said "some people", meaning individuals!

Also, I agree with you on the parenting thing.

One disconnect is that you want to restrict firearms access to an entire group of people pre-emptively.

Another is that you naively believe that the definition of mentally ill is going to remain clinical and unbiased.

And a third is that once you open the gates for restricting based on pre-emptive rationalization, there is no limit to the categories than can be labeled "high risk" and that carry a "need" to restrict firearms access. We already do it with felons and the mentally ill, knowing full well that it is neither being a felon or having mental illness that increases the risk. Today's it's the mentally ill. Tomorrow it's members of the NRA/GOA/etc.

 

[Sheepdog2305]

One disconnect is that you want to restrict firearms access to an entire group of people pre-emptively.

Another is that you naively believe that the definition of mentally ill is going to remain clinical and unbiased.

And a third is that once you open the gates for restricting based on pre-emptive rationalization, there is no limit to the categories than can be labeled "high risk" and that carry a "need" to restrict firearms access. We already do it with felons and the mentally ill, knowing full well that it is neither being a felon or having mental illness that increases the risk. Today's it's the mentally ill. Tomorrow it's members of the NRA/GOA/etc.

In your opinion, all mentally ill folks and convicted felons should be allowed to own firearms then?

Do you think background checks won't be tailored to get the outcome that the government wants, especially when they don't have to reveal why you were disqualified? There is a level of trust involved.

You left out persons convicted of domestic abuse (not a felony)

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[danielson]

Jesus... Why does EVERY post on this forum have to go out into the giggle weeds???

This LEO did a good job, alot of them do. If you think LEOs should go about their business, just leaving people alone, and not pry, your nuts.

So a cop pulls over someone for a busted taillight, and gets suspicious about the occupants, even if these people have commited a crime, and they might find this out during their traffic stop, do you think they should just stop trying to do so, because after all, whether or not they might have commited a crime has nothing to do with a broken tail light??

A traffic stop is an opportunity to catch a criminal. Its the routine traffic stop that usually ends up catching a wanted felon, that other avenues of police work have been unable to find.

Settle down people... This person wasnt hassled, they were asked questions, and handled professionally.

 

[churchmouse]

What I consider myself to be is irrelevant. A man is free until he makes choices that result in his incarceration. I don't believe in limiting everybody just because someone *might* do something. You can't prevent crime through legislation or policy.

We have far more children harmed by bad parenting than firearms, and nobody wants to come out for restrictions on becoming parents.

I know some parents I would like to restrict....Just saying.


There is no cut and dried answer to any of this. No laws, restrictions or threats of penalty are going to curb the violent acts we are seeing on a daily basis. Good points made and all opinions taken but it is still individual human idiocy that is the root cause. Police action or lack of it will not stave off the madness...JMHO

 

[danielson]

We are no longer a moral society..

 

[IndyDave1776]

We are no longer a moral society..

This is true, but it is also true that when the police are generally unresponsive to our needs, overly responsive to opportunities to pry, and approach us with an adversarial mindset already in place, it defies my understanding that so many police and police apologists fail to understand why plenty of us take umbrage.

 

[danielson]

Because the ONE time, they refuse to pry, and a criminal slips past, everyone complains how stupid they are, and how they dont do their jobs

I understand Some cops overreach their boundaries. But this one DID NOT, and thats what this post is about.

 

[Sheepdog2305]

It's a damned if you do, damned if ya don't kinda job. That wasn't in the brochure either.

 

[danielson]

Well, its a job that isnt thankless to this guy. I personally thank all LEOs who do their best to catch bad guys, and make their areas safer for good people. The ******* cops, are a smack in the face to the ones who are just trying to do whats right, and return home, and IMO have no right to wear the badge.

 

[churchmouse]

It's a damned if you do, damned if ya don't kinda job. That wasn't in the brochure either.

It's more of a career. It requires dedication. The LEO I know say this and so do my Firemen friends.
I have a Job.

 

[PX4me]

Jesus... Why does EVERY post on this forum have to go out into the giggle weeds???

This LEO did a good job, alot of them do. If you think LEOs should go about their business, just leaving people alone, and not pry, your nuts.

So a cop pulls over someone for a busted taillight, and gets suspicious about the occupants, even if these people have commited a crime, and they might find this out during their traffic stop, do you think they should just stop trying to do so, because after all, whether or not they might have commited a crime has nothing to do with a broken tail light??

A traffic stop is an opportunity to catch a criminal. Its the routine traffic stop that usually ends up catching a wanted felon, that other avenues of police work have been unable to find.

Settle down people... This person wasnt hassled, they were asked questions, and handled professionally.

Don't you go making sense now. You'll throw off the whole dynamic of this thread.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Because the ONE time, they refuse to pry, and a criminal slips past, everyone complains how stupid they are, and how they dont do their jobs

I understand Some cops overreach their boundaries. But this one DID NOT, and thats what this post is about.

Maybe if they were not busy bothering people with busted tail lights they could be out stopping real crime.

Or are you saying pulling people over with busted tail lights is the primary way for LEO to solve crimes?

 

[AutomationEngineer]

The problems with IMPD leadership have existed for over 20 years. They have NOTHING to do with Frank S. He was the wrong person, but obviously he tried to walk "the middle of the road and 'Squish, just like grape'." Many cops on IMPD are great, I have three living in my neighborhood that are fantastic, but the leadership tends to drive the good cops to other departments in other towns, or at least to other divisions (IE motorcycle, equestrian) that do not get caught up in the politics and corruption.

I am 99% sure that this wonderful cop will probably be a commander or FTO and another department in 5 years.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Maybe if they were not busy bothering people with busted tail lights they could be out stopping real crime.

Enforcing traffic laws are part of the required duties of the police. If you don't want them enforced, make sure your **** is in proper working order.