The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Show => Topic started by: thekeychainkid on August 12, 2012, 03:49:24 PM
-
His behavior on the Friday 8-10-12 show was disgusting. He repeatedly made excuses for the police, stated multiple times about multiple stories, that he didn't believe the news stories. Then, deflected questions about his positions which seemed to support a double standard. The man may recognize the danger the war on drugs presents us with, but it is painfully obvious to me that he is a statist.
Simply put, the man made excuses for the police tazing a deaf woman, and then went on to suggest that a citizen who aimed a taser at a cop, would be shot, and that the cop wouldnt be in the wrogn for doing so. In past episodes, he has admitted to pepper spraying people in cuffs, and seems to feel no remorse over it. He is a statist, and obviously supports a society in which the police and the citizens are of different classes. Shame on Mark and Ali for not taking him to task over this. I don't know why the show hosts tip toe around these issues, when Bradley is on, but you need to take him to task on these absurd positions.
-
but it is painfully obvious to me that he is a statist.
I'm a pragmatist. The police exist, wishing them away won't work, so why not make them better AND more accountable.
Simply put, the man made excuses for the police tazing a deaf woman, and then went on to suggest that a citizen who aimed a taser at a cop, would be shot, and that the cop wouldnt be in the wrogn for doing so.
They were wrong to do it... but I bet you the reason why they did is because they didn't know she was deaf. If you recall, I tried to pin down exactly what the dispatcher knew (ie: she called with a TTY machine). Don't discount the fact that society expects officers to respond to intense situations with very limited information. It would be the same thing with private protection services, although I imagine the services would actually be more accountable.
Just because a story is read on the internet doesn't mean that all the facts are true.
Regarding someone trying to taser a police officer: you WILL be shot. Police are trained to treat being tased as deadly force because when they are incapacitated anyone can grab their firearm and shoot them.
In past episodes, he has admitted to pepper spraying people in cuffs, and seems to feel no remorse over it.
That situation I handled incorrectly. I do regret making that choice, but I would definitely handle that situation better were it to happen again.
He is a statist, and obviously supports a society in which the police and the citizens are of different classes.
I respectfully disagree.
Shame on Mark and Ali for not taking him to task over this. I don't know why the show hosts tip toe around these issues, when Bradley is on, but you need to take him to task on these absurd positions.
I join you in encouraging them to turn the heat up on me. I posted your thread on my Facebook wall and tagged Ali and Mark.
-
I heard that episode of freetalklive and I appreciate Brad. Yes, sometimes he is a bit of an apologist, but i think he's working really hard at not judging ANYONE, even slime bag police officers, until he knows the facts. He provides the point of view that there could be all kinds of reasons for anything and he doesn't pretend to know those reasons. It's kind of like how Mark plays the pragmatist to Ian's idealism.
Keep up the good work Brad. :)
-
As I listened to that episode, I did get a feeling similar to the sentiment of the OP - that Bradley was being an apologist for police brutality. It made me listen more intently, and in doing so, I realised that what he was saying was just common sense. It certainly highlighted one's propensity jump to conclusions, and perhaps this in turn relates to the suject matter of what was being discussed. When I, as a voluntarist with an innate prejudice against cops, listened to the stories I had quite a knee-jerk reaction to the story - "THAT's OUTRAGEOUS!!! RAGH! :evil:" - when a more open, considered approach (as Bradley took) is required. Attitudes like mine are never going to win anyone over to supporting our ideals, whereas a more open one like Bradley's is much more rational and, well, just better really.
I really can empathise with what the OP is saying, because I intially got the same impression, which is why I really would encourage him to have another listen to the podcast and hear what Bradley really was getting at.
-
I didn't think he was being an apologist. He was considering different perspectives, and I think that's valuable coming from someone who used to be a cop himself. What he said sounded pretty reasonable to me.
-
I didn't think he was being an apologist. He was considering different perspectives, and I think that's valuable coming from someone who used to be a cop himself. What he said sounded pretty reasonable to me.
This. I think the OP, much like one of the callers that night, is failing to understand the value of understanding the cop's perspective. DO remember, all his comments are in the context of dealing with a state THAT EXISTS. If you're an anarchist, as I am, you're not going to love anything about the state, much less the tip of the spear, but you should appreciate someone who WAS the tip of the spear giving you insight into how they think. I think he does a good job of making it clear that he prefers voluntary solutions. I believe if he wins the office of grand poobah sheriff, or whatever, he'll be a moderating influence. I think that's a good thing.
-
A lot of free-staters are so immersed in anti-statist circles that we've practically developed our own language. Many of us actually forget how to speak statist. There's a communication gap and I think it's growing as we immerse ourselves more and more within strictly anti-statist circles. Remembering how to speak statist will be a valuable skill. We need some diplomats.
You also can't shout at statists with your anti-statist lingo and expect it to change anything. You are practically speaking a foreign language. You have to have some patience and teach them our language.
On a side note, I was just chatting with some friends about how exhausted I am with how every conversation seems to go into some libertarian direction. We already agree. There's not really anything to discuss. It takes us out of the world we live in, a statist world, and into some fantasy setting that doesn't exist yet. So many libertarians seem to want to live in that fantasy world to the extent that it's almost debilitating.
Just as an example, let's say there is some delay with a package I've ordered. It was sent via the totally statist monopoly of the U.S. Postal Service.
"We wouldn't have this problem if the USPS wasn't getting massive subsidies and blah blah blah... 15 more mins of ranting about the fantasy world that we hope to live in many years from now."
"Yes, of course. Absolutely right." **lots of enthusiastic nodding that's starting to feel robotic and reflexive.**
Now can we pull ourselves back into the present and the now and the world as it exists right now and deal with it in some kind of productive manner? Can we pick a battle here and there where we might make some progress? If you want to take on the USPS as an activism path, awesome. Focus. You can't take on every battle every moment of your life with this overwhelming behemoth which is the State and get anywhere.
-
A lot of free-staters are so immersed in anti-statist circles that we've practically developed our own language. Many of us actually forget how to speak statist. There's a communication gap and I think it's growing as we immerse ourselves more and more within strictly anti-statist circles. Remembering how to speak statist will be a valuable skill. We need some diplomats.
You also can't shout at statists with your anti-statist lingo and expect it to change anything. You are practically speaking a foreign language. You have to have some patience and teach them our language.
On a side note, I was just chatting with some friends about how exhausted I am with how every conversation seems to go into some libertarian direction. We already agree. There's not really anything to discuss. It takes us out of the world we live in, a statist world, and into some fantasy setting that doesn't exist yet. So many libertarians seem to want to live in that fantasy world to the extent that it's almost debilitating.
Just as an example, let's say there is some delay with a package I've ordered. It was sent via the totally statist monopoly of the U.S. Postal Service.
"We wouldn't have this problem if the USPS wasn't getting massive subsidies and blah blah blah... 15 more mins of ranting about the fantasy world that we hope to live in many years from now."
"Yes, of course. Absolutely right." **lots of enthusiastic nodding that's starting to feel robotic and reflexive.**
Now can we pull ourselves back into the present and the now and the world as it exists right now and deal with it in some kind of productive manner? Can we pick a battle here and there where we might make some progress? If you want to take on the USPS as an activism path, awesome. Focus. You can't take on every battle every moment of your life with this overwhelming behemoth which is the State and get anywhere.
You speak a lot of sense.
-
A lot of free-staters are so immersed in anti-statist circles that we've practically developed our own language. Many of us actually forget how to speak statist. There's a communication gap and I think it's growing as we immerse ourselves more and more within strictly anti-statist circles. Remembering how to speak statist will be a valuable skill. We need some diplomats.
It can be quite annoying trying to communicate with some voluntaryist and anarcho-capitalists at time.
It is so incredibly easy to communicate with statists. Just don't act offended to most things, when speaking about liberty, try to talk about things you agree (at least partly on) and use incrementalist language. If people are trying to do outreach, they should be getting better, not worse, at speaking with statists.
The way some people talk at public meetings or even in court rooms sometimes is ridiculous.
-
I think it is a good thing to start out skeptical of stories. That is not only historically validated, but necessary if one is going to identify aggression where it actually occurs. I think Bradley was right to suggest there was more to the story. Was he denying everything outright, or just suggesting that judgement should be based on more information, because that isn't apologism?
Not specific to these comments - sometimes the liberty community automatically accepts stories just because they validate the violence of the state, regardless of evidence. I think it best to be on guard for that reaction.
-
Well I must admit I'm slightly flattered that there isn't a "less Bradley, please" thread....
yet.
-
Well I must admit I'm slightly flattered that there isn't a "less Bradley, please" thread....
yet.
Should be fine unless it comes to leftist victimhood rants and belittling religious beliefs.
-
Why would someone taze a handcuffed person? I never continued abusing a downed person. I have beaten up "friends" that attempted to do so though, that sort of thing pisses me off.
-
Why would someone taze a handcuffed person? I never continued abusing a downed person. I have beaten up "friends" that attempted to do so though, that sort of thing pisses me off.
Are you speaking about my doing that?
-
Have you done so? My question is why a cop would hurt a person in cuffs more, unless they were simply a sadist. I was hoping there was a simple answer. To clarify the "friends" I am referring to were wanting to get some digs in on a couple guys I had already beaten. They were spiteful and pathetic, but I didn't really beat them up I guess I just pulled them off and tossed them aside with a bit more then minimum force. Sorry if I came off accusitory.
-
I would venture to guess that most police officers have the attitude that their authority should be respected at all times. When someone doesn't follow that play-book, the officer tends to take it personal and if they have to chase you down, or you don't "comply" in any way shape or form, sometimes they take their aggression out on you in a more personal way for making them run.
Even if they've got you on the ground after a 5 block foot chase and handcuffed behind your back, they might give the guy a little kick in the side as if to say "DAMN YOU MOTHERFUCKER, FOR MAKING ME CHASE YOU..... YOU DONT EVER RUN FROM THE POLICE!!" .... that sort of thing. Not to mention all the adrenaline coursing through their veins at the moment.
Not making excuses for it at all, just saying I bet that has a lot to do with it.
-
If it gets known that everyday cops are willing to torture a arrestee are they not afraid they will get groups of criminals that would rather do anything then get arrested? Get a lot of criminals who know they have nothing to lose and being a cop would be dangerous.
-
Have you done so? My question is why a cop would hurt a person in cuffs more, unless they were simply a sadist. I was hoping there was a simple answer. To clarify the "friends" I am referring to were wanting to get some digs in on a couple guys I had already beaten. They were spiteful and pathetic, but I didn't really beat them up I guess I just pulled them off and tossed them aside with a bit more then minimum force. Sorry if I came off accusitory.
While acting as an agent of public authority I have tasered someone who was in handcuffs. The short story:
- Arrested a person for driving while inebriated and assault at a bar.
- The person resisted arrest and I had to physically subdue them to get them into handcuffs.
- The person verbally refused to get in the police car.
- I tried to gently force the person into the car. The person fought back with their legs.
- I warned them numerous times that I would tase them if they didn't get in the car. (I think I told them I would ask them 10 times before taseing them.)
- I fired the taser, the person fell in the car.
- There was some sort of unofficial internal review of how I used the taser. I never faced allegations of violation of policy, but I do know my bosses were not thrilled with how I handled the situation.
- An attorney for the person I arrested investigated my use of taser, but they never filed suit.
In handing this particularly drunk and combative individual (female and of particularly small stature), I believe I did the right thing. The alternative to getting the person into the police car would have been to use pepper spray or brute force. Brute force against someone petite, female, combative, intoxicated, and in handcuffs can result in serious "color of law" civil rights violations claim.
Apprehending intoxicated and combative people of the opposite sex without hurting them or opening yourself up to a federal lawsuit... is tricky.
The police have seconds to make decisions that lawyers and the public have months to critique. This, of course, is the justification for all of the immunity that the police get when they DO legitimately screw up.
Maybe the government should be outright prohibited from arguing for immunity when its agents do outrageous things so long as their official hiring policies are like this: http://www.defendingthetruth.com/topic/7380-judge-rules-that-police-can-bar-high-iq-scores/ (http://www.defendingthetruth.com/topic/7380-judge-rules-that-police-can-bar-high-iq-scores/).
-
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/the-show/less-stephanie/225/ (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/the-show/less-stephanie/225/)
When one has to deal with something real and you do the best you can and questian yourself afterwords, it is best to simply own it. I don't think I would have handled the situation any better than you Brad.