Well, technically, unless their intent was to kill him, that would be manslaughter, not murder.

This should come to a surprise to us?

Sad.

One more thing why the right to keep and bear arms is justified: protection from our government, like Thomas Jefferson said.

ttp://www.msn.americangreetings.com/view.pd?i=382219626&m=1652&rr=y&sou

have fun

As a police officer I know the training required for the use of O.C. spray. This spray is made from totally natural chemicals, and is totally safe! The only instances of someone dieing from being sprayed is when affixation occurs due to some type of improper restraint techniques etc. If this does happen to be the first case ever where someone dies from O.C. spray, I still do not see a problem. It is clearly a sad situation that this person died, however there is no reason to blame police for following their training against a subject that was resisting arrest, or to deprive police officers of a valueable non-lethal tool.

As a cop, have you ever had pepper spray used on you as a demo?

As a police cadet, I have had O.C. used against me. I support what the other officer has said. It is safe. It is used when individuals are either resisting arrest or threatening the officer's life. It is the first option of containment other than ASP baton and lethal force. Not all police departments use it. what www.lp.org forgot to mention is that the man was probably becomming aggressive.

No one has the right to resist arrest. If this man would have not resisted he would have simply gone to jail until the matter was ressolved. Better yet he could have paid his tickets to begin with and the entire incident never would have occured. The police are out there risking their lives to protect us and it's time we stop giving them shit for it!

Pepper spray is safe. Stun guns are safe. Tasers are safe. Everything is safe when its in the hands of a law enforcement officer. Because law enforcement officers are here to help. They know what's good for us.

Despite the best efforts of the lobbyists (yes, Michael, I read your cop magazines too and I am keenly aware of the recent efforts being made by certain law enforcement agencies to convince the public that tasers are safe) to snowball the public into thinking that this device and that one is safe and that cops ought to be able to use it, I ain't buying. Keep in mind, these are the same organizations that supported the decision of (London?) police when they held a guy down and murdered him (shot him twice in the head, the cop term for this a "double tap to the head") because they thought he was a bomber. Turned out he was an illegal immigrant afraid he was gonna be deported.

The fact of the matter is that the man should have never been given a seatbelt ticket because seatbelt laws are unconstitutional. That makes the warrant and the attempted arrest unconstitutional and the man had every right to resist.

You know what Michael, I haven't had dinner yet. But I think I'll skip it now. Thanks.

Keith,
I don't know that seat belt laws are unconstitutional, but I agree that there should not be a law requiring you to wear one. However, the law exists and until we properly repeal that law we should all either wear our seat belts or pay our tickets. Most importantly, and I can't stress this enough, don't resist arrest!

DEATH BY PEPPER SPRAY, at the hands of Officers,
who are suppose to make the community safer, not get folks killed?

Well...

1st. Seat Belt Law is WRONG. And some folks
die, by fire, after accident BECAUSE of Seat belt. So first error is BY Government trying to protect us from ourselves. The "murdering" cops should have passed on this and set their priority on murderers, car-jackers and rapist, and White House Officials who leak CIA confidential info.

2nd A Reasonable man would go to court and contest the traffic citation, or if truly guilty, drive within the rules of the road.

3rd. The Officers should have realized that this guy had mental "Issues" and dealt with it differently.

4th. Don't blame the "cops", as bad guys, until
you have lobbied for repeal of the Seat Belt law, or to have "cops" stripped of all weapons, like the "Bobbies" of ol England. Just give them a whistle to blow on, and hope they can stop the car-jackers, muggers, and rapists, not to mention the heavily armed Bank robber who stood openly and shot it out with cops in Hollywood, or the 3 guys who killed a mother at the door of a Lompoc, Ca. S & L.

Call a cop, so he can blow a whistle at the rapist, or violent criminal. Sounds re-assuring doesn't it. Or does it?!?!?!

5. It would have been less life endangering to just let the cops arrest him, pay the ticket, so I conclude this guys was not running on all 4 wheels.

6. It is sad. But if you authorize cops to do something via your city council, don't hate the cops, blame yourself for not ousting the City Council of State Legislature who created the "law" or ordinance to do it.

7. I have seen some really bad cops do bad things. This is sad, unfortunate for the victim, but I doubt that the cops are feeling good about it.

8. The outrages is that we spent more time blogging here about it, than changing the seat belt law.

William, a chastizer of bad gov. officials
and a great grandson of a county Sheriff.

Officers:

Does it really matter whether O.C. is safe, if its use resulted in the man's death? If a citizen had been involved rather than an officer, you guys would undoubtedly have been all over him/her, with an involuntary manslaughter arrest at the least.

I appreciate the fact that you guys put your lives on the line, but I'm against the idea that it should give you special license and leeway that an ordinary citizen would not have. After all, not to put too fine a point on it, you're paid to put your lives on the line, and you knew the risk when you signed up and put on the uniform.

I truly believe that until the police have to live by the same rules that the rest of us do, these kinds of incidents, as well as incidents of persons alleging police brutality, etc. will increase rather than decrease.

You know, things are really bad, to arrest someone over a SEATBELT. While it is a good idea to wear a seatbelt, they should overturn the law about getting arrested for it. We have much more horrible things going on. Cops abuses their authority, I know, I had a guy who should have not been a cop with concrete evidence of mental problems and yet he still carried a gun. To have people go through the court system over things like seatbelts is a waste of time, but of course it more money for the court system, while the real bad guys are running the streets.
Oh yes! do not forget children of 5 years old are being arrested in school, because the parents are afraid to discipline them as they get reported for child abuse.
Cops where I live give out tickets even when you didn't do anything to deserve getting a ticket.

I wonder how many cops think about what is happening in USA, the idea of Police state, because they can all band together against this if they wish.

No matter where you go, no matter how good you screen applicants, people are still people. There are, overall, good people in the world. But there is no way to find every bad egg. So you know with all this anti-cop sentiment, sounds like everyone wants to abolish law enforcement altogether or maybe they can still roam around in a uniform to sybolically enforce the laws.

Yes I agree that there seems to be a much higher rate of "bad eggs" in law enforcement. You'll find no different in the military. However, most of the individuals in law enforcement are good people who are devoted to keeping your community safe. There are laws that don't make sense, but they have to enforce them unless laws are repealed or changed.

As I understand it, Pepper Spray is used in all police academies on the people being trained. And as far as I know, there has never been a fatality from it. Pepper Spray has been shown by far to be a much more safe option than the alternative. Secondly, if someone has mental issues and is not being rational in the least bit . . maybe we should just let them off because of that. . . every criminal under the sun would be crying mental disorder after that in court.

Police are paid to enforce the laws of the land and to protect us, which I feel most do to the best of their ability. In many communities I feel they get paid peanuts for their service which leads me to believe that they don't do it for the money . . . although city incomes are much much higher. But, then again, the risk is much higher for a violent confrontation.

Its unfortunate that human nature is so obsessed with the negatives in life. Its important to point them out ofcourse . . but when you don't look to find the positives that are taking place and put them into the big picture, you are running as biased an perspective as any extremist political group. No matter what your ideology, extremist thought is a road to disaster.

Work to improve our law enforcement, don't group all the men and women who serve and label them as bad people that are out find a legal excuse to beat everyone into the ground. Cut them some slack and use the tools afforded us to bring the change you seek.

It seems that the majority of Libertarians don't like this biased and sensationalist article.

As Libertarians, we should be working to eliminate victimless crime and "nanny state" laws. To criticize Law Enforcement for doing their jobs is pointless. However, perhaps this individuals family should be suing the living daylights out of them. Thus in similar future situations they may be less likely to make ill-considered judgements. I also agree that there are far too many cops out there who get a little too much pleasure out of their so called authority. Perhaps the psychological vetting process should be a bit more stringent.

Dan, your analysis is too black-and-white. You assume that because many of us rightly think that this particular officer cited in the article went overboard that we think that all or even most cops are bad. To the best of my knowledge, no one here has said anything of the kind. Please temper your tendency toward extremism.

Dear Libertarian party, it give the cops no right kill anyone they are killer cops are killer thanks malcolm

I don't think that all cops are necessarily bad, but the DEA for sure is. Corruption has rotted this agency to its core. If we don't stop prohibition, the world as we know it will no longer exist.

This sad story is a shining example of the Law of Unintended Consequences at work. It brings into clear relief the kind of nonsense that can result when we have police officers enforcing immoral and ridiculous nanny laws. It is a sobering reminder of the wisdom of a small government, firmly chained and restrained by the fetters of a Constitution.

We would do well to remember George Washington's observation that the nature of government is FORCE. When we employ a government as our agent to enFORCE foolish laws, we are BOUND to have this kind of tragedy -- BOUND to.

Enforcing the law is a police officer's responsibility. Similarly, it is OUR responsibility to ensure that the laws that a police officer is tasked to enforce are reasonable, sensible, and principled. When for the sake of safety we do harm to individual rights, we have in fact failed to protect the MOST important thing -- a man's property in his person.

The sad part of this is that anyone condoning willing resistance to police probably has kids at home who think just because they don't agree with a rule (or law), that they can ignore it. The laws are wrong, there are too many police (and government employees in general)- that is all true. However it should be the priority of all AMERICANS to right the wrongs instead of crying about the injustice. People today seem to want to cherry pick the issues that are their hot buttons, rather than look at the big picture. By picking out a few individuals be it police officers or corrupt politicians- you all are choosing to ignore the root problems. Does noboby understand "don't shoot the messenger"? In this country we have been strong due to our independence and self-reliance. Taking resposibility upon ourselves begins by everyone making their own personal goal to fix our failed political system, not by ranting about instances such as this. So-called "leaders" such as Jesse Jackson have for generations used bait like this article to distract people from the real issues facing the people of this country. By dividing Americans with side issues, the real problems never get solved. You end up with with more government (put in place to protect you from other government, who was placed there to protect you from other government and so on). The real problem is that we have a bunch of incompetents in power that have been promoted based on their fundraising ability, rather than leadership ability. PLEASE! Raise your kids to obey the law (right or wrong) and to take responsibility for themselves and PLEASE! take upon yourselves as adults the task of removing those who are unfit to govern in a way that is moral and legal until such a time comes that legal means are no longer possible (1776). DO NOT vote for the lesser of two evils in elections- Don't vote at all. Don't justify the system- if there are no good candidates in your particular election- skip the vote. At some point there will be sufficiently small participation that many elections will lose legitimancy and perhaps we can start back up from that low, building a better government for the people and by the people on the way.

Of course, I like everyone else here agrees that this is a sad case and that seat belt laws are crazy. However, I would like to get other people's opinions on:

1) Child seatbelt laws

2) The fact that according to most research an accident where the occupant wasn't wearing a seatbelt typically costs more than one where the occupant was wearing one. These costs are typically reflected in extra costs to emergency services and hospitals (which affects everyone in taxes and /or insurance premiums).

This is a very sad event. Matters will improve when communities from coast to coast have libertarian leadership. Readers interested in actual libertarian activism and strengthening our party might usefully take advantage of the new lpusmisc site at http://www.yahoogroups.com for discussion on strengthening the party.

As a minor aside speaking as a parttime biochemist, 'totally natural' does not mean 'harmless' as anyone bitten by a bumblebee has learned from experience.

If this is non-lethal, how did it kill him?

He probably had a respiratory condition or something.

But I agree with the sentiment in this thread that even if you disagree with a law, you shouldn't violate it; instead, work to get it repealed.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47230

FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN
WMDs have been found in Iraq
See list of major discoveries since U.S. invasion

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

While members of the U.S. Senate are suggesting once again that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin reviews the major discoveries, including more than 1.7 tons of enriched uranium.

Why do major politicians from both sides of the aisle continue to ignore the solid confirmation about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction policy under Saddam Hussein?

Check out the latest report in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online, intelligence newsletter published by the founder of WND.

Sorry, FOR FREEDOM ... I think you need to take a slightly more objective source than WND.

You have got to be kidding me. This is why there are, and should be, laws regarding what can and cannot be published. I certainly hope that before taking this blog as gospel you inquired about the incident report. On a side note, "murder" implies intent and I find it doubtful that two trained law enforcement officers said "hey lets see if we can pepper spray this guy to death."

Matt in our society you are certainly free to think any foolish thing you wish. So good for you.

This should come to a surprise to us?
Posted by: pasy at November 4, 2005 04:15 PM

lol.. you're a jerk

According to James Brown:

"The police are out there risking their lives to protect us and it's time we stop giving them shit for it!"

I can't help wonder how arresting (and killing)
a man for not paying a traffic ticket is protecting me. The fact that it was for not wearing a seatbelt makes the notion that much more absurd.

That police are armed government thugs risking the lives of citizens to protect their paymasters is closer to the truth. In many jurisdictions, the people who pay the cops have done all they can do to prevent citizens from protecting themselves.

To whine about people complaining about the police and the laws they enforce with zeal is also absurd. Where are all the cops whining about the idiotic laws they must enforce?

As I recall, the Gestapo was only doing their job also. We have a huge government filled with enforcers that are only doing their job. Of course, they have the option of quitting instead
of whining about the complaints of their victims.

The person who thinks I am a jerk, why, do you have trouble handling the truth. To kill someone over a seatbelt shows another example of the sad shape our country is in.

This is the work of the Geheime Staatzpoletzei in America. Killing someone over a seat-belt law that shouldnt exist? I once again agree with Tom Alciere (www.TomAlciere.com). And I paraphrase General Sherman when I say "the only good cop is a dead cop" (you may quote me on that)

Way to tell it like it is TomB.

As a side note for all you law enforcement types out there: Go do something that we would all be proud of you doing. Mainly - catching murderers, rapists, pedophiles and thieves. Leave the rest of us otherwise law-abiding taxpayers alone, and as final warning, don't bite the hands of the ones that feed you.

I have no use for the police myself. Unfortunately, most of them are hyperactive control freaks. There are a tiny minority that are good cops but the rest are totally useless. Fortunately in this area, it has usually been the cops that have died from their own incompetence.

I will take care of myself via concealed carry. Don't need no stinkin cops.

For Freedom: If you want us to consider this "evidence" you claim that Joseph Farah has found, you and he should not expect us all to pay $9.95 subscriptions in order to review it! That's absurd!

If you're going to present evidence, then present it.

As a police officer I know the training required for the use of O.C. spray. This spray is made from totally natural chemicals, and is totally safe!

AS A CHEMIST I CAN NAME A DOZEN NATURAL CHEMICALS THAT WOULD MELT YOUR FACE JAKE!!!!

FOR FREEDOM: As are you....And you are seriously going to take the word of one person on a conservative (with adgenda) website over all other news sources (including the Republican party for Christ's sake)? There's nothing any more worse about WND than there is any other tabloid publication, except for the fact that tabloids tend to have an agenda based almost entirely upon sensationalism, whereas WND's agenda is based upon sensationalism motivated by the desire to propagandize a conservative base.

Also, tabloids usually at least admit that they are tabloids.

As opposed to NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, which obviously have no commercial incentive to hype their news. Or PBS, Time, Newsweek, ET al which have never, which have never been known to have, say, a Liberal Bias, or perhaps the New York Times who's reporters have never been known to make up the news.

None of the above questionble sources of bias news represents itself as a tabloid.

FOR FREEDOM:

And your point is? Of course you're 100% correct. All news sources CNN, MSNBC, ABC, FOX, BBC etc.. have a bias; based on editorial or commercial reasons (such as the demographic viewing them). All I am saying is that I don't particularly trust a source such as WND, (particularly "blogger" type internet news sources), without seeing it on other news sources as well, and without independant corroboration. If you accept that CNN, FOX, NY Times etc. have a bias, but WND doesn't then you must have really good rose tinted glasses.

Now on a serious issue back to your article...You mentioned that it was enriched uranium. Was it in a single site? Where was the site? How old was it? Was it HUE, LEU or SEU uranium? What were his sources? Are they reliable? Why hasn't the RNC picked up on this and is shouting at the top of their voice? All good questions...

Back to the thread...I was thinking aloud earlier on the thread that although seat belt laws are a limit to freedom and should be repealed, something occured to me. Most statistics show that accidents where people were not wearing seatbelts result in higher costs than ones with a seatbelt. These costs are passed down to you and I in the form of taxes and/or higher insurance premiums. Although using the law to impose seatbelt wearing is over the top, do you have a social responsibility to wear them?

Another matt, you bring up a good argument on why we should have seat-belt law. Not wearing a seat-belt and people having accidents will bring insurance up on a whole. However, It is not the goverments job to mandate our insurance prices.
If, however, a insurance company said that I must wear a seat-belt under their policy, then I would find this acceptable because you are given a choice whether or not to accept this policy. Not only that, under the policy the company could refuse to pay if you did not wear your seat-belt therefore deluding all costs related to others not wearing seat-belts. Of course I'm sure there would be a few over priced non-seat-belt wearing polices you had the choice of choosing too.
The goverment forcing someone to do anything for nothing but their own safety is taking away their right to liberty. Being able to not carry an umbrella in the rain is what freedom is all about. Sometimes there are cut and dry "right choices" in a situation, freedom lets us choose the one that suits us, as long as it doesn't directly harm someone else.

Hope that satisfies as a good counter-argument?

Tyson: Agreed, good points..

In Florida, we have the added hypocrisy, being that we have a seatbelt law, but at the same time motorcyclists are not required to wear helmets. Talk about hypocrisy at its worst.

another Matt:

If seatbelt laws were repealed, costs could be held down for consumers, by inserting covenants in insurance coverage, that automatically reduce the insurance company's liability by a certain percentage, if it was determined that a seatbelt was not worn during an accident. No need for government interference.

What's wrong with you people? "Should we have to wear seatbelts?" Yes, because there are some people out there (I'm talking to all those people who can't even write a gramaticly corect sentance in a blog) who are stupid and don't realize that they can die if and when they are not wearing a seatbelt! We have a seatbelt law because stupid peaple die from not wearing their seatbelts. I'm all for Darwinism, but America likes to help out the disadvantaged. So don't complain when a law for someone else (or you) affects you. Buckle up, it's really not that hard to do. And for those of you who believe that seatbelts kill people, that's a myth, or really bad luck.

An angry 17-year-old's view.

Okay, beyond good cop vs bad cop, and victim vs loony, what I'm missing her is "If the spray is so safe, why did he die from it?" and "If citizens hold the right to bear arms, why can't policemen?" Be objective in blogging, please.

After I calmed down: I'm sorry stupid people, I really don't mean to insult you. Stupid is just a simple word to use with bad connotations (literal meanings). And the reason I can use it is because I too am a bit of an idiot. So remember: Homer Simpson is an idiot, and is that really such a bad thing? Homer is basicly a good guy with a good heart and a brain that doesn't always function correctly, and what's wrong with being like him? Nothing at all. So remember fellow idiots, do what the nice lawman says, because what he tells you to do should generally keep you alive so that you can continue to vote him into office. We may have "nanny laws", but at least Nanny generally wants us alive, because she'd rather not be fired.

By the way, police, you keep doing what you do. Some people seem to think you should die, but then some people think robbing conveniance stores is gainful self-employment. And if you happen to be a "bad cop", then maybe you should just turn completely to crime, so you can be caught and arrested already. At least real crooks are true to themselves when they rob banks.

America does not help out the disavantage. They look like they help out but in return take away your freedom to become mommy government. Look at the big picture here. Some of those here are not going to know or remember some true freedom because they are to young to ever have experience it.
People who drive motorcycles are force to wear helmets. The biker people did not like that one bit.
Amercia is now Amerika, helping themselves to our freedom, money, privacy, and throwing us out of our homes with eminent domain.
You youngies need to educate yourself about the real freedoms here and look at the big picture.
While seatbelts should be worn, it should not be that a person should be shot for it.

Can one of you guys help wake this young boy up, nanny goverment took the guns away from the people of New Orleans and raped them.

I ment to add this, in California the bikers are required to wear helmets.

Ian, You seem to be forgetting that EVERY person has or will DIE. No seatbelt in the world will change that. Seatbelts DO NOT "Save" lives, nothing can.

Ian-
I guess with that line of reasoning the government should ban all dangerous activities. We are all than products of the State. After all they are just trying to keep us safe. With the Republicans turning into a great facist party, I think you would make a great canadidate for a Nazi Youth. Keep killing ,police officers, because Ian knows that you are doing it for the Motherland.
In a free society it starts with self-ownership,this includes the freedom to do stupid and self-destructive things. To give this authority to the government is to enslave all of us.

opps...fascist

First of all, if you are going to yell at me then at least stoop to my level and read what you write. Come on True American, I'm talking to you here. I really have to laugh at some of your sentences.

Secondly, yes, everyone will die. Unless of course some crazy science fiction comes true. But when I die, I would rather it was far in the future, after a long and good life. So I wear a seatbelt, in the hopes that if I happen to get into an accident, I have a better chance of living. It seems like commom sense. If you are all ready to die, then fine, go jump off a cliff. Just don't endanger me, that's all this "young boy" asks of you wise old farts.

Third and finally, don't cry at me. "Wah, Wah, the Government makes me pay them, Wah". When I get to be as old as you 'oldies', I'm going to pay my taxes. You know why? Because even if the government is corupt, which I won't argue about, at least some of that money goes to good causes, like schools and such. And as a few of you said earlier, if you don't like how the world is, go change it by voting.

P.S. Whoever called me a Nazi, thank you. You gave me reason for a good chuckle.

Thank you Matt, for stooping to my level.

Ian, I can see where your coming from. Why wound't you want to live in a goverment that protects you, even from yourself. Yet, why should I be forced to live under the same goverment?
Think about when alcohol was illegal. Alcohol has no good merits in society, it, along with smoking do nothing but take lives. So why are they legal? Why should we be allowed to do anything that may cause more damage or take lives. Infact, why should anyone under the age of 21 be able to drive, (relating the argument to cars), its a proven fact that age groups 16-21 lead accidents in the U.S.
So your right, forcing seat-belt use does "save lives" but so would outlawing smoking, or a million other freedoms we love every day. I don't smoke, I think its gross and bad for your health. My friends do, and I don't seek to punish them or restrict their smoking at all. They enjoy it, they know the risks, its their lives. "Live and Let Live"
by the way, we're not all oldies, I'm 19.

I look forward to your counter-argument.

Thank you Tyson, for treating me as an equal who should be listened to. And perhaps reprimanded. But anyway...

We live under the same government because that's where we live. As I have learned in school, rules are for the dumbest of the class, just as honors go to the brightest. So let us imagine you as the bright one in class, and me as the idiot. I like to yell in class, and so the Teacher makes a rule, no yelling in class. If I continue, then I get in trouble. You on the other hand are smart. You don't feel like yelling in class, so the rule doesn't bother you. Now we switch places. You don't like wearing your seatbelt, so you don't. You get in a huge crash, somehow survive, and sue somebody. So the government then makes a rule, that everyone has to wear a seatbelt. Meanwhile, I always wear my seatbelt. So when this law comes into effect, it doesnt matter to me, because I've been wearing my seatbelt anyway.

Also, your smoker friends are correct. We are all free to live and die. The Government would rather have us alive, to pay them taxes, so make rules to keep us away from death. But we individuals want our smoking and drinking and driving without seatbelts, so we do so, and sometimes die. The Government then raises the stakes, adds a fine or arrest to the law, and people get angry. And we individuals who don't smoke or drink or drive without a seatbelt should simply watch and laugh at the whole procedings.

Also, alchohol is legal again because the government couldn't control it. After all, outlawing something just makes the individual want it more.

James J. Brown, I am sorry, but you are incorrect.

“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is an inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton v. County of Shelby, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)

Seatbelt laws are unconstitutional. As such, I am obligated neither to wear them nor pay a fine for failure to do so. I do not wear seatbelts.

Nice quote Keith, but remember this. If you die from a big crash, the government is just going to make more seatbelt laws. So by playing the rebel, you might just add to the problem. So how about you wear your seatbelt as you drive to your nearest governing body and complain there? Or jump off a cliff, because you dont't care about dying.

I feel safer already.

Ian, I laugh more at your yuppie intellectual at an age where you really do not have a clue for the big picture. I love it when someone like you show up and talk like a know it all. I have seen some young people who have shown true common sense on here, although I have not seen him here in awhile.
Lets take it a step further. Hey maybe you would go along with chip implants should that become a reality and force upon you. In your case I could see that you would justify why we should have it.

Just out of curiosity, did anyone watch the West Wing live debate tonight? I found myself wishing there was a Libertarian candidate up there on stage. I have to give the actors credit, though. Alan Alda and Jimmy Smits made the conservative and liberal arguments better than the actual politicians do. They also made it crystal clear to me where the big holes are in both positions that Libertarians could drive an 18-wheeler through.

I guess the best part of the debate was that they treated it like a real debate, not a canned soundbite contest. If only the real Presidential debates were like that! Second best was that the network decided to air it live rather than on film, which gave a sense of reality to the proceedings.

But man-oh-man, I kept thinking up the Libertarian responses to the questions and challenges and just drooling for someone from our party to be represented on that stage.

And I laugh at your butchery of the English language. But enough trash-talking. I would love having a traceable computer implanted in my skin. I could play vidio games on it, because of course that would only take about another year to come true (Notice graphing calculators?). If I was ever lost, someone could help me, if I was ever hurt someone could get to me. I don't care if I'm traced because I don't plan on doing anything unlawful. What would you be doing, Mr. True American, that would cause the government to be watching you?

You know what's really fun? Reading your posts out loud in a Schwartzenager voice. It really gives new meanings to your babble.

Keith: Of course, it is absolutely your right (in a LP world, or New Hampshire) not to wear seatbelts. However, I only say this from one caring human to another, I have a wife who works as a nurse in the ER of a large hospital. She's seen the results of people who don't wear seatbelts vs. those who do. Certainly whilst the govt. shouldn't force you to wear them....please for your own sake wear a seat belt.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone with that Arnold comment. Especially Arnold himself. Sorry, but I just can't spell that name.

Also, some additions to why I might like an implanted computer. It could be used as an I.D. tag, a credit card, and a calculator. It might even (cue the weird music) let us "talk" with computers! And once we can do that, there is no limit to what we can do! Well, maybe a few.

another Matt, I too have seen the consequences of wearing a seatbelt. I am sure you and I referring to two things. I am referring to seatbelt injuries while you are most likely referring to people injured because they weren't tied to a chair.

One pregnant lady in the UK had the belt slice so deep into her tummy that it pierced the womb and they had to deliver the child early. So go right ahead and wear those seatbelts thinking you are making yourself safe.

[start shameless self plug]During the time I have run SITCIOT (Stick It to Click It or Ticket, www.sitciot.com, see our ad in LP News)[end shameless self plug] I have read plenty on the subject, seen plenty of cases where people have been killed by belts and I am currently involved in an effort to force NHSTA and USDOT to disclose the data that proves seatbelts are harmful through FOIA. Speaking of which, I will likely be filing suit on the matter since the NHSTA has decided to ignore my latest FOIA request all together.

I don't wear seatbelts because they are dangerous. People who have been seriously injured or killed in accidents that they may have otherwise survived had they not been belted. And to be honest, I don't think a seatbelt has ever prevented an accident. People drive like morons and it's going to take more than a seatbelt to save them from themselves.

So no thank you, I will not endanger my life by putting a seatbelt on. And I don't care how many times I get cited for it. And no, when I see the checkpoint ahead, I don't slip it on to avoid the ticket.

Ian, I didn't say I don't care about dying. In fact, I do care about dying and do seek to avoid it. Which is why I don't put myself at risk by wearing seatbelts. And no thank you, I'll be staying away from the cliffs. My work here on earth is not yet complete.

Walt: Yes, I saw part of "The West Wing" tonight, and it's amazing to see the difference between a true conservative / liberal debate vs. what we had with Bush / Kerry last year! The two actors seemed to not agree so much on the issues, did they?

I caught the 2nd half of the debate, where I had two reactions: I liked Alda's arguments a lot more (maybe the 1st half was more about personal liberties, which the classic liberal arguments would be more appealing to libertarians), but I also wondered if he did a good job selling his positions ("How many jobs would you create?" Response: "Zero"). I really liked his defense of the free market, though, and was shocked to hear it on TV, coming out of someone else's mouth besides John Stossel!!!

Well said Keith. Just excuse me if I don't follow your teachings. I'm not sure whether I can trust the person who runs the 'I Hate Seatbelt Laws' group. Just like I wouldn't completly trust the people who manufacture seatbelts if they said nobody dies. You understand.

Also, thank you for deciding to live, I think it's a great decision.

It's man's God given right to resist arrest. These police officers should be given the maximum sentence for what they have done. I fell out with local law enforcement after I was profiled while at a stop sign(I wasn't even moving). I was being the designated driver and my friends stashed their drugs in my vehicle. Since it was my vehicle and my friends would not claim the drugs, I was arrested simply because it was my vehicle. Therefore, that makes the drugs mine. Hm, did I forget to mention I spent five days in prison while my friends were released that night. Local law enforcement is a joke. And WE are paying the price for it.

Also Keith, I would like to mention I visited your website and found it to be very good, if short. It also didn't seem to talk about seatbelt deaths at all, more on how people could get away with their tickets. Why is it that you, who state that you never try to avoid getting a ticket, run a website about doing just that?

Back to the topic UNDER ARREST for breaking a law. If you are being arrested STOP being and idiot and comply. You won't be beaten, you won't be chocked and you won't die. IT'S AMAZING I KNOW.. If the police are wrong SUE THEM. If you broke a law and don't like it put as much effort as you would in resisting arrest and WORK TOWARD changing the law.

Joseph: You may have a point and be right to be angry about your situation, but I agree with James J. Brown on this issue: "Don't resist arrest!" A bad situation seems to get worse (if TV's "World's Wildest Police Videos" or "COPS" has taught me anything) when people try to run away from officers or outrun their vehicles.

RESPONSE TO JOSEPH

STOP HANGIN AROUND WITH LOOSERS AND YOU WONT BE ARRESTED FOR THEIR DRUGS.

Or you could be a real libertarian and stand up for what you believe, which is fairly rare in today's society.

Hi Joseph, I really appreciate your good grammer. Well done. Although your message as a whole invites me to comment. It seems you were arrested for obstructing traffic and having illigal drugs. Oh wait, the drugs belonged to your friends. Now I really believe you are an upstanding individual. So then, why were you searched? The cop perhaps smelled something, I suppose, and was working on a hunch. Please, explain further.

I dont see the libertarians on this site breaking laws to get there way.

I wasn't breaking any laws. Since when is being at a stop sign illegal. If anything I obeyed the law by stopping. If you knew anything about local law enforcement over 70% of the people they stop are due to racial or just general profiling. Oh yeah cool points for misspelling 'grammar'.

Hey Tom, I don't believe "loosers" and "there" were really the words you were looking for (Try losers and their). If you are going to put your words out on the internet, at least glance at what you have written.

P.S. The capital letters and double X thing were really "cool".

P.P.S. Not really

Listen I have long hair down to my waist. I know all about profiling. If all I can be accused of is bad grammar (spelling). I am quite a happy camper..

Btw, were you being sarcastic? Because it came off that way.

Ian: The word is "grammar". Even though you've implied that people who post on this blog with mistakes in their sentences automatically make their arguments weaker, I'm not going to think less of you for spelling a word or two (also "grammatically", not "grammaticly") incorrectly. Please consider treating us likewise. Thanks!

No, you're a stupid camper. Bystanders like you are the reason libertarians are a third party. Get a hair cut

Joseph, good for you for finding that misspelling. I admit, spelling is not my strong suit.

Also, I believe that stopping for too long would constitute obstructing traffic. Say, for a few minutes. How long were you stopped?

I was stopped for about 5 seconds and a sheriff drove by and slammed on his brakes and turned his lights on. He later told us he was looking for a party and thought we were coming from it.

I would love to be a vigilante like you and your loser drug infested friends but I try to change things by law and conversation. I try to inform and legally protest. Kind of like the politicians on this site..

Thank you too, jnice. Like I said, I'm not that great at spelling. I just get really mad when people make obvious mistakes or talk like a caveman. No offense to you cavemen out there (Oh, those commercials are hilarious).

One, don't forget. You know nothing about me. Two, I organized a legal protest to stop people from taking excess gas prior to hurricane Katrina. Three, i was the Nationalist Party Leader at Boy's State and know just a bit about law. So shove it.

i think you all are hippies...stop typing on the computer, get up, and go do something productive...

John is right. I should go finish reading. But oh wait, I don't want to.

This hippie runs his own business and doesn’t have to get up early. As a matter of fact here is my business web site. I am proud of what I do and who I am. www.mixxmasterz.com.

Joseph, if what you say is true then I truly feel sorry for you. It would be a case of mistaken identity I suppose. Oh well, some days you just get unlucky.

Tom, stop being mean.

no offense but my garage band has a better staging/lighting set up than any of the pictures on your website, i'm not very impressed...but i applaud your efforts of owning something, most hippies are poor and mooch off of everyone around them...

Yeah, thanks Ian. They've really made my life pretty awful the past few months. There is always one constant though. Life is beautiful. I'm going to bed.

I am not a computer geek so give me a break. I put that site up by my self, my expertise is not web site design. Look at my Artist roster (its not complete) and that will give you a better perspective of my work.

Hey Ian. If your goal in life is to live as long as possible, yes the goverment you wish for would be perfect. I imagine your a student like me, have you ever read "Brave New World"? Its a world very simliar to one you support (its not a "bad thing"). There is no violence or crime, and people live to the long lives. However the cost of living in this world is taking away people's passions. It may sound corny. , but passions like "love" also breed jealousy and hatred, which cost many lives a year , therefore a single one on one realtionships are outlawed, along with many other life costing activitys. With your "implant chip" blog, it sounded like you might be interestied in such a book.
Also Ian, It wound't bother you to lose all privacy? To be watched all day. To talk on a teenage level, be watched with your girl?
If your anything like me, which you might or might not be, most of the things that are fun in life carry just a little bit of risk (I'm not saying not wearing a seat-belt is fun, I always wear my seat-belt , I'm talking more out there). Having an adventure, drinking, sex, riding a roller coaster, on a philosophical...I think most of what we do or enjoy put us in a little bit of danger, possbily shortening our lives.
Now Ian I wish you a long life, and see no need for a seat-belt law to help you in that long life. For me however, what good is a long life if it is one that is dull, and dreary. Ian, why not support a goverment that allows me to live my life the way I want, if it has no effect on your life span or quality of your life. I beleive in a goverment that will protect me from others, but not from myself, should not I have the right to decide what my body wants to do, as long as you or no one else is hurt against their will?
Also, is there anything you like to do that is a little bit dangerous/stupid which doesn't hurt anybody else but yourself? Even listening to loud music! If you could respond to this that'd be great man.

jnice: Regarding the West Wing debate....it's funny, but I thought Sen. Vinick (Alda) represented the conservative role quite well because his economic arguments were NOT convincing! Like real Republican politicians, most of his arguments only sounded good on the surface and often seemed vague at best, and those arguments that made some sense were in fact on policy that Republicans never consistently support when they're in office, such as lower taxes. But even more importantly, I noticed great big gaps in the conservative argument, gaps which many Libertarians ignore.

For instance, Vinick had no answer for Cong. Santos' (Smits) liberal argument when Santos claimed that Medicare was the most efficiently run health insurance plan in the world, public or private, because their costs were only 2%, and this was evidence that we should apply Medicare to everyone, not just to people over 65, and reap the benefits of such efficient management. But the truth is that the 2% figure only measures the salaries of the bureaucrats who work on Medicare. It doesn't take into account any of the regulatory impact of Medicare or the FDA, all of which is absorbed by the private sector to our detriment. Vinick had his chance when the moderator immediately followed up by bringing up prescription drugs, but he fumbled the play (as conservatives usually do) because he didn't attack the FDA for the tremendous, ongoing increase in the cost of prescription drugs. Instead, Vinick made vague references to the free market, while Santos hammered on the greed of pharmaceuticals. These were classic conservative and liberal positions, because neither of them more than hinted at the Federal government's role in rising health care and prescription drug costs.

Similarly, Santos went on a rant to name all the "great" programs liberals had instituted: Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights, Votes for Women, Votes for African-Americans, etc. Vinick didn't (and couldn't, from the conservative point of view) jump on this opportunity to say that Social Security was bankrupt; Medicare and FDA regulations were driving up the cost of health care at prodigious rates; real civil rights and liberties for all had been foolishly replaced by hiring quotas and legislating emotions into crimes, and all while systematically destroying the real civil liberties this country was built on, as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Vinick couldn't respond because the conservatives are just as guilty...sometimes even more guilty...on these scores than the liberals are.

It was also amusing to watch Santos destroy Vinick's "get tough" policy on immigration. Vinick proposed to double the guard on the Mexican border. Santos said, "Why not triple it"? Vinick hesitated on what to do with that one and stuck to his doubling the guard position. Whereupon Santos said something like, "We've not just doubled the guard, we've tripled it over the past 10 years. Yet all that happened was that the flow of illegal immigrants reduced from 90% to 80%, because you can't close a 2,000 mile border that way!" Vinick, like all who support "tougher" immigration laws, had no answer for that.

That's the way it went issue after issue, and it's why I wished someone like Mike Badnarik or Harry Browne had been on stage to separate conservative and liberal rhetoric from libertarian solutions.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47263

The LP Blog idiots probably won't like this one either. Buchanan reminds us that, though quite evil, Hitler was democratically elected too (and in that sense more "legitimate" that Saddam). So Hitler not only used the democratic political process to solidify his support, but also to sanitize it. Buchanan then broadens the argument to contend that the push by the Bush admin for democracy in the middle east may actually backfire if radical arabs co-opt the process, legitimizing and institutionalizing their anti-western goals. Be careful what you wish (or strive) for, he says. You may get it. Buchanan argues that Democracy is not the goal, it is merely a tool for goodness when used for creation of a good society. This is the flip side of the philosophical coin whose dark side is called Tyranny of Democracy, or perhaps just Tyranny. .

The real question is whether the masses of anti-western arabs can be corrupted and distracted by western materialistic values and thus distracted from their more hateful doings. I hope so, but the jury is still out. It is a big gamble. Eric Toffler Argues in The Ordeal of Change that change itself is the cause of political revolution, not the other way around. So, if we introduce the chaotic and emotionally vacuous western consumer way of life to peoples used to more stability and purpose, we may just be feeding the fires of radical Islam. And in an age of WMD's, a small number

Is pepper spray safe? No way.

A 1995 ACLU study showed that one person died for every 600 times police used pepper spray on them.

The study tracked 16,000 uses of pepper spray, resulting in 26 fatalities, in the first 18 months pepper spray was used in California.

I am sure the officers did not just walk up to this guy and spray him. More than likely he became threatening or resisted arrest.

HEY IAN

I hate to tell you, some people may be a lot smarter then you think, even if they do speak like a cave man. Some people are not in the position to have the money to afford going to Harvard, as well as those born with a silver spoon in their mouths, that are sitting in the White house right now.

Please, there are some wasted space being used by individuals who just want to play on here. Please go somewhere else. Spaces on the lp blog is needed for the important issues to be discussed, thank you.

To the anonymous poster about four posts back:

Your comment about democratic processes is correct. It is interesting that in the early days of the conflict, the vote was limited to white, male freeholders. Setting aside for the moment the part about white and male, was the fact that franchise in the early years of the republic was limited to those fairly wealthy. It wasn't until the time of Andrew Jackson that the mob, er, the common man was admitted to the franchise. It should be somewhat telling that things starting going downhill from that time forward. The United States was designed as a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, and when it started acting like a democracy, the power of the central government began to grow as the lower classes, mindful only of government largesse and not of liberty voted for demagogues who handed out the most largesse. I think the only thing more scary than autocracy is democracy. I would prefer a return to a Constitutional Republic, but that is impossible when you have a bunch of politicians plying to a a self indulgent, self serving, so called citizenry.

why is it if you kill a cop you get the death sentence but if a cop kills you nothing happens?

In my previous post, that should have read "in the early days of the republic"

Walt,

I watched The West Wing also last night and the thing I brought away from it is how good an actor Alan Alda really is. He was espousing a position he hates: i.e. republicanism.In real life it's harder to find a more left wing Democrat than Alan Alda. He's a HUGE liberal in real life.

Since none of it was real, I dont take any real life lessons from a TV show, except that acting wise, Alda took Jimmy Smit (I think that's the Santos character's real name, but I could be wrong ) to acting school. It was also pretty obvious who studied harder for the parts.

I guess people are desperate and want to leave Earth. China was already trying to sell land on the Moon.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/07/051107162858.tf8nidpt.html

Haaaa haaaaa haaaa

Here's a thought: When a cop pulls you over and tells you to do something, do it. DON'T RESIST ARREST!! You can always file a class-action suit later, but at least you'll still be alive...

Thats a lovely thought. Our lives will be spent fighting City hall instead of enjoying it.

Getting back to the original post -- the fact is that there exists a lot of incentive for government-employed police officers to "cross over the line" One obvious incentive is that they will be fully protected behind the "blue wall of silence", and their word is almost always taken over the word of anyone who isn't in their line of work.

The other incentive is that they actually get rewarded directly for misbehavior. Example: enforce a lot of stupid laws, and you get bumped up into a higher pay grade.

Nor do the agencies that stand behind these officers ever face any repercussions. Have a bad year with brutality? Next year, your agency gets an even bigger budget anyway.

In the private sector, a business that tolerated or encouraged bad behavior on the part of its employees would likely be out of business rapidly -- and its owners, management, and employees would likely be up on charges and facing liability lawsuits.

The problem is not the officers. They are acting like any human would in that position. Power corrupts, and all that.

The problem is the involvement of government in the policing industry! Get government out of the business of providing police protection services, and a free market will find ways to minimize the reach of the worst officers.

Further reading:

http://www.totse.com/en/law/justice_for_all/busgovto.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds162.html

By the way, on the Constitutional questions regarding seat belt laws... The issue would be made moot if the government would also get out of the business of providing the means of transportation (in this case, roadways). If you're driving along Bill Gates Private Autobahn, whether you're belted or not wouldn't be a Constitutional question, but rather, a simple contractual one: did you agree to belt in as a condition for Bill allowing you to use his roadway?

I hear the "we can't do that" police whining already, but before they attack this, I hope they will first stop to consider the fact that the majority of the road mileage built in the United States every year *is* actually built with private money.

The solution is NEVER "government".

Ian, my website - like the LP blog - is a free discussion forum. It goes where the members take it. Most of the time, one of them has a ticket they are trying to get rid of. If one gets a ticket, I encourage them to fight said ticket regardless of innocence or guilt. And I think if you dig back a ways, you'll find that we discuss seatbelt injuries and -- much more often -- how the police state uses seatbelt laws to control the populus and back-door tax them.

Why are there cars and roads so unsafe they need seatbelts?

What are police doing enforcing safety regulations?

If a civilian committed an assualt over a civil matter, you bet the DA would be charging murder or depraved infifference in a heartbeat.

Police should not carry weapons, as was once done in the UK. The UK armed police, disarmed citizens and disorder has been rising. The Commissioner of Scotland Yard called it the dumbest thing his country had ever done: Americanize UK law enforcement.

Tim,

I have to say that Alan Alda is one of my favorite actors. His performance last night in the faux West Wing debates was terrific, but then again that's the sort of performance I've come to expect from him.

I take nothing away from Jimmy Smits, however. I think he stayed in character very well.

Ok, here's some info that makes my blood run cold.

The Vice President of the United States advocating the use of torture, from Politics1:

CHENEY ENDORSES USE OF TORTURE - In a closed door meeting with Republican US Senators on Friday, Vice President Dick Cheney urged them to allow the US to torture suspected terrorist prisoners of war under certain circumstances. US Senator John McCain (R-AZ) -- who was tortured as a prisoner during the Vietnam War -- is the key sponsor of the legislative amendment to prohibit the US from torturing any prisoners of war, suspected terrorists or detainees. McCain said if the US does not honor the Geneva Convention protections, then those who capture US soldiers will not honor it either.

Cheney said an exception must be carved out to allow the CIA to torture suspected terrorists in order to learn crucial information, and says the Bush Administration will likely veto the spending bill it is currently attached to unless the amendment is removed. The amendment was approved by a 90-9 vote in the Senate last month. The House Republican leadership, however, is delaying conference action on last month's bill, which also has strong support in the House -- in large part to avoid an embarrassing setback for the President. In response, McCain said: "I would hope that no one seeks procedural maneuvers to thwart overwhelming majorities in both chambers. A bicameral, bipartisan majority in support of this amendment will prevail ... If necessary, and I sincerely hope it is not, I and the co-sponsors of this amendment will seek to add it to every piece of important legislation voted on in the Senate until the will of a substantial bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress prevails." And, sure enough, on Friday afternoon the Senate by unanimous voice vote added the amendment to a military spending bill.

In an interesting op ed on Friday, Milt Bearden -- the Reagan Administration's clandestine CIA Chief in Pakistan responsible for covert ops and getting weapons to the Mujahideen guerrillas fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s -- also endorsed the ban on torture. By the 1990s, these same former Mujahideen factions evolved into the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and the private armies of the various Afghan warlords. Under Reagan the US described the Majahideen as "freedom fighters" -- although the Bush Administration's terminology now for these same fighters would be "non-military combatants." Bearden noted that, except during the early days of the fight, both the Soviets and Muslim guerrilla fighters honored the Geneva Convention for the treatment of POWs and even engaged in prisoner exchanges.

Hey, uh, Ian, I'm gonna break the rules here but...

You're clearly not a Libertarian, or a libertarian.

What the HELL are you doing here?

WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT THE USE OF TORTURE ?
>
> "Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not
> started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11,
> 2001?
>
> Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally
> murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our
> nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three
> thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing
> death that day, or didn't they?
>
> And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated"
> whenan overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I
> don't.
> I don't care at all.
>
> I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for
> incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
>
> I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start
> caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in
> Saudi Arabia.
>
> I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for
> hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling,
> slashed throat.
>
> I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come
out and
> fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in
> mosques.
>
> I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of
> nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide
> bombs.
>
> I'll care when the Ameri! can media stops pretending that their First
> Amendment liberti es are somehow derived from international law instead
> of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.
>
> In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up
> an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
>
> When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have
> been humiliated in what amounts to a college hazing incident, rest
> assured that I don't care.
>
> When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not
> to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank
> that I don't care.
>
> When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat,
> and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is
> complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely
> believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.
>
> And oh, by the way, I've notice! d that sometimes it's spelled "Koran"
> and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you got
it, I
> DON'T CARE!
>
> If you agree with this view point, pass this on to all your e-mail
> friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this
> ridiculous behavior! If you don't agree, then by all means hit the
> delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain
> when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our
> great country.

Right to bear arms, that's all I'm saying

I notice that the rant about not caring was unsigned. I guess s/he didn't care to put his/her name to it either.

Therefore, I really don't care what s/he had to say.

Nigel wrote to Ian: "What the HELL are you doing here?"

Obviously, Ian is here to get attention by pissing off people...attention which you all are giving him. He's a happy camper as a result.

To Mr. Unknown.
Posted by: at November 7, 2005 07:41 PM

I find a great deal to agree with in what he has written.

Hi! I had to get some sleep, go to school, that stuff. I see lots of stuff has been said about me, many questions have been asked, so here goes.

Tyson, I am a pathetic loser. I don't have a girlfriend, so didn't consider that side. Thanks for bringing up a good point, though again I don't see why the government should be watching me anyway. If some government worker gets his kicks watching me kiss a girl, then I just feel sorry for him. And besides, I would think the sensor thing would only tell where I was, not what I was doing. Also, my belief in life is to live well and be happy, so I would have a problem with that imaginary government. Riding a roller coaster is fun but technichly dangerous, so people can do it if they realise the risk. I don't ride roller coasters because I don't think they are fun. Going to school is not fun but important to your life usually, so I do that, just not excitedly. And what I do that is "dangerous" is sit around all day playing vidio games. It is fun but not good for my life, I appreciate the risks, so I do it.

Pasy, whatever you may think, I am a regular person. I am a shy person in person, so tend to sit a lot by myself thinking. That is why I feel I can at my tender age come on here and lecture you all. Also, I for some reason get really angry at people who butcher the language when writing stuff on the internet, so I tend to yell at them. As someone else said, I think less of people and their ideas when they can't string together a coherant sentence.

Hey True American, you are completly correct, I am having fun here. It makes me happy to yell at you on the internet when in real life I wouldn't even be able to talk back to you (see above comment).

Nigel, that's a good question. I came here looking for information for a school project, government class, noticed this blog, and jumped in. And I'm having a great time. Isn't that what's important?

Uncaring, you have some good points, but remember. Americans as a whole like to think of themselves as being better then everyone else. So by not torturing prisoners, we feel better, because we are not lowering ourselves to their level. Even if as individuals we would like to all go hurt them, as a mass we have to "treat them as we would like to be treated", because that's what Kindergarden taught us. Silly, huh?

Well, that's all for now. Remember, don't talk like an idiot on the internet, have some pride for yourself. I hope you all enjoyed talking to the Great and Illustrious Ian.

P.S. I also have a really big ego when not talking face-to-face.

So what your saying is that you hide behind a computer screen. And I'll take your comments the same way as someone who talks behind my back . . . I won't give them a second thought. A person that can't say the same things to your face as he/she would in other situations isn't worth listening to. Work on being upfront in person and you'll gain respect. Just because you have lots of time to think doesn't mean you have all the solutions in the world. It was nice of you to share your character with us.

> "Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we?" -

How can you fight a "War" against an ever changing, essentially unidentifiable target? A brand, spanking new "enemy" WE CREATED in the 80's to give fits to our former friendly enemy the Soviet Union. You certainly remember the "Godless Commies" don't you? The good ole "Evil Empire?" What happened after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990? All those war toys and no one to play with. Thank God Saddam invaded his neighbor in 1991. (Wonder who encouraged that through backchannels?)

If this "War on Terror" a real war, why - with all our power haven't we snagged Osama, but manage to pick off everyone around him? But then again, Oceania was always at war wasn't it? We always need an enemy, don't we? There always has to be a "them" doesn't there? Real or invented.

"Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11,
2001?" -

I don't know, was it? That has certainly been the drumbeat and sales pitch since then hasn't it? W never fails to bring it up whenever he can. Why did't we go after "them" after their first attempt to bring down the towers in 1993? Did we think "they" were just kidding? How about the attacks on our embassy's, the U.S.S. Cole? Not enough death to raise the national blood pressure? Do we measure our outrage on body counts? Or was there something else about 9/11 no one wants to discuss? Such as the real purpose of this exercise in hysteria to fan such fear into people that they happily surrender what remaining freedons left to the federal government.

WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT THE USE OF TORTURE ?

The fact that we are AMERICANS, we are supposed to be an example of what is best in humanity. If we decend to the level of those you deride, than you are no better than they are.

An ideal? Maybe so. But that was the basis for the founding of this Republic.

Chuck

http://www.stoptheftaa.org/artman/publish/printer_582.shtml

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10116

It is un-american to torture anyone. Patriotism used as a shield to encourage acts that would be more at home in the former Soviet Union's Gulags is wasted.

For the Vice President of the United States ( and by extension, the President) to desire to torture anyone, even the most heinous criminal, is a sure sign that the USA is a EMPTY SHELL of it's former self. The morality of the countrys leaders mean something, it's what seperates us from the rest of the world - or used to.

Timothy West: Additionally it has been shown time and time again that torture doesn't work. Typically the person being tortured will only say what he/she thinks the torturer wants to hear, not necessarily the truth. There are much more effective ways of getting information out of people than torture.

Your right it unAmerican to torture, but this is Amerika, not America. Btw I do not care if it is Saddem being torture but I do care our tax dollars are being spent on him.

NOT A MURDER - If the news story is complete and factual, when coupled with my experiance, the incident seems quite simple.

Policemen legally executed an arrest warrant.

The subject resisted, they escalated force consistent with resistence.

The response was the lowest and least intrusive needed to subdue the subject.

The subject experianced a severe allergic reaction causing permenant damage.

The police response was legal and predictable. The result is traceable to the subjects prior conduct, and resistance to an arrest warrent.

Not even a wrongful death, an accident.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051108-125440-3008r.htm

WAY TO GO.

He reisited arrest, and brought it on himself; no one is above the law; we don't need to become another France

HEY KEITH WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE. To get arrested over a stupid seat belt when we have terrorist running around is a bit lame isn't it. It is a waste of our tax dollars at work.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47285

The same thing can happen here, Time to close the borders.

Besides Amerika, it will be Ameristein

"The same thing can happen here, Time to close the borders."

Errrmmm....not according to LP policy it isn't.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#immigrat

Or am I missing something ;-)

Pasy: You point is well taken, however to play Devil's advocate here I think Keith's comment was the fact he was resisting arrest. I'm sure he is of the same opinion as you in regards to the law he broke.

The only valid law that should force you to wear a seatbelt is the law of physics.

"Obviously, Ian is here to get attention by pissing off people...attention which you all are giving him. He's a happy camper as a result."

I was hoping he was playing devil's advocate, but evidently he's not.

I wouldn't pay the ticket either. By not wearing a seatbelt, he wasn't taking away the life, liberty, or property of anyone. The law was unjustified and he was probably standing up for what he believed. Shouldn't the officers be arresting someone who has violated the rights of others? Seems almost like a power trip.

"The law was unjustified and he was probably standing up for what he believed."

Mike, that is what the courts are there to determine. Instead of resisting arrest he should have worked to change the law. The officers were merely doing their job and following procedure.

"Alcohol has no good merits in society, it, along with smoking do nothing but take lives."

Tyson, not to venture from the main discussion of this blog, but alcohol in moderation is very healthy (1 drink a day for women, 2 drinks for men). It doesn't matter if its wine, beer, or liquor. Although the grapes in red wine are definitely good for the circulatory system. It raises HDL cholesterol by a pretty significant amount. In fact moderate drinkers have a slightly longer average life expectancy than those of non-drinkers. Thats with the slighlty higher risk of certain cancers factored in.

Seatbelts have been shown to save lives many more times than they cause fatalities. Its such a little thing and I believe insurance companies offer lower rates in states where there is a seatbelt law because statistically the financial risk is lower.
I used to not wear my seatbelt whenever I could get away with it when I was a kid/ teenager. When my friend got his license, he made a rule that everyone buckle up. We were in an accident one winter. If I hadn't had a seatbelt on, my face would of smashed into the dash at the very least and we were sitting still. Since then, I have worn my seatbelt cause I realized their importance.
Maybe you feel it infringes on your rights, but I think its a common sense thing to do.
Also, as for getting fined, I think its no different than a speeding ticket. Most of us choose to go faster than the speed limit and most of the time we get away with it. But if your caught, pay the fine. If you don't pay the fine, you'll be arrested. We all have the choice to obey or not obey the law, but if you get caught then you must deal with the consequences that come with your reluctance to adhere to the law in question.

"You WILL respect my authority!"

James Brown said: "The police are out there risking their lives to protect us and it's time we stop giving them shit for it!"

I spent 3 years as a police officer myself. Your statement is a crock. My experience is that the police are NOT performing their fiduciary duties by investigating serious crimes and protecting people. They have been consistantly ramping up ticketing such as seat belt violations so that they can bring in the cash.

While I agree, no good comes from resisting arrest, I would have to see alot more information about this case to see who was at fault.

When police are spending their time and efforts on "victimless offenses" and attempting to protect people from themselves on things such as seatbelt violations, "fruit from the poisonous tree" sums up the sequence of events here when they peppered a person who deep down knew the police were wrong and foolishly fought back.

BTW, I don't see Police Officer listed here:

The 10 most dangerous jobs
Occupation Fatalities per 100,000

Timber cutters 117.8
Fishers 71.1
Pilots and navigators 69.8
Structural metal workers 58.2
Drivers-sales workers 37.9
Roofers 37
Electrical power installers 32.5
Farm occupations 28
Construction laborers 27.7
Truck drivers 25

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; survey of occupations with minimum 30 fatalities and 45,000 workers in 2002

Save us the bull about risking lives to "protect us" especially until you join the less than 1% of the police officers that ever need to unholster and fire their weapon at another human being. They should do what they are paid to do which is "to serve and protect" and not harass the general public for so called "victimless offenses".

Yes, the police officer need to bring in cash, I also know they are suppose to write so many tickets per day. I have seen people get ticket when they didn't deserve it, just to get the money or add to whatever how many they are to have. There are check points everywhere and check you for whatever reason they decide to check you for.
You know if the government wasn't taken all our money for all the time, I think most of us would have a decent life for ourselves and have a decent retirement. But that FAT PORKERS sit on their FAT behinds take, take, take from us and WE LET THEM.

The Libertarian Party is a joke! You talk about being about personal freedom and personal choice. Yet, most take a pro-life position. How in the hell is that not hypocritical? If you deny a women the right to do with her body what she wants, you do not really believe in personal freedom at all. And spare the "fetus" is a living being, it is not. I toyed with the idea of becoming a libertarian, but now see that all you guys really are, is Republicans without money.

Here is a great topic that should be considered. This Pro-Choice person has thrown down the gauntlet, and I think some real Libertarians should pick it up. Do all Libertarians believe in Pro-Life, and if so, why?

Dan, I feel badly burned, you have my congradulations. I just happen to feel that, what with all my time spent thinking about life and such, I do have a lot of answers to life. And I don't talk behind other peoples backs, if I have something to say I say it to their faces. If I can muster the courage. Such as when I get mad. Or on here. And you are right. When I was thinking about what I had posted later, I realised it read like a MySpace account. Weird.

Oh, and Pat, if that was a South Park referance, don't disgrace that show by using "authority". Say "authorita".

The problem I find with law enforcement is that many departments are no longer accountable. Where I live we have state police, county sheriff and deputies, and a town constable.

Constables and sheriffs are elected. State police should not exist because they never have to answer to the public. We have thrown a few sheriffs out before.

I thing this blog Attical is part of the reason many America think we are all a bunch of Paroind Nut Jobs

"You talk about being about personal freedom and personal choice. Yet, most take a pro-life position."

You do have a choice, whether to create a child or not. Personal responsibility also seems to have gone out the window. If people really took accountability for their actions, this world would be a much better place. I don't think its a hypocrasy at all. You could say the same thing about any other activity that is currently against the law. However, I do believe the government should not make that choice for us, nor do I think public money should be used for the procedure except for special circumstances.
Many pro-choicers say they are personally against abortion but that women should have a right to choose either way. Isn't this similar to Bush saying "We do not torture," but then asks for an exception for the CIA?
My argument is that the choice is always there. There are so many ways to prevent a pregnancy nowadays that I feel there is just no excuse for being irresponsible and then go out and try to justify your actions that could of easily been prevented.
It will take a very convincing argument to sway me on this matter. I look forward to your thoughts and more importantly your well thought out points.

Ian,

I have friends that are very good thinkers, but their solutions lack practicality. I'm not saying yours do not, I am saying that a good thinker does not make you better at solving problems.
Benjamin Franklin was a great thinker, but he also was very involved in the community, in science, in everything. He had a great amount of wisdom from thinking, applying, understanding, and experimenting. A great thinker alone tends to miss important details that otherwise might not be missed if there was more going on besides thinking.
I think alot of people that contribute to this blog are thinkers. If we were not, why post our opinions? We obviousy think a lot about the world, its problems, and try to find ways that might make it a better place.
Hopefully you learn some humility to go along with your intellectuality.
I look forward to future discussions with you provided they are meant to discuss the issues at hand.

You can't blame the officers, they are obligated to enforce the law's that legislators have created. However, you can certainly blame the government for yet again causing more harm than good by creating an unnecessary law. Is there any proof that seatbelt laws save more lives? Do they really do anything more than give the states that have them more revenue? Even if they automatically saved every single person who ever wore one from any harm during an automobile accident, it still isn't the governments responsibility to force people to make personal decisions.

Arrest for things such as seatbelt and helmet non-compliance, lack of insurance, missing tags, and the like, is over-the-top enforcement. It is appropriate to arrest someone who has harmed another (or clearly threatens to do so), or who is reasonably considered a flight risk in a major criminal proceeding. Somewhere across town, some gangsta was beating somebody up, and where were the cops? Arresting some guy for an outstanding seatbelt ticket.

Who was it, who said something on the order of, "the law must fit like a well-worn suit"? It shouldn't constrict, there should be a good sense of proportion and scale in the cut and styling, and it should be plain enough for everyday use.

When government or its agents lose their sense of proportion, bad things like this man's death can happen. Or Waco, which started out as an effort to serve David Koresh a warrant for, in essence, not paying the proper tax and filing the appropriate paperwork. NOBODY should have to die for a seatbelt law. NOBODY should have to die for non-payment of a fee or a tax, or for failure to submit "the proper paperwork." Sometimes, high-speed chases start simply to catch a speeder, or to catch someone who would not pull-over for inspection of tags, seat-belt, or what-have you. Sometimes people (and not just the drivers involved!) get injured or killed. NOBODY should have to die in such circumstances. In all of these cases and many more, the cops should just know enough to BACK OFF, even if the perp gets away. The cost of macho law enforcement in police-state conditions is just too high. Perhaps if the cops and the government HAD a sense of proportion, a lot of the problems we hear about wouldn't ever occur.

I got news for you many pro-choice ARE NOT AGAINST ABORTION, talk about creating a child or not, I have some friends who are married WHO USE BIRTH CONTROL and still got pregnant. For a lot of reason they choose not to have kids. Are you going to say they shouldn't have sex even thought they are married. Some people who are diabetic the birth control such as the pill does not always work.
Again PRO-LIFERS stay out of my stomach.

Dan:

First of all, this is going way off topic. Secondly, I hate abortion debates. People have their minds made up, and nothing will change that.

Of course, in order to have a meaningfull discussion we must try to leave any emotional baggage behind (i.e. "it's murder of an innocent", or "the woman's rights are violated").

Here're a few non-emotional points you may want to consider:

1) Prohibition NEVER works. A law to ban abortion will only sweep it under the carpet. Poor people will go to back street clinics, and likely get very ill in the process. Rich people will fly off to expensive clinics in Canada or Europe to have their abortions done on the quiet. So basically, abortions will still happen.

2) What about rape or incest? Most anti-abortion folks accept that in those cases abortion should be OK. This is logically inconsistant. They say abortion is wrong, it's taking a life; but they are willing to treat a fetus which is the result of a rape as a "lesser human" than one that is the result of a drunken "Ooops". That hardly sounds like valid reasoning. Furthermore, how would you prove rape? Would you mandate forced DNA tests on the mother and any sexual partners (i.e. to prove it wasn't a current partner and therefore consentual)?

Now if you argue that abortion is also wrong in the case of rape I would say fine. With the provision that the state should pay for all medical costs and the upbringing of the child until adoptive parents can be found. Not really a libertarian position is it? But if the state is going to force a woman into this, they should damn well pony up the cash for it.

Most people accept that abortion after consentual sex is wrong. However my stand point is that if it's going to happen anyway, let's keep it in the open, safe and well managed. Indeed, most people going into an abortion face some degree of counciling prior to the decision giving them alternative ideas. A back street clinic is hardly going to do that is it?

I post a quote from one of our "Brave" boys in blue:
"As I understand it, Pepper Spray is used in all police academies on the people being trained. And as far as I know, there has never been a fatality from it."

Hmm...That arguement has now been tossed into the turd bucket.

I, as an Emergency Dept. RN, was required to ride with local PD's twice yearly to "learn from scene observation of domestic violence, accidents, etc. What I actually did notice was an overwhelming feeling of nausea in watching our "Blue Line" cross the line repeatedly. I witnessed unlawful searches, outright assault and battery, and a total disregard for traffic laws (ie: traveling 75+MPH through the main downtown streets with reckless disregard, just for fun). Then these big heros file a 'legal document' called a police report that justified any and all actions that they took. These of course are held in higher regard than the defendant's statement that the police report is false. Any police officer here that actually holds libertarian values will have to back this one up. Anything less labels you as nothing more than the thug that you are.

I get the sense there are some here that have never had the occasion to deal with traffic police so below are observations from experiance.

Given that, traffic police observe traffic, when they see vehicle breaking traffic law they stop the driver to investigate.

In the process police run the vehicle and drivers licenses to verify the legal status of both. Facts from the investigation decides their next response.

Assuming both are clean and driver behaviour reasonable, a traffic citation with a promise to answer charges on the date indicated is issued. But if telemetry shows an outstanding wants or warrent, it may be their duty to execute it imideately or recieve orders from a supervisor.

The arrest procedure depends on the nature of the charges and reaction of the subject of the warrent. If the subject passively accepts entry into the police unit, they are peacefully transported, booked and secured for appearance before a judge.

If the subject resists, procedure has the police escalate up through the several force levels until the subject is subdued, to transport, book, and secure for the judge.

The point is, police have little in the way of choices as their response is almost entirely based on the legal status and actions of the subject citizen. Police also have the right to defend their own physical persons.

After testing three possible responses, passive acceptance worked out much better that the others I have tested out.

I get the sense there are some here that have not had the occasion to deal with traffic police. May be an indication of good driving skills. In any case below are observations from experiance.

Given that, traffic police observe traffic, when they see vehicle breaking traffic law they stop the driver to investigate.

In that process they run the vehicle and drivers licenses to verify the legal status of both. The facts from that investigation directs their response.

Assuming both are clean and driver behaviour reasonable, a traffic citation with a promise to answer charges on the date indicated is issued. But if telemetry shows an outstanding wants or warrent, it may be their duty to execute it imideately or recieve orders from a supervisor.

The arrest procedure depends on the nature of the charges and reaction of the subject of the warrent. If the subject passively accepts entry into the police unit, they are peacefully transported, booked and secured for appearance before a judge.

If the subject resists, procedure has the police escalate up through the several force levels until the subject is subdued, to transport, book, and secure for the judge.

The point is, police have little in the way of choices as their response is almost entirely based on the legal status and actions of the subject citizen. Police also have the right to defend their own physical persons.

After testing three of the possible responses, passive acceptance worked out much better than the others I have tested out.

Whoops!

Dan;

If I may reprint from the Libertarian Platform:

"...Women's Rights and Abortion

The Issue: Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.

The Principle: We hold that individual rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex. It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements and/or home births.

Solutions: We oppose all laws likely to impose restrictions on free choice and priva