TheAgitator.com
55 Responses to “Morning Links”
Leave a Reply
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Site Features
- Home
- Advertise
- About Radley Balko
- Publications
- Speaking Info
- Multimedia
- Resume
- Picasa Photos
- Recommendations
- Traffic Stats
- RSS Feed
Buy One- Buy Agitator Gear
-
-
$12/month Recurring Donation
$6/month Recurring Donation
- My Amazon wishlist
-
Site Credits
“Libertarianism seems to mean whatever the person attacking it wants it to mean.”
A very accurate statement. I have seen this more and more lately when arguing politics. I love how this guy seems to think that Libertarianism=anti-capitalism and that’s why newspapers are failing in the free market. I’ve heard drug warriors make better arguments.
“since June 2001, more than 351 individuals in the United States have died after being shocked by police Tasers.”
That’s a useful statistic. I was wondering what the numbers were.
Those Texas cops should consider how powerful the AARP is before they start tasering the elderly…
Ummmm… I don’t get it. The guy didn’t even try to explain how Craigslist is a libertarian model.
So an armed, adult male needs to electrocute a 72-year old woman who allegedly refused to sign a document that does not need signature under the law of that state. How was the use of a taser necessary to ensure officer safety? WTF?
SJF-
A dick cop is a dick.
Mike, I realize the cop was a dick. At least in this case all the usual b.s. justifications of “officer safety” blah blah are shown to be completely bogus. He was just a dick who didnt either (a) wanted to tazer an old lady or (b) tazed an old lady because she didnt kowtow to his wishes, which were not based on any legal requirement. Either case, he is a dick.
From the article on public defenders:
“But the options are far from clear, particularly when virtually every state and local government is crying poor.”
No, the option is very clear. Politicians are just too damn cowardly to pursue it. End the Drug War and we will have a surfeit of public defenders, not to mention space in our jails for real criminals, and time in our courts to try and convict them with a speedy trial (and possibly, a more thorough investigation beforehand?).
I enjoy how the taser article mentions that tasers are treated as non-lethal when they are advertised as less-lethal. Cops seem to think that the taser is the solution to almost all problems, and those problems not solvable by taser are the sole realm of .40S&W.
Did anyone notice the public defender article is also a drug war article? She was arrested for less than an ounce of pot (admittedly, she was trying to smuggle it into a prison), and 6 months is the best the public defender could get her? The article correctly mentions this is a misdemeanor under normal, non-prison, circumstances. Crazy stuff.
Not only did he not explain how Craigslist is libertarian, he didn’t really convince me that Craigslist is even close to a Newspaper replacement. I would goto Craigslist for person to person classified ads. These ads aren’t even in my local paper (The Boston Globe) except perhaps on weekends (when I have better things todo than read a newspaper).
Now if they wanted to say Yahoo.com or CNN.com or TheAgitator.com were killing newspapers I would be more inclined to agree. Oh and theagitator.com is a libertarian site so yeah lets blame them :)
“Libertarianism seems to mean whatever the person attacking it wants it to mean.”
Agreed — but it sorta should. Libertarianism should be the ability to do what you want, so long as it doesn’t interfere with the rights of others. If that means maximizing your profits, so be it. If it means minimizing them, and giving shit away to prove that people are good, so be that as well. People attacking libertarianism generally have a problem with the specific choices that free individuals are making. (i.e. Craig, you shouldn’t give all this away because you are killing newspapers.)
So, its not the ideology of freedom that they have a problem with — its the way people choose to act when they have that freedom. And that is a bullshit argument. They are basically saying that they know better how we all should operate. If they want to try to convince me its in my interest not to give stuff away or not to maximize profits, let them try. I will listen. But don’t legislate it and don’t attack the ideology that is simply giving me the freedom to make those choices for myself.
Cops are that way now because of the constant butt kissing that the public do to them. Its a case of a collective megolemaniac ego due to flattery. There’s simply not enough constructive criticism and accountability in the media, and too much idolizing of them. They are totally out of control because of this.
The Texas cop was a constable. Written into our constitution and we can’t get rid of them, pretty much any yahoo can run for constable as it is an elected position and the county has to pay them. Most counties use them to serve warrants for outstanding traffic tickets,although I can’t speak to how Travis County uses them.
Tasers are quickly becoming some sort of orwellien compliance thing. Lay on the ground? They’ll taze you to make you walk. Refuse to sign a ticket? They’ll taze you. It is like a police wet dream to be able to attach probes to you and just walk around shocking you if you don’t do what they say.
You’ve got a point there JS. I’d argue that the constant use of war rhetoric and imagery when talking about domestic law enforcement combined with the evisceration of the Posse Comitus act under Reagan in the eighties has a lot more to do with it though.
JS- firefighters and soldiers inspire the same ‘butt kissing’ from the public- toys, fund raisers, huge funerals, etc, but they don’t shoot dogs, taser the elderly, and kick in our doors without just cause…
For every minute a Public Defender spends on a case, an entire team of highly paid Prosecutors is also on that case. Yet… they don’t seem to run out of money.
First, ALL persons, not just the poor, should have free council. The state has constant council… you should too. Of course, you can still hire your own if you want.
Solution 1: If competent counsel is not available for the defense, the case is dropped.
Solution 2: The obvious one: End the war on drugs.
Ideally, both solutions would be implemented.
Yeah, that craigslist article is some of the most thoughtless, incoherent crap I have read in some time. In the end it seems to be saying that if you’re gonna kill newspapers, you should at least try to make money doing it!
But that sentiment is mind-numbingly stupid. Craigslist *could* make more profit if it wanted to by putting more ads on it’s site, or charging users a very small fee, that in the aggregate would make them tons of money etc., but what is not a variable in the equation is that they would dominate the classified ads world and cut in on newspapers insomuch as newspapers fill that market need. So if you’re going to lament the death of newspapers as contributed to by craigslist, you have to lament the *existence* of craigslist in the first place, not its profit margins. This is a little like being pissed that some guy just beat you up and complaining that he’s not a profit-making karate instructor.
In the end, when it comes to classified ads, the internet is a crushingly better medium than print. So this article is as interesting as complaining about how lions are constantly eating zebras.
“Pick up that can!”
Whack-zap.
So much like Half Life 2, the taser happy cops are…..
Notice to TX cops. I live in TX. If you taser my mom I will cut your head off.
“Weirdest attack on libertarianism I’ve seen in a long time. Libertarianism seems to mean whatever the person attacking it wants it to mean.”
Or whatever the person SUPPORTING it wants it to mean.
I didn’t find the New Republic op-ed much of an attack to begin with. The author seemed to bemoan the death of the newspaper, but this has more to do with the internet in general than Craigslist in specific.
It is certainly reasonable that a tenet of libertarianism would be dissolving the influence of institutions by encouraging mutual aid or exchange between individuals. Butler Shaffer has made a second career as an author out of this idea (he is a law professor first).
Any attempt to define libertarianism beyond “First do no harm, then do as you please” is bound to start arguments. Maybe that’s the idea. Maybe people aren’t “good and trustworthy and moderate.” Maybe they are.
Stephen, when your mom gets tased, will you send me the head? I’d just like to know for sure that you followed through on your word. Post your e-mail address and I’ll send you mine.
/sarcasm
Ding ding ding.
The problem isn’t helped by the fact that trainloads — sorry, forgot, they hate trains — countless carloads of douchetastic authoritarian conservatives call themselves “libertarians”. In their mind (ahem) “libertarian” means “me ‘n my side get to do what we want and everbody else can be crushed by laws and power ha ha ha ha”.
Marty: One of those things is not like the others…
Of the three groups you mentioned, one is the strong arm of the government domestically, one is the strong arm internationally, and one actually has the job of being a hero by saving lives.
#22 | Cynical in CA |
No, I plan on leaving the head close to the body (family might need it for burial purposes)
But seriously, my mom is the most harmless person in the world. If some idiot cop tasers her to prove his authority, he does not belong in this reality and should be removed.
I said the gist of this when I posted the link, but if you need a taser to subdue a 70+ year old woman, you don’t belong on a police force. You’ve just proven you don’t have the physical or mental tools that the job requires.
First, ALL persons, not just the poor, should have free council.
But, Bob, where are you going to find that many lawyers who will work for free?
I’ve met a few little old ladies that I’d like to push under a bus, but that doesn’t mean I’d actually do it.
Well I must admit I’m bummed, Stephen. At least shoot some 35mm and send me the negatives — digital photos not accepted. And do understand that I hope none of this ever comes to pass. Our moms sound a lot alike. Interestingly, my mom used to be the court clerk in my hometown. Dropping her name during the myriad traffic stops by the local constabulary during my teenage years saved me mucho dinero and time spent in the Iron Bar Motel. Thanks Mom! I have to admit that I’d be tempted to sharpen up the old samurai sword to avenge her honor if she received 50kV.
I don’t agree with the TNR blogger’s definition of libertarianism there, but I don’t think he was attacking it either.
Actually, I would probably cool off and not really murder a cop. Just sue his ass off.
He might still get the captain magneto treatment however, :)
http://www.darwinawards.com/personal/personal2005-05.html
>>>>>.Any attempt to define libertarianism beyond “First do no harm, then do as you please” is bound to start arguments.<<<<<<
The problem here is that ‘do no harm’ can mean too many things. Am I doing harm by running an air conditioner and contributing to global warming thus harming people on the coasts? Some will simply choose to define harm as broadly and socially as possible and make a case for big government…and yet stay consistent with that statement. So the argument starts sooner…
#27, perlhaqr:
Certainly, I mean “free” as in “cost to them” just as the state provides Prosecution services to defendants free of charge to them. As the state pays for Prosecution, so should it pay for Defense.
Realistically? I would expect this to REDUCE costs. As cases that are iffy would simply not be prosecuted if the Prosecution KNEW that the case would be defended as vigorously as they would prosecute it.
In the case of the tasered old lady, didn’t the police cruiser have a dash cam? It seems pretty clear that we could determine what happened by just examining the video captured by this camera.
Also, as for defense counsel paid for by the state, isn’t that a little anti-libertarian? Should the government be in the business of defending AND prosecuting? I mean, I agree with you in that all defense should be paid for, but I’m wondering if it’s not anti-libertarian.
Cliff, I agree that harm can be defined subjectively, by both the “victim” and the “perpetrator.” It would fall to science and reasonable people to mediate the dispute.
Defining libertarianism according to specifics is subjective, and it would ultimately mean all things to all people. Defining it generally as doing no harm and doing as one pleases is as objective as it can get. Maybe the confusion over what is and is not libertarian is a big part of why the philosophy is so unpopular. Tyranny and slavery are easy to understand!
The question of who pays for the defense attorney missed the core issue. The real issue is that the legal system is fatally flawed. Prosecutors do not care about justice, only conviction rates.
The cop said she also used profanity, making him fear for his life.
If nothing else, this cop should be met with calls of “wuss! What a wimp! Look at the wussy cop who’s afraid of grandma!” for the rest of his career if he wishes to stick to this story.
“Libertarianism seems to mean whatever the person attacking it wants it to mean.”
Let’s be fair here, I’ve been coming to this site for years, and I there seems to be as many definitions of libertarianism as there are self identified libertarians.
It occurs to me that it doesn’t take much to rationalize this:
1) Vigilantes generally don’t want attention for taking the laws into their own hands.
2) Cops are increasingly taking non-existant laws and heavy handedly inflicting them on the common folk.
3) In a made up laws world or the enforcement of personal opinion it’s inevitable that people will fight back. If no confidence in 2, than they will become increasingly supportive of 1.
4) The inevitable conclusion of forces of 1 clashing with 2.
If the supposed “law” is on the side of group 2, but the real “moral right” is in group 1. What could the average Joe do? So, Stephen, your sentiment is completely understood. There’s a whole lot of grey area out there, but when a cop takes out the wrong person, it will sooner or later create a vigilante Braveheart style that is going to demand more than a pound of flesh. And it will also not be a good day for the police if I’m on the jury that decides his fate (if the cops even try to bring them in alilve)
So yeh, the “few” bad cops have rotted the whole barrel comes as no surprise if they can’t be rooted out and removed.
[...] rotten bastards like you, and the time will come soon enough when they will not have you anymore. (Radlink) Jun 04, 09 | 1:47 pm AxeBitesVarious guitars I see floating by, mostly Gibson and mostly [...]
‘Tasers are quickly becoming some sort of orwellien compliance thing. Lay on the ground? They’ll taze you to make you walk. Refuse to sign a ticket? They’ll taze you. It is like a police wet dream to be able to attach probes to you and just walk around shocking you if you don’t do what they say.”
See the George Lucas film, “THX 1138″ (1971).
That’s almost forty years ago, now. I remember seeing that on the big screen and very seriously wondering if America might come to that. In those days, I couldn’t quite believe it would, but I had to wonder then already.
#34 Nando:
It really has to be that way. If the state can bring a criminal case against someone against their will, then it needs to be able to guarantee that person’s constitutional rights, as well. Whether that’s ‘anti-libertarian’ I don’t know. I don’t identify myself as a ‘Libertarian’ because I’m very much ‘anti-anarchy’.
Remember… the ’state’ is not intended to be a monolithic entity, it’s broken into branches that are supposed to work as a balance.
However, that’s not how the Judicial System has evolved. The Executive Branch (Governor->Mayor->Police Chief) has virtually all the power and control. The counter to this is supposed to be the Judicial branch, that controls the courts… in theory, it is that control that maintains adherance to the constitution.
But it doesn’t.
The Executive Controls Police and Prosecution. The Judicial provides Judges and Courtrooms.
Arrestees are on their own for legal representation. Representation a lot of people can’t afford.
The Executive Branch picked up on this real fast… and focused it’s attention on those that would be least likely to be able to defend themselves in court.
The logical solution, then… is to require the Judicial Branch to provide council to protect the constitutional rights of all defendants. In theory, it’s the office of the Public Defender that fulfills this role.
Here’s the problem: The office of the Public Defender works for the Governor, in the Executive Branch. In the ensuing conflict of interest, the Prosecutors win every time.
Cop flushes fetus down motel toilet:
http://www.kpho.com/news/19651231/detail.html
Huh? The cop flushed a miscarriage/abortion down the toilet?
Isn’t that kinda like flushing a member of one’s own family?
;)
Funny, Wired calls the phenomenon of free Internet content socialism. What’s sad is that the New Republic is supposedly a magazine of political thought.
ktc2: The New Professionalism at work.
Nando “In the case of the tasered old lady, didn’t the police cruiser have a dash cam? It seems pretty clear that we could determine what happened by just examining the video captured by this camera.”
I probably malfunctioned….seems to happen a lot.
And the camera probably did, too
“I probably malfunctioned….seems to happen a lot.”
Funny the tasers never seem to malfunction.
Just to correct some misstatements: by Texas law, the moment the police pull you over, you are legally under arrest. If he writes you a ticket, he is charging you with a crime (every traffic violation in Texas is a Class C misdemeanor or higher; there are no “violations”); if he doesn’t write you a ticket, you are released without charges.
If he charges you with a crime by writing a ticket, you must post bond. Normally this is done by signing the ticket as a form of personal recognizance bond (”I hereby promise to either appear in court, or plead guilty and pay the fine.”)
If you refuse to sign the ticket, he will place you in full custodial arrest and you must appear before a magistrate and pay a cash bond to be released (not-so-coincidentally, they set the amount of the bond at the amount of the ticket.)
Oh, and except for two “crimes” (speeding, and open container), he doesn’t even have to offer you the option of signing the ticket: he can just take you to jail on the spot. Thankfully, most departments have decided this isn’t worth the cost:revenue involved, so they have internal policies against the practice. But, it’s perfectly legal if they haul you to jail even as you beg to sign a ticket.
I think I shall give my Mum a letter that she could produce if threatened with tasering by thugs. It would simply state that the pig had better come and kill me first, prior to tasering my saintly mater, coz otherwise, to paraphrase a scene in “Pulp Fiction”, things are gonna get fucking medieval…
More easons to taze you.
reasons
[...] Via Balko I came across one of Weiss’ old New York Magazine features on Craigslist and throughout reading the repeated talk of the “Exploder of Journalism” (caps in the original) wanted to tell him “tone it down!” If not for his particular obsession he probably would not have lost his print job and been reduced to begging money from his readers and hoping for it from his parents, though its certainly conceivable. I am reminded of The Last Ditch contributor Stephen Sniegowski (though coming from a far-right perspective) who says he’s “lucky to get a job answering the telephone“. He’s capable of good writing, such as one that made me proud of our first black President, but the rest of his work seems dedicated to sinking any chance of attaining tenure. [...]