Invocations (Dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Seattle-officer-punches-girl-in-face-during-jaywalking-stop) cannot be called by Porksandwich because Porksandwich is not privileged - sorry.

This is why I despise jaywalkers!

Polite my ass, it's enlightened self-interest. Jaywalking in Seatown is a blood sport.

The cops are a bit unstable in Seattle. Jaywalking, like public whittling, might get you shot in the face.

Far less gruesome than the anti-jaywalking video.

>> ^mxxcon:

How the fuck can that country have so many cars yet so little traffic rules?
It's like all those jaywalkers think that they are harder than a car
eia


LIBERTARIAN PARADISE

>> ^mxxcon:

How the fuck can that country have so many cars yet so little traffic rules?
It's like all those jaywalkers think that they are harder than a car
eia


Evolution hasn't had as much time to work it's magic on populations there as it has over here. Just be patient .

How the fuck can that country have so many cars yet so little traffic rules?
It's like all those jaywalkers think that they are harder than a car
*eia

Most establishments have video surveillance in use signs up. And it's common sense that you "watch where you are going", but perhaps they need a sign up for that too.

But let's do a little common practices and expectations when it comes to workplace conduct. Most businesses don't mind if you use your phone sparingly, but they will be pissed if you text while driving or handling machinery or putting yourself in dangerous situations by doing so. So they probably have a clause that says no cell phone use while on their time or unless it's company related.

I mean this is along the lines of thinking for activities such as driving without your prescription glasses, doing possibly dangerous or strenuous activities when you just started taking a new medication, carrying something that obstructs your vision on uneven or uncleared terrain, etc, etc. Things you can get away with sometimes doing, but you know you shouldn't be doing it. It's just more convenient to risk it than it is to take the time to do it in a safer way. And when things go wrong and it doesn't work out for you, the fault falls on you.

If she had been doing that and walked into traffic and got drilled by a car and the video caught her doing this.....I'd be thanking my lucky stars if I was the driver of that car. Because it was clearly her fault for not heeding right of way/jaywalking/whatever. Just like it would have been my fault if I was texting and driving and drilled her with my vehicle while she was legally crossing at a crosswalk.

The biggest crime here is that she hasn't learned that she bears responsibility for the consequences of her actions. If she had realized this and stepped to the side to quickly type her message and move on, there would be no video to be shown. People SHOPPING at malls would be shocked if they weren't being filmed nearly their whole time on the premises, so I highly doubt an employee could expect otherwise.

And that she claims she's humiliated by this video, but comes forward to identify herself....give multiple interviews and hint at lawsuits. Rape victims have more difficulty doing this due to humiliation and public scrutiny and they are victims of an actual CRIME. This lady is a victim of her own stupidity.

I view the guards who filmed and released this video as an entirely different subject than what this woman's problem is. Their punishment should not be based on the content of the video but if they violated any policies, laws, or agreements made to not release video unless authorized. The content of the video could be an empty hallway or someone doing donuts in their vehicles in the parking lots, and it should be judged in the same manner.

The only caveat to this video existing is if someone took this video in a place where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. In her house, in her yard surrounded by privacy fence, even a public restroom. But the corridors of a mall are in no way private and someone could have captured her stupidity on any recording device and released it.

If she's being harassed at work over this, that's yet another subject......but it probably doesn't fall any under illegal form...since I don't think your incompetence or stupidity is legally protected. She could quit, and if I were her employer I would hope she did...because she's a "work injury" claim waiting to happen.

How is it that people cannot defend themselves right now? We can still purchase a wide variety of weapons, including firearms. Do you need an RPG to protect your apartment?

I'm trying real hard to understand your moral vs. immoral approach to crimes. You seem to be claiming that it is immoral for the government (representatives of the collective public) to throw a person in prison for breaking the law. Tell me if I'm wrong, because I don't know how else to interpret that weird "stabbing you with a knife to quit smoking" example.

Incentivize people using fear and violence? What does that even mean? Fear is a good thing. Fear of consequences. Whether there is a government around or not, there will be consequences for actions. Either from a neutral party (like police and the courts) or from vigilantes (the family and friends of the victim). From my point of view, there's more violence in your proposed world.

Your entire argument is beginning to sound like "I can't smoke what I want where I want so let's burn this whole mutherfuker down!" and "I can't buy a guy without a three day waiting period so let's burn this whole mutherfuker down!"

You have no clue what would even happen if you got your way, and you act like we are crazy for defending a system that at least functions a little bit. We're not crazy, we have a pretty good idea how fucked up the world gets when there is no functioning government. It's like those African countries where they don't have any roads but they've all got AK-47's. Where entire villages get wiped out by roving mercenary gangs. Where hundred or thousands of women get raped and nobody does a damn thing about it. I don't want to live there, and I don't think you do either. It's fucking hell on earth, and you think everybody is suddenly going to start being nice to each other? Because there is no government to "incentivize violence"?

I'm trying real hard not to start throwing insults, so please tell me why you think I am wrong. Aside from allowing you to buy more weed and guns, how would a lack of government be better?


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^MaxWilder:
I think we're stuck on the word "prevent". Nothing can prevent crime, only discourage it and punish people who are caught committing crimes.
So the real question is: would your system do a better job discouraging people from harming one another? And when someone inevitably does, what happens when they are caught?
Currently, we have courts and police to discourage crime and attempt to punish those who commit crimes.
I see no alternative, other than vigilante justice, which in my humble opinion would suck balls. Please explain how it would be better!

Yes, "prevent" was the word dystopianfuturetoday scrawled above as some sort of ham-fisted challenge as if there's any proof the current system prevented anything. No law (no matter the number or the severity of the draconian punishment) will prevent a crime. If it did, then today we'd have no murder, no rape, theft, etc.
Would a voluntary society discourage crime? Maybe. Who knows. If you mean discouraging the more egregious crimes like murder and rape and theft, I feel confident it would help to allow people the right to self defense by allowing them to arm themselves if they chose to do so. I can guarantee a voluntary society would not have that horrible '3 strikes' rule we have here in California where receiving the third felony nets you a mandatory life sentence. Has it been successful in preventing or discouraging crime? I don't know, but people are still committing felonies.
The real difference is in having a moral vs. immoral approach to crimes. For instance, if you wanted to stop smoking I could come to your house and threaten you with a butcher knife. If I find you smoking then I stab you. Would that prevent you from smoking? Would that discourage you from smoking? And would that be moral even if I did in fact effectively stopped you from smoking?
Voluntary societies would morally deal with drug addicts, jaywalkers, etc. As long as people are not hurting others, then they won't be harmed. That's the motto. We don't want to incentivize people using fear and violence. We want to do it voluntarily.

>> ^MaxWilder:

I think we're stuck on the word "prevent". Nothing can prevent crime, only discourage it and punish people who are caught committing crimes.
So the real question is: would your system do a better job discouraging people from harming one another? And when someone inevitably does, what happens when they are caught?
Currently, we have courts and police to discourage crime and attempt to punish those who commit crimes.
I see no alternative, other than vigilante justice, which in my humble opinion would suck balls. Please explain how it would be better!


Yes, "prevent" was the word @dystopianfuturetoday scrawled above as some sort of ham-fisted challenge as if there's any proof the current system prevented anything. No law (no matter the number or the severity of the draconian punishment) will prevent a crime. If it did, then today we'd have no murder, no rape, theft, etc.

Would a voluntary society discourage crime? Maybe. Who knows. If you mean discouraging the more egregious crimes like murder and rape and theft, I feel confident it would help to allow people the right to self defense by allowing them to arm themselves if they chose to do so. I can guarantee a voluntary society would not have that horrible '3 strikes' rule we have here in California where receiving the third felony nets you a mandatory life sentence. Has it been successful in preventing or discouraging crime? I don't know, but people are still committing felonies.

The real difference is in having a moral vs. immoral approach to crimes. For instance, if you wanted to stop smoking I could come to your house and threaten you with a butcher knife. If I find you smoking then I stab you. Would that prevent you from smoking? Would that discourage you from smoking? And would that be moral even if I did in fact effectively stopped you from smoking?

Voluntary societies would morally deal with drug addicts, jaywalkers, etc. As long as people are not hurting others, then they won't be harmed. That's the motto. We don't want to incentivize people using fear and violence. We want to do it voluntarily.

@NetRunner, of course not. I think it's fair to say that the number of people willing to say, "fucking jaywalker needs to learn a lesson" are incredibly few if they exist at all, so I think we're treading in extreme absurdity land again.

I think involuntary manslaughter is a waste of human life as it is today. I don't think locking someone up for an accidental death is productive. First, it doesn't appropriately accommodate the damage party's family because the man behind bars cannot monetarily work off any debt he may owe to them. Secondly, his life is instantly wasted, he can no longer function as a productive member of society, and he becomes a tax burden.

Is that the way you think justice should work?

>> ^blankfist:
I'm saying if someone hits someone with their car, then, yes, they should be held accountable.

In your opinion, should it make a difference in the eyes of the law what the circumstances were? For example, should there be a difference in penalty for someone saying "fucking jaywalker needs to learn a lesson" and hitting him intentionally, or someone who tries his best to stop but can't?

If the jaywalker dies in both cases, and all that matters is property damages, then those two situations should be equivalent.

Is that the way you think justice should work?

@NetRunner, always with the extreme examples, you. Obviously him operating his store doesn't inflict physical harm on another person. Obviously hitting a jaywalker with your car does.

Absurdity, indeed.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, it's this theoretical bigot's store which is created from his labor. If the government can be used to force him to serve people he doesn't want to serve, then the government thereby owns and has a right to his labor.

My car is "created" from my labor. If the government can be used to force me to hit my brakes when people jaywalk, then the government thereby owns and has a right to my labor.

Absurdity, in the extreme.