[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Watching The Cops See other Watching The Cops Articles Title: Milwaukee police officer dies after shooting on north side Source: WISN 12 URL Source: http://www.wisn.com/article/milwauk ... t-on-citys-north-side/22553707 Published: Jul 25, 2018 Author: Staff Post Date: 2018-07-26 06:44:04 by Gatlin Keywords: None Views: 4503 Comments: 22 Comment by Gatlin: Since the start of 2018, at least 51 law enforcement officers across the U.S. have died while on duty -- with 30 of the deaths caused by gunfire. Roughly 135 cops died in 2016, making it the deadliest year for police officers in at least five years, Fox News has found. While there were fewer deaths in 2017, the numbers weren’t much better: a total of 129 officers died last year. And 46 of those were caused by gunfire. Tragically, a Milwaukee police officer has died following a shooting just after 5 p.m. yesterday in the city's north side Metcalfe Park neighborhood, according to the Milwaukee Police Department....increasing the number of deaths caused by gunfire to 31 this year. Milwaukee police officer dies after shooting on north side. "I'm sad to inform you that one of the officers involved did not make it today," Milwaukee Police Chief Alfonso Morales said. Officers were looking for man near North 28th and West Wright streets who was wanted on gun and drug violations. When they approached the suspect at a residence, the suspect shot at the officers, Morales said. Police said they have the suspect in custody, and the weapon was recovered. The suspect was not shot, police said. The fallen officer, a 17-year veteran of the force, was a member of the Special Investigations Division. Police said they will not release his name until Thursday. "Words cannot describe the sorrow and anger I feel at this moment," Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said. A procession of officers escorted the fallen officer's body Wednesday night from Froedtert Hospital to the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner's Office. At 9th and State streets, officers and firefighters lined the street in front of the police administration building, saluting. The last time a Milwaukee police officer was fatally shot while on duty was on Sept. 7, 1996, when Officer Wendolyn Tanner, 29, was killed. This is the first time since 1994 that two Milwaukee police officers have died in the line of duty. Officer Charles Irvine Jr., 23, was killed June 7 in a crash during a chase. "My heartfelt condolences to the family, friends and fellow officers who today suffered the loss of a beloved Milwaukee Police Department officer. Our community mourns once again at this tragic loss of life. May God's comfort be felt in this most difficult moment," Milwaukee County Sheriff Richard Schmidt said in a statement. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 21. #1. To: Gatlin (#0) Roughly 135 cops died in 2016, making it the deadliest year for police officers in at least five years, Fox News has found. More US police officers killed in 2016 – but number still below 10-year average Tough break for the Milwaukee cop who was killed, but he knew the risks going in. Still - being a cop is less dangerous than so many other occupations. 14. Police and sheriff’s patrol officers Deckard  posted on  2018-07-26   7:41:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: Deckard (#1) Still - being a cop is less dangerous than so many other occupations. A couple hours ago, an Arizona state trooper was shot dead and another wounded on Interstate 10. We will soon learn their names and perhaps you can send their family members your message that “being a cop is less dangerous than so many other occupations.” Although I fear that message will be of no consolation to them. You really need to stop your radical FUCKING WAR on cops....you cop-hating libertarian SOB. Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-26   9:23:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: Gatlin (#9) You really need to stop your radical FUCKING WAR on cops....you cop-hating libertarian SOB. Parsons is angry my friends...like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli. Piss off fascist - I hate the corrupt cops. In fact I have posted several "good cops" articles. Here's the latest: Good Cop Charges Police Chief with a Felony and Is Immediately Fired Deckard  posted on  2018-07-26   9:30:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: Deckard (#11) You really need to stop your radical FUCKING WAR on cops....you cop-hating libertarian SOB. Parsons is angry my friends...like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli. Piss off fascist - I hate the corrupt cops. In fact I have posted several "good cops" articles. I am not angry. I simply find you to be another repulsive libertarian who wants everyone on drugs and all cops dead. Don’t you dare try to mask your true feeling and motives by saying you ONLY hate corrupt cops. That’s pure BULLSHIT. You posts and your lack of compassion shows your true feeling and intentions. You are really one SORRY piece of humanity. May God help you … Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-26   9:44:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: Gatlin (#15) (Edited) You posts and your lack of compassion... Compassion? He chose the job. I feel for his family though. I simply find you to be another repulsive libertarian who wants everyone on drugs and all cops dead. Please post a link to where I made either of those statements. Oh, you can't? You are full of shit then. Like I said - I have posted numerous good cops stories. As far as drugs - adults should be free to make their own choices. You on the other hand believe in total government control of our lives. Deckard  posted on  2018-07-26   10:02:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: Deckard (#16) As far as drugs - adults should be free to make their own choices. I see. T The guy who killed a trooper and wounded another “should be free to have made his own choice” and that choice being to walk in and out of traffic on Interstate 10 while throwing things at cars. If “drugees “can’t control their actions while on drugs, and we have yet another case here on I-10 where one could not….then I have no problem with the drugs being controlled to prevent future murderous actions by more “drugees”. You are SICK … Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-26   10:41:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: Gatlin (#19) As far as drugs - adults should be free to make their own choices. The guy who killed a trooper and wounded another “should be free to have made his own choice” and that choice being to walk in and out of traffic on Interstate 10 while throwing things at cars. So...smoking a little ganja in the privacy of your own home is tantamount to killing a trooper. OK - got it. What a deluded simpleton you are. then I have no problem with the drugs being controlled to prevent future murderous actions by more “drugees”. Of course you will extend your crusade to those who use the deadly drug alcohol, right? Deckard  posted on  2018-07-26   11:18:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 21. #22. To: Deckard (#21) So...smoking a little ganja in the privacy of your own home is tantamount to killing a trooper. OK - got it. Nope, you don’t “got” it. Filling your body with drugs anywhere….then walking in and out of traffic on and Interstate and killing one trooper and wounding another is incomprehensible. It is absolutely impossible to understand how you can condone and support the unbridled use of substances that separates families, fosters violence, and destroys communities. Paraphrasing: The libertarian version of freedom should not be just the essential ability to do something when you want to…it must be the ability to act under the influence and guidance of correctly functioning cognitive faculties. If you value freedom, then you should stand in opposition to the legalization of, and unbridled use of, recreational drugs. The Libertarian Case for Drug Prohibition Many libertarians argue that we should legalize recreational drugs in the name of freedom and personal autonomy. Drug prohibition, they argue, infringes on personal freedom by denying individuals the liberty to do what they want with their own bodies. This is mistaken. In fact, it is drug legalization that infringes on freedom. Drug prohibition, not legalization, is the real pro-liberty position. Let me explain. The Foundations of Freedom All should agree that one of the essential responsibilities of government is to protect and promote personal freedom. To that end, governments have an interest in restricting activities that impair, destroy, or otherwise undermine personal freedom. Now, freedom cannot flourish unless certain background conditions are met. Consider an analogy with markets. If a government wants to protect and promote markets, then it must safeguard the conditions that make a market economy possible. These conditions include the protection of life, exchange, contracts, and private property. Without these prerequisites in place, it would be all but impossible for markets to flourish. The same is true of freedom. If the government has a responsibility to protect and promote freedom, then it must also protect and promote the conditions that make it possible. On this point, one essential ingredient of personal freedom is rationality. Choices can only be free if they are made by a person whose cognitive faculties are functioning in the right way. Reason confers on our actions a certain order and intelligibility that make them explicable and coherent. It is what makes our actions ours, such that we are responsible for them. Our ability to act freely is diminished or destroyed if we are unable to deliberate and think coherently, or if we are subject to overwhelming coercive forces. In other words, freedom isn’t just the bare ability to do something; it is the ability to act under the influence of properly functioning cognitive faculties. This point is pivotal in making sense of the legal concepts of consent, coercion, and competence. Young children are unable to enter into legally binding contracts because their cognitive capacities are not fully developed. Likewise, insanity defenses are based on the understanding that cognitively disabled or insane persons cannot be held criminally liable for their actions. There cannot be freedom without rationality. Accordingly, since the government has a responsibility to protect personal freedom, it must also protect and promote a culture that is conducive to clear thinking and discourages impaired thinking. The government, therefore, has a responsibility to restrict activities that impair, destroy, or otherwise undermine clear thinking. Recreational Drug Use Undermines Freedom Recreational drug use interferes with clear thinking. The very activity is centered around the consumption of an intoxicating substance that impairs one’s cognition. The whole point is to impair one’s ability to think clearly, which in turn impairs one’s ability to act freely. Thus, recreational drugs should be legally restricted because their use is incompatible with the vision of a freedom-respecting liberal state. There are two ways in which drugs affect cognition. First, there are the immediate effects of consuming certain drugs. The immediate effects of hallucinogens such as LSD and PCP include rapid mood swings, delusions, hallucinations, paranoia, and a distorted sense of time and self. Heroin produces euphoria followed by nausea and clouded mental functioning. The immediate effects of marijuana—which is often heralded as a “safe” drug—include anxiety, dysphoria and paranoia, altered judgment, cognitive impairment, and psychomotor impairment. Second, there are the long-term effects of drug use. Many drugs have addictive effects that impair the freedom of drug users by exerting a powerful influence over their future actions. Drug addicts who become physically and psychologically dependent on drugs have their sense of self-control diminished or even destroyed. These addictive effects can bleed into other areas of an addict’s life, affecting his ability to work, learn, care for himself, interact with others, and form relationships. They may impel him to act destructively in order to fuel his addiction, thereby affecting the freedom of others besides himself. Opponents of drug legalization typically focus on the long-term effects of drug use and their spillover effects to third parties, specifically children and teenagers. These are very serious concerns, to be sure, but the immediate effects of drug use are by themselves enough to show that recreational drug use is intrinsically antithetical to the good of freedom and personal autonomy. The opponent of legalization need not appeal to third party spillover effects to make his case. Let’s sum up the argument so far. One of the government’s chief responsibilities is to protect and promote freedom. In order to do this, it must also protect and promote the underlying conditions that make freedom possible, one of these being clarity of thought. The government therefore has an interest in cultivating a culture that encourages clear thinking and discourages impaired thinking. Since recreational drug use impairs the user’s ability to reason, governments should therefore enact legal restrictions on recreational drugs. In other words, if you value freedom, then you should oppose the legalization of recreational drugs. Drug Prohibition: Myths and Realities So far I’ve been defending drug restrictions. But the term “restriction” is vague. What kind of restrictions should the government adopt? Answer: the government should prohibit those substances that have no legitimate use aside from recreation. In addition to making them difficult to obtain, prohibition serves to drive up the cost of drugs, which in turn reduces demand by making it more expensive. It’s simply a matter of supply and demand: the more expensive you make something, the less willing people are to buy it. The added threat of legal punishment also serves to drive down demand. Conversely, if something is cheap, legal, and widely available, then people are more inclined to buy it. Drug legalization would make drugs both cheaper and more available, which in turn increases use. A 2015 study in the Journal of Health Economics found that medical marijuana laws increase marijuana use in both adults and adolescents. In adults aged 21 and older, the frequency of binge drinking also increased. Similarly, a 2017 study published in JAMA Psychiatry found that “medical marijuana laws appear to have contributed to increased prevalence of illicit cannabis use and cannabis use disorders.” Increased availability is also associated with increased use of other drugs, including alcohol. Prohibition makes drugs more expensive and less available, which in turn reduces drug use. Alcohol prohibition, which many think ended in failure, actually reduced per capita alcohol consumption by about 30 to 50 percent. Cirrhosis death rates, admissions to state mental hospitals for alcohol psychosis, and arrests for drunk and disorderly conduct also declined dramatically. While is true that alcohol prohibition did ultimately fail, it failed for political reasons. In terms of reducing alcohol use, prohibition was a success. And given that excessive alcohol consumption impairs clear thinking (in addition to the $250 billion annual cost that it imposes on the nation), it is worth asking whether we should bring back some form of stringent alcohol regulation for reasons considered earlier. Of course, not all drugs are used recreationally. Alcohol can be consumed as a mild social lubricant without the intention to get drunk. But this is not true of marijuana, as the whole point of non-medical marijuana use is to get high (and, as we will see, most cases of so-called “medical” use are indistinguishable from recreational use). Nobody smokes a joint wanting to avoid the high. So too with heroin, cocaine, and other drugs. These drugs would be the target of prohibition, since their paradigmatic use is abuse, unlike alcohol. It is true that there will still be some who will go through the effort to illegally obtain drugs even if prohibition is enacted. Perfect compliance, however, isn't the standard of success when it comes to lawmaking. Laws against murder, assault, and theft don’t stop all of these crimes, but nobody is proposing that we legalize these things. Where Libertarians Go Wrong Where many libertarians go wrong in their support for drug legalization is in their conception of freedom. If we think of freedom as just the bare ability to make choices, then it is understandable why one might think that drug restrictions infringe on personal freedom, since such restrictions do limit our ability to make a range of choices. But not all choices are worth respecting. As I noted earlier, we cannot respect freedom without also respecting the conditions that make freedom possible. One such condition is the preservation and maintenance of properly functioning cognitive faculties. The free choices we should respect, therefore, cannot seek to undermine this condition. Since recreational drug use seeks to undermine clear thinking, the choice to partake in such an activity should not be respected. This is not, as some liberal political theorists might object, to adopt a “moralized” conception of freedom. Rather, what is being appealed to are structural conditions needed to make sense of respecting freedom under any conception of the good life. Indeed, it would be bizarre to argue that the state’s goal of promoting freedom is served by allowing its citizens to impair their own freedom. The initial decision to engage in recreational drug use may be free, but the end result is the diminution of freedom. One cannot realize his freedom by suppressing it, any more than one can become healthy by becoming ill. The idea that recreational drug use can be justified by an appeal to freedom or liberty is thus self-defeating in the same way that drinking seawater to remedy thirst is counterproductive to its own goal. Some argue that there is a moral right to use drugs that is derived from our right of ownership over our own bodies. According to libertarian philosopher Michael Huemer, “it is hard to see how anyone who believes in rights at all could deny that . . . drug use, considered merely as altering the user’s body and mind, is an example of the exercise of one’s rights over one’s own body and mind.” There are numerous problems with Huemer’s argument. For one, it does not follow from the fact that one owns himself that his rights over his own body are absolute and unlimited. Many philosophical traditions have held that we have duties of self- respect to ourselves, such as duties to preserve our own health and personal integrity, and to develop our talents. If there are such duties, then they would seem to count against a moral entitlement to debase one’s cognitive functioning. Appeals to bodily autonomy hinge on the background moral theory we adopt, and Huemer’s conception of self-ownership is no different. Huemer presupposes a controversial philosophical anthropology that needs to be justified, and he does not give us any reason why we should accept it. Nor will it do to argue, as some libertarians do, that the defender of drug prohibition must also be committed to bans on fatty foods, soft drinks, and the like. The argument I have given here pertains only to activities that are intrinsically destructive to clear thinking, which unhealthy foods (which typically are only unhealthy when consumed excessively) do not affect. So this objection simply doesn’t apply. What about Medical Marijuana? My focus has been on recreational drug use, but it is worth briefly discussing so- called “medical” applications of drugs (specifically marijuana), since these are wedge issues that many pro-legalization advocates exploit to sneak in full recreational legalization. There is research showing that cannabis or cannabinoids can help with pain management, nausea and vomiting, and multiple sclerosis spasticity. However, this same research has also found strong evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids can negatively affect respiratory health, lead to the development of schizophrenia or other psychoses, and increase one’s risk of being in a motor vehicle crash. So the putative benefits of marijuana must be weighed against the negative health effects of marijuana use. Additionally, there isn’t really an essential need for medical marijuana, given that there are plenty of other medicines that can address the ailments that marijuana may help with. Thus, while I am open in principle to allowing certain kinds of medical marijuana (provided that it go through the same rigorous process by which other medicines are approved), it would appear to be unnecessary. And, given the health risks of marijuana, it would be ill-advised and reckless to legalize marijuana under the guise of medicine. Indeed, medical marijuana is ripe for abuse. In states with medical marijuana programs, the overwhelming majority of medical marijuana users are young male adults who claim “pain” as the reason for which they need marijuana. Only a tiny percentage use marijuana for other reasons. Pain, of course, is a very vague reason that is easy to fake, so it provides an avenue for recreational users to obtain marijuana under the false banner of medicine. It seems then that medical marijuana programs provide a smokescreen for recreational use that amounts to de facto legalization. So there is a case to be made for extending drug prohibition to so-called medical marijuana. The Bottom Line To be clear, the argument I’ve offered here is not that recreational drug use should be restricted because it is unhealthy or immoral. Rather it is that recreational drug use impairs and undermines the conditions for freedom, and so the legalization of recreational drugs is incompatible with the vision of a freedom-respecting state. As John Stuart Mill said, “the principle of freedom cannot require that [one] should be free not to be free. It is not freedom, to be allowed to alienate his freedom.” A society that values freedom must cultivate a culture that encourages clear thinking and discourages impaired thinking. For that reason, recreational drugs should be legally prohibited. Libertarians, therefore, should stand opposed to drug legalization. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/01/20650/

Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-26 12:36:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]