Cop Tasers Woman Multiply Times.....

Semantics.

I once hit a pedestrian because she literally saw that I was preparing to make a legal right-on-red and decided to walk in front of my car. I'm fairly sure she was hoping for some huge payout. I didn't hit her hard enough to warrant more than some ibuprofen (thank you, gamer reflexes) and she was left disappointed. I was at fault since I hadn't imagined someone would be goddamned stupid enough to walk in front of a car that is pulled up to the curb and clearly preparing to turn. That's the technical definition of negligence. But it's not what I meant.

Without getting into the realities of what victims want again, I'll just say that my solution of rehabilitation is for first-time offenses. This is generally how the statutes are ordered, anyhow: for a huge majority of offenses, even ones that you think deserve immediate execution the moment someone is accused (seriously, you have no grasp of how badly you portray yourself), probation is the recommended sentence. It just needs to go further than that to try to mitigate or eliminate the likelihood of repeat offenses.

As to why: it's because I believe in redemption, forgiveness, and all those other things that Christians are supposed to care about but regularly don't. People make bad decisions, errors in judgment, and outright mistakes all the time. Why do you want to destroy them for it, even if they caused harm by it?

A classmate of mine from high school killed a man about a year after we graduated. I am unclear on the full details, but she backed her car over him. The court eventually ruled that she was not at fault but the guilt has left her broken to this day. I'm sure you feel the impulse to say she's suffered enough, but that impulse only seems to appear after you've heard the specifics. You seem to imagine that all crimes committed are cold-blooded attempts to destroy lives and burn the world. Sadly, most convicted criminals are not corporate CEOs and high-ranking Republican politicians, so could we perhaps move past the "All criminals are inherently evil" mentality?

I guarantee you have broken the law several dozen times, both knowingly and in ignorance. My mother prides herself on never having had even a traffic ticket on her record and I have to kindly point out that she breaks the speed limit regularly and simply hasn't been buzzed for it. The laws of our society are deeply flawed, unequally applied, and subject to much interpretation. Again, thank goodness you're not a jurist.

Assuming someone deliberately committed an act they knew to be wrong, yes.

I'll admit that I have considerably less sympathy for white collar crimes like fraud and embezzlement because the motivation behind those is usually naked greed. And not every crime is equal. Someone who kidnaps and rapes women may be redeemable, but probably not considering the severe level of sadism involved in that sort of thing. Someone who punches a cop after starting a drunken scuffle in a bar is a rather different situation.

Considering the content of the OP, I really wonder why people are so quick to assume that all crimes are worthy of the worst possible punishment. A woman is belligerent (which is hardly surprising after she's been hit by another driver) and frustrated with arbitrary police bureaucracy, so she is now going to trial. Knowing the details, I doubt anyone wants to see her locked up for 90 days, but that's a possibility if she is found guilty and seems to be how you guys conceptualize all crime: the person accused IS guilty and DESERVES the worst possible response. Even though the harsh punishments don't do any good.

So, yeah, I'm a bleeding-heart. I'll continue to argue that's better than salivating for vengeance.

If this is what I've represented, then I have poorly portrayed myself through zeal and I am upset with myself for doing so.

I am saying, however, that those committed in said cold-blood are those that need punished severely and I'm not going to let up from that. Things done in cold blood, things don't with a lust for violence of dominance, or with naked greed and with deliberate disregard for another's well being...I don't find these things redeemable.


I agree that many laws are problematic. But I'm not talking about misdemeanors and moving violations. I am fully on board with you for lesser violations. Even DUI, I still think fines or driver's licenses being revoked is the proper course of action, but true counselling and education would trump AA meetings.

I've been to AA meetings with relatives who were in AA. Many of them actually inadvertently glorify drinking. They're terrible. They've worked for my relatives, but I think that's confirmation bias in the realm of reporting success; they needed/wanted to quit anyhow.

As far as the OP, she's an idiot. The cop is probably a little over-aggressive, but if she hadn't been an idiot she wouldn't have received that response. Live and learn for her.

I agree. Do you know how few cases appear before a judge that remotely reach that criterion? Law & Order would not make compelling television if it covered the hundreds and thousands of boring, routine cases.

At issue is these really don't do anything.

I was in a car going to a jobsite on Tuesday. The driver was highly distracted and blowing up in anger every 10 seconds. He eventually decided to go 90+ MPH down the highway to drag race with a co-worker, weaving in and out of traffic. I was sitting in the back seat praying to every god I don't believe in because I was very certain I was going to wind up in the hospital or morgue.

As we pulled up back at our home office, he pulled out a certificate showing he had recently completed his remedial driving course and would be eligible to get his license back in a few weeks. Taking away his license really did a lot, don't you think?

It is a testament to my self-control that he is still breathing.

Are you at your best after being struck by another vehicle? 'cause I know I'm not, and I have to work really hard to reach the emotional response levels most normal people hit immediately.

Actually, the one time I did get hit by another driver (I was in a car), there were three cops within a block of us and not a one stopped. It took over half an hour to get a cop out to us who knew how to fill out a crash report (the first to show up was a drug detective in the local projects). I was livid by the time these doughnut-munching shitheads finally rolled up, especially since it was at 5 PM on the main thoroughfare of the city.

Pedestrian Right of Way doesn't trump all though. Some people believe it does (which results in jay walking which results in death or injury, or other such physical and emotional trauma)

No matter the rehabilitation, if there is no means, want, or desire to succeed (or if the program, like AA, isn't designed to succeed in the first place) they won't work.

Forced rehabilitation can, and has worked, due to the necessity of progress reports, much like educational standard reporting periods, only to a Justice of the Peace, or a Parole officer, or halfway house administrator.

Then again, as large a person as I am, will remove myself from the path of a vehicle. Unless it's a "Smart Car", because that's more like a nerdy oversized toy, that I want to flip over every time I see one.

When a person gets angry, for whatever reason, their true self emerges, or so the theory goes.

It trumps most things... If a vehicle strikes a person here 99% of the time the driver will be found at fault.

Yeah, there's a reason why the cop on the scene charged me with a minor crime that was sorted out with a fine of around $150. I was still technically at fault, but the circumstances (not least of which was the woman in question saying, "I knew he was gonna turn but I went anyway" -- because she was dumb as a post and thought that would make me look more guilty) dictated a rather limited amount of culpability.

Anger isn't a disinhibitor. Adrenaline is not someone's "true self."

You're thinking of drunkenness.

The theory is that Humanity is multi-faceted, and will show only roughly 10% of themselves, at any given time, unless something happens that breaks the static dynamic.

Joy
Happiness
Sadness
Depression
Anger

All of these and more. Because some people react more quickly to some situations, and react differently, we only see what others are willing to show us, or are forced to show us, when they lose control of their thoughts and emotions.

Which is why so many hide behind the anonymity of the web to showcase their thoughts.

Not nearly enough make it there. A lot of rapes fit into this category for me. I'm not a blind believer in the concept that every last person who says they've been raped was -- false reports certainly do happen when it comes to someone pretending to be a victim to "get back" at someone or come up with a good reason to explain their pregnancy -- but I also believe that rape and abuse of people of all ages happens, and that it permanently scars people and deserves far harsher punishment than it receives in our country.

By Gob this is so far off topic.

Throwing it in Spoilers as such.

I could go into about a dozen different discussions based on what you just wrote. I won't, at least not in this context. Suffice that things get so complex when you start looking at them that even something that seems as black-and-white as deliberate abuse gets very grey very fast.

It's difficult for me to say. I am in far greater control of my temper than I was as a youth. While I may swear at people on the highway who annoy me, I haven't "lost" my temper in a very, very long time. And I was raised to have great respect for authority figures -- teachers, police, etc. -- which is why, I suppose, I constantly give them the benefit of the doubt in situations like these.

If I'm somehow out of sorts because of an incident such as this, my impulse is to go ahead and listen to the authoritative third party to whom I've been conditioned to listen to my entire life. And as I've had no poor experiences of my own with said figures, I've had no reason not to do this.