The problem is when the law turns predatory. I've seen several attempts to imply that black people must be at fault for their own problems because they "commit more crimes" than other groups. But what's happening is the system is set up so that they can be arrested illegally just to make a quota, and then prosecutors can plea-bargain them out on some lesser charge or chose to have a trial they could never hope to afford to fight. The result is massive plea-outs that distort the actual crime rates while the courts, cops, bail bondsmen, prisons, and related services rake in hundreds of millions of dollars a year while keeping surplus labor off the market. If they tried these shakedown scams in affluent neighborhoods with lawyer money there would be outrage and the police station would be shut down.

White-collar criminals usually get off with reduced sentence for crimes that steal billions from taxpayers vs. some homeless guy who pees in an alley and gets locked up as a sex offender, but the Security State will confiscate the assets of Mom & Pop small businesses for making "suspicious deposits" when it's obvious no crime has been committed. Why is there a war on drugs? So they can raise money through price inflation, concentrate it dealer networks, and then take it when the scam is ripe knowing full well someone else in dire straits (who can't get a normal job because of a criminal record) will happily step up to fill the void in demand.

I get labelled anti-cop for pointing this stuff out, but what I'm trying to say is that cops have an impossible job. They are working under the assumption that their employment has something to do with public safety, but in reality they are forced to perform wealth extraction and enacting increasingly totalitarian policies as their efforts to make a safer society fail.

Telling someone to obey bad laws is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard and we've just had the FBI tell us why anyone else but Hillary Clinton would have been charged with a crime for what she did.

The law has been perverted and is of no use to obey when it is used to oppress the people. The people saying obey bad laws are the very same people that would rat out their Jewish neighbors to the gestapo were this 1939 Germany. All because their excuse will be, it's the law.

The problem is when the law turns predatory. I've seen several attempts to imply that black people must be at fault for their own problems because they "commit more crimes" than other groups. But what's happening is the system is set up so that they can be arrested illegally just to make a quota, and then prosecutors can plea-bargain them out on some lesser charge or chose to have a trial they could never hope to afford to fight. The result is massive plea-outs that distort the actual crime rates while the courts, cops, bail bondsmen, prisons, and related services rake in hundreds of millions of dollars a year while keeping surplus labor off the market. If they tried these shakedown scams in affluent neighborhoods with lawyer money there would be outrage and the police station would be shut down.

White-collar criminals usually get off with reduced sentence for crimes that steal billions from taxpayers vs. some homeless guy who pees in an alley and gets locked up as a sex offender, but the Security State will confiscate the assets of Mom & Pop small businesses for making "suspicious deposits" when it's obvious no crime has been committed. Why is there a war on drugs? So they can raise money through price inflation, concentrate it dealer networks, and then take it when the scam is ripe knowing full well someone else in dire straits (who can't get a normal job because of a criminal record) will happily step up to fill the void in demand.

I get labelled anti-cop for pointing this stuff out, but what I'm trying to say is that cops have an impossible job. They are working under the assumption that their employment has something to do with public safety, but in reality they are forced to perform wealth extraction and enacting increasingly totalitarian policies as their efforts to make a safer society fail.

Let's assume everything you just said is 100% true.

Given that, it doesn't justify failing to follow lawful commands of a Cop.  The street is the wrong place to assert your rights and the law's unfairness.  Like the saying goes, "Tell it to the judge."

Follow that simple hint, and I guarantee you won't get shot by a cop during a traffic stop.

how many of you drink beer or smoke tobacco in front of your kids? The only difference is that some people genuinely believe that laws are what establish morals in society. These very same stupid over reaches by government in to our lives are what creates the situations that give cops an excuse to pull people over create needless conflicts that end with dead people.

Ok.  Maybe I misunderstood.  I thought you were saying that YOU genuinely believe that laws establish morals in society. 

mor·al
ˈmôrəl/
adjective
adjective: moral

    1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
 
    2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.

noun
noun: moral; plural noun: morals

    1. a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.

    2. a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

I assumed you meant the noun in bold. 

laws aren't indicators of morals of a society. what is the morality of a law that makes people pay the city for driving faster than what is posted on a sign? what is the moral behind making one plant illegal while others are subsidized? what is the moral behind firearms registration? where are the morals in laws that fine the homeless for sleeping on the beach?

using these terrible immoral laws as a basis of saying the police are justified in shooting people that refuse to comply with these laws is the high of immorality. Saying someone is bad simply because they follow law #150872 is i no way a justification to give police the powers to shoot people.

All I was saying is that one should have morals, independent or even despite laws.  I was just saying that I didn't agree with your statement that you "believe that laws establish morals in society".  Or at least that's what it I thought you were saying. 

If a society determines that for instance gay marriage is unacceptable behavior, it will make laws to outlaw it.  What you personally feel is acceptable and unacceptable are independent of the laws.  Or if indeed "laws (do) establish morals in society", then if you lived in a society where there were laws that you disagreed with, you would say that your morals would be established/swayed by the laws of the land? 

Actually, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say in your ramblings.  I was in no way trying to say that "the police are justified in shooting people that refuse to comply with these laws".  I was just saying that we don't yet know all of the facts in the case of the Minnesota incident. 

The problem is when the law turns predatory. I've seen several attempts to imply that black people must be at fault for their own problems because they "commit more crimes" than other groups. But what's happening is the system is set up so that they can be arrested illegally just to make a quota, and then prosecutors can plea-bargain them out on some lesser charge or chose to have a trial they could never hope to afford to fight. The result is massive plea-outs that distort the actual crime rates while the courts, cops, bail bondsmen, prisons, and related services rake in hundreds of millions of dollars a year while keeping surplus labor off the market. If they tried these shakedown scams in affluent neighborhoods with lawyer money there would be outrage and the police station would be shut down.

So cops stopping black people is all an elaborate conspiracy to control how many people are out looking for a job?  That's a new one to me.

Plea bargains exist for an entirely different purpose but for starters, where is there evidence that cops are making illegal arrests of black people in any significant numbers? (much less any of the other things in your alleged conspiracy)

laws aren't indicators of morals of a society. what is the morality of a law that makes people pay the city for driving faster than what is posted on a sign?

Because engineers determine the safe speeds for roads given the conditions so that people don't drive too fast for the conditions and kill/hurt themselves or others. The fines themselves are not a morality issue, they are a deterrent. It gives the traffic regulation reason to be followed.

Because engineers determine the safe speeds for roads given the conditions so that people don't drive too fast for the conditions and kill/hurt themselves or others. The fines themselves are not a morality issue, they are a deterrent. It gives the traffic regulation reason to be followed.

If engineers were setting speeds with safety in mind no car would go faster than 10 mph. Speed limits are arbitrary and the fines behind them are nothing more than revenue generation, while the traffic stops that they require to issue the fines actually end up creating an even larger hazard on the roads. All these facts become very apparent when you look at how much safer the autobahn is than the highways in the US. To compound the idiocy of the existence of traffic violations even more, the court costs of contesting a traffic ticket end up costing more for the government than the violator would ever have to pay, even if the offender were to pay full value of the fine.

It's not a system to deter, it's a system set up to enforce the idea that you can't function without government telling you what you can or can't do.

You want to talk about costing the government money?  Lets talk about the cases where people crash and then sue the government. 

A driver is driving drunk (I don't recall the exact blood alcohol level, but it was well over 0.1%) in the early morning hours in Kapolei, crashes through the highway barrier and dies.  It is my understanding that the driver was doing something like 90+ in a zone that is either 50 or 55 mph.  Typically, for a posted speed of 55 mph, the design speed is something like 70-80 mph.  I would have to look at the AASHTO manual, but don't have one with me.  Anyways, the family sues the state with the argument that the engineers who designed the highway should have anticipated a given driver would be speeding and with the high likelihood that that that driver would be drunk.  It was well established that the driver's speed was well beyond the posted speed limit and beyond the design speed limit of the highway based on nationally accepted standards.  It is my understanding that no direct fault was found in the actual design of the highway based on nationally accepted standards.  Well, the jury found in favor of the family of the driver and stated that the state should have designed the highway to protect against driving in excess of 30 mph over the speed limit and drunk.  Well, guess when the law came about regarding excessive speed. . .  That and the release of movies like Fast and the Furious and video games like Gran Tourismo, but I digress. 

If engineers were setting speeds with safety in mind no car would go faster than 10 mph. Speed limits are arbitrary and the fines behind them are nothing more than revenue generation, while the traffic stops that they require to issue the fines actually end up creating an even larger hazard on the roads. All these facts become very apparent when you look at how much safer the autobahn is than the highways in the US. To compound the idiocy of the existence of traffic violations even more, the court costs of contesting a traffic ticket end up costing more for the government than the violator would ever have to pay, even if the offender were to pay full value of the fine.

It's not a system to deter, it's a system set up to enforce the idea that you can't function without government telling you what you can or can't do.

Nonsense. While I will agree that politicians certainly like the idea of revenue generation, that is not the main justification.

Yes, if safety were the only concern the limit would be 10mph but that isn't realistic. Not only would people not follow it but the negatives outweigh the positives. Drive along the Pali Hwy and look at the signs. The speeds go up and down depending on the condition of the road. This has nothing to do with revenue generation but about safe speeds to operate a vehicle at given the circumstances. Cops enforce it because otherwise many wouldn't bother to follow it.