7000 Citizens Violently Threatened By The State Of Indiana, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 38 times

reply posted on 24-8-2010 @ 08:51 PM by truthquest

Originally posted by Demoncreeper

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Demoncreeper

So threatening arrest of debtors does not involve violence?

I have a hard time following your logic.

So if I refused to pay, the police should hand me a lollipop and tell me I'm a bad person?

No. Being arrested means your rights are being temporarily deprived for a reason you caused. If you understand and comply with directions, no violence is required on either party.

There are two very big points of disagreement I have with that. Firstly, arrests should generally never said to be caused by the person being arrested until after they have been declared guilty in a court of law. Secondly, the act of physically restraining someone is a violent act. If you don't believe me, physically restrain the next person you see on the street and then tell them you are not doing anything violent against them and watch their reaction. Some acts of violence are justified. Others are not.

reply posted on 24-8-2010 @ 09:27 PM by Demoncreeper

Originally posted by truthquest

There are two very big points of disagreement I have with that. Firstly, arrests should generally never said to be caused by the person being arrested until after they have been declared guilty in a court of law. Secondly, the act of physically restraining someone is a violent act. If you don't believe me, physically restrain the next person you see on the street and then tell them you are not doing anything violent against them and watch their reaction. Some acts of violence are justified. Others are not.

1) Really? So what, we just say " Hey dude, you should probably go to court, cause your breaking the law"?

Here: Just so you know a little (Canadian Version):

Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. Charter s.9.

The Criminal Code protects the liberty of suspects. For all but the most serious offences, the law discourages you from arresting offenders. If you do arrest, the law encourages you release suspects with the least restrictions necessary. However, you may arrest suspects and may release on restrictions in order to:

1. establish the identity of the suspect,
2. secure or preserve evidence of or relating to the offence,
3. prevent the continuation or repetition of the offence,
4. prevent the commission of another offence,
5. ensure the suspect will attend court.

You should really figure out and understand how the powers of arrest work in your country and why they exist.

2) Yes, physically restraining can be violent. But arresting doesn't necessarily mean physically restraining, unless the person under arrest decides it should be. That is a choice made by the "suspect" being arrested.

To stay on topic,
Pay your taxes.

reply posted on 24-8-2010 @ 10:04 PM by truthquest

Originally posted by Demoncreeper

Originally posted by truthquest

There are two very big points of disagreement I have with that. Firstly, arrests should generally never said to be caused by the person being arrested until after they have been declared guilty in a court of law. Secondly, the act of physically restraining someone is a violent act. If you don't believe me, physically restrain the next person you see on the street and then tell them you are not doing anything violent against them and watch their reaction. Some acts of violence are justified. Others are not.

1) Really? So what, we just say " Hey dude, you should probably go to court, cause your breaking the law"?

No, you should arrest people in whatever cases that is necessary. But you should do this knowing there there is a 51% chance or better they are the one who has caused it and a 49% chance or lower they actually did not cause their arrest. They probably caused it, but you don't know that until the verdict and even then of course there can be error either way (such as guilty people going free or innocent people with a guilty verdict).

If you arrest someone and later the charges are dropped then there is a good chance that you are the one who caused the arrest, not them. Everyone makes mistakes, which is why we have judges and juries rather than just dishing out punishments on the spot.

2) Yes, physically restraining can be violent. But arresting doesn't necessarily mean physically restraining, unless the person under arrest decides it should be. That is a choice made by the "suspect" being arrested.

True, but much of the time it is absolutely and only the threat of violence which is what gets them to comply with the law.

To stay on topic,
Pay your taxes.

I'd encourage people not to pay US Federal taxes. It is worse than wasting money. They use it to KILL people and make pointless wars. If you object to pointless wars and death, don't pay your taxes. I'm such an advocate of this that if they were to tax my income I'd simply make less money on purpose just so they couldn't have any of it.

And even at the local level a lot of the time money is use to kidnap and cage people for victimless crimes, so consider not paying that either depending on what your government is up to.

Either taxes is voluntary, or it is theft and therefore not really taxes but rather extortion. The law must act within the letter of their own law or they are not the law at all but a band of mafia thugs in a state of "anarchy" (chaos).

reply posted on 24-8-2010 @ 10:07 PM by The Sword

reply to post by mnemeth1

No thanks. Every time privatization of ANYTHING is mentioned in the U.S, it's a bad thing.

I mean, literally.

reply posted on 24-8-2010 @ 10:23 PM by blood0fheroes

reply to post by 12m8keall2c

You sir, intentionally or not, come across as an apologist. As well as Demoncreeper.

What the OP is attempting to do here through the mildest exaggeration of terms, is to show plainly the violence inherent in the current system. He is correct in assessing "how it used to be". Originally, the system was thus because they government could not possibly grow beyond the parameters given to it, when it's whole sustenance was given to it through tariff and voluntary contribution.

Today, however, this is not the case. Tax code states that all federal taxes are voluntary;; however this means two different things depending on who you get your definition from.
Im sure that to you and I, "voluntary" means given of ones own free will, without threat of force.
To the government, "voluntary" has a slightly different meaning. It means, you "volunteer" to give up the product of your labor in order to avoid unpleasantness...
I.E., you give it to us, or we will take it from you. Please, dont take my word for it, go ask a tax lawyer.

Also, because this is now the "norm" on the federal level, it has become so at the state level. This still does not in any way, make it right.

How exactly is this any different from a mob enforcer saying to you, this? : "Well I hope for your sake that you can come up with the protection fund, 'cause Bruno here really doesnt wanna break your thumbs....but if you cant pay he wont have a choice, and you'll have no one to blame but yourself".

reply posted on 24-8-2010 @ 10:23 PM by backwherewestarted

Threads like this and people like the OP make me laugh.

Pay your taxes.

reply posted on 24-8-2010 @ 10:34 PM by Demoncreeper

Originally posted by truthquest

I'd encourage people not to pay US Federal taxes. It is worse than wasting money. They use it to KILL people and make pointless wars. If you object to pointless wars and death, don't pay your taxes. I'm such an advocate of this that if they were to tax my income I'd simply make less money on purpose just so they couldn't have any of it.

And even at the local level a lot of the time money is use to kidnap and cage people for victimless crimes, so consider not paying that either depending on what your government is up to.

Either taxes is voluntary, or it is theft and therefore not really taxes but rather extortion. The law must act within the letter of their own law or they are not the law at all but a band of mafia thugs in a state of "anarchy" (chaos).

Proof please. I can't wait.

And also, I'm Canadian. My government uses my tax money WAY more responsibly. Bwahaha.

Again:

" The Criminal Code protects the liberty of suspects. For all but the most serious offences, the law discourages you from arresting offenders. If you do arrest, the law encourages you release suspects with the least restrictions necessary."

See above.

Your taxes not only fund the black ops, but the white ops. Like building schools, funding hospitals, fixing roads, keeping your street lights on so the boogey men don't get you and you don't have to call the tax paid "thug" rule enforcers to protect you.

Have your opinion. It can't be wrong if you believe it.

reply posted on 24-8-2010 @ 10:50 PM by theWCH

Originally posted by Demoncreeper
Your taxes not only fund the black ops, but the white ops. Like building schools, funding hospitals, fixing roads, keeping your street lights on so the boogey men don't get you and you don't have to call the tax paid "thug" rule enforcers to protect you.

Have your opinion. It can't be wrong if you believe it.

I live in one of the most poverty-stricken cities in the most poverty-stricken city in the USA. Bluntly: we don't receive most of those services. The hospital is notorious for it's death rate, the roads are being reverted to gravel, and a large number of street lights don't actually work.

Most of the country isn't this bad, but my general sentiment is that the government (local, state, and federal) is -- at a minimum -- using tax dollars inadequately.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by theWCH]

reply posted on 24-8-2010 @ 10:54 PM by mnemeth1

Originally posted by backwherewestarted
Threads like this and people like the OP make me laugh.

Pay your taxes.

Ben appreciates your support.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply posted on 24-8-2010 @ 11:20 PM by Redwookieaz

I for one always appreciate the posts the OP comes up with. They are informative well intentioned and logical. Which is more than I can say for 90% of the posts/threads the rest of you come up with.

Also I'll start voluntarily paying taxes the day they come close to being a representative body for the republic in which I live. They don't come close to that. They are a body of oligarchist/fascist henchmen pushing an elite agenda that is only interested in my enslavement.

You just keep paying them to take away your rights genius. I know better.

reply posted on 24-8-2010 @ 11:44 PM by Kurotachi

they take taxes out when i get every paycheck and take taxes out of everything that i buy so they are getting their taxes from me already i will not pay more taxes at the end of the year so i will not file and i have not for 3 years now so come and arrest me i dont give a flying frick... your not scamming me 3 and 4 times for the things you already get from me twice and multiple times....

reply posted on 24-8-2010 @ 11:54 PM by mnemeth1

reply to post by Kurotachi

You can expect a visit from this guy shortly.

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 12:22 AM by Lightrule

reply to post by Demoncreeper

Demoncreeper, hello! I have a couple things to say that might be of interest to you since you seem to be some sort of "policy enforcement officer" with talks of you arresting people...

Firstly you gave the definition of arrest earlier but just for those that are new I'll post it again here, I'm using my legal dictionary, are you?

arrest
v. 1) to take or hold a suspected criminal with legal authority, as by a law enforcement officer. An arrest may be made legally based on a warrant issued by a court after receiving a sworn statement of probable cause to believe there has been a crime committed by this person, for an apparent crime committed in the presence of the arresting officer, or upon probable cause to believe a crime has been committed by that person. Once the arrest has been made, the officer must give the arrestee his/her rights ("Miranda rights") at the first practical moment, and either cite the person to appear in court or bring him/her in to jail. A person arrested must be brought before a judge for arraignment in a short time (e.g. within two business days), and have his/her bail set. A private "security guard" cannot actually arrest someone except by citizen's arrest, but can hold someone briefly until a law officer is summoned. A "citizen's arrest" can be made by any person when a crime has been committed in his/her presence. However, such self-help arrests can lead to lawsuits for "false arrest" if proved to be mistaken, unjustified or involving unnecessary holding.
2) to delay the enforcement of a judgment by a judge while errors in the record are corrected.

As you can read here, everything involving arrest has to do with another magic word, crime. Lets define crime next;

crime
n. a violation of a law in which there is injury to the public or a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible penalties. There is some sentiment for excluding from the "crime" category crimes without victims, such as consensual acts, or violations in which only the perpetrator is hurt or involved such as personal use of illegal drugs.

Now I must ask, what injury did these 7000 people inflict? To whom? Lets define injury:

injury
n. any harm done to a person by the acts or omissions of another. Injury may include physical hurt as well as damage to reputation or dignity, loss of a legal right or breach of contract. If the party causing the injury was either willful (intentionally causing harm) or negligent then he/she is responsible (liable) for payment of damages for the harm caused. Theoretically, potential or continuing injury may be prevented by an order of the court upon a petition for an injunction.

Ahhh! Aaaaha! Any harm done to a person! I think I'm onto something here... If I were to call this supposed injured person to the stand as a witness to the crime that was committed against them who would come to the stand? With what injury? Wouldn't anyone claiming to represent "the crown/government/state" just be acting on hearsay? Does the judge not represent the government/state/crown? Is this not a conflict of interest?

I also want to ask you (as well as any other policy enforcers out there):

Did you go to law school to be a "Law Enforcement Officer"? The answer is probably a big fat NO.
So then I must ask, what makes you think you know the law well enough to enforce it?

"I'm just doing my job sir/ma'am" is getting pretty pathetic these days.
"The lawyers and judges will sort it out" - If you don't even understand why you have arrested the person then why have you arrested the person?
This is why people are getting sick of the sick twisted system. Its all coming crashing down and people are waking up. The more the merrier I say!

-Lightrule

All definitions copied from dictionary.law.com...

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 12:35 AM by ohsnaptruth

nice to see indiana draining the money from it's citizens when they're already facing the illegalimigrantproblem
war
resession
taxincreases
schoolsopeningforchildren
SocialSecurity
the$900billionbailouts
debtpertaxpayerbeing$120,000
U.S.debtis$13.3trillionsincei'mtpyingthis...

The national and regional governments were doing fine until Eisenhower signed the wrong thing that ultimately gave the country to the federal banking system and sent our country into utter chaos since.

nice thread, op.

[edit on 8/25/10 by ohsnaptruth]

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 12:35 AM by ntech

My question would be this. What gives the government the authority to collect taxes over and above other creditors? The government exempts taxes from bankruptcies and can imprison you for not paying taxes. A conventional creditor does not have that power. Isn't that a civil rights violation?

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 12:47 AM by Onboard2

Originally posted by rakkasansct
So are you advocating for a monarchy? Or what form of govt do you think we should have?

Yeah, monarchy over dumb, mob rule.

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 12:55 AM by Onboard2

Originally posted by dfens
reply to post by mnemeth1

Yes, but if it were not a government entity pushing this then it would surely be extortion.

People fail to pay taxes for many different reasons, that is irrelevant because it happens all the time. The real problem would be the people who are simply negligent, then find out they owe many times more because of their negligence and flatout refuse to pay. A 50$ tab can turn into a thousand very fast. My suspicion is that these are the situations that are being enforced by these arrest warrants.

As evidenced by this thread, the fear campaign works. Pay or sit in jail. People won't want to find out, so they'll play dudley doright and keep the system going. I really think they just want to get people in court so they can take whatever they can. That happens all the time too. Still, hard to get blood from a turnip, and the only real payoff would be to scare the rest of the mob into being good citizens and ponying up their share. The real tax cheats have no problem with arrest warrants. They disappear.

Funny thing is, all it would take is a majority. If all people didn't pay their taxes and rebelled, would they arrest us all? Probably bomb us. Or even stop working for a few days. The world would stop in it's tracks. It's not right to tax our land or labor, so that in essence, we don't own anything.

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 01:17 AM by Demoncreeper

Originally posted by Lightrule

Did you go to law school to be a "Law Enforcement Officer"? The answer is probably a big fat NO.
So then I must ask, what makes you think you know the law well enough to enforce it?

"I'm just doing my job sir/ma'am" is getting pretty pathetic these days.
"The lawyers and judges will sort it out" - If you don't even understand why you have arrested the person then why have you arrested the person?
This is why people are getting sick of the sick twisted system. Its all coming crashing down and people are waking up. The more the merrier I say!

-Lightrule

All definitions copied from dictionary.law.com...

Don't make assumptions about anyone. You can shove your big fat "NO" in regards to any schooling I may have had, up your fat armchair quarterback's behind.

I think I've contributed enough personal history in threads on this site, but for you....

I actually went to school to become a lawyer. After listening to my father and grandfather (Law enforcement) complain about the thankless job that they do, for the "taxpayers".

After 4 years of political science, Law, history and psychology I decided law enforcement was more entertaining. (I'm surprised there was 4 years worth of poli sci in Canada. We are boring beyond comprehension). haha.

I doubt you've ever been shot at by someone you were non-violently arresting. So there is another definition some can cram.
It wasn't for NOT paying taxes either. For stealing a pair of jeans.

So now, I'm working in a different field in regards to enforcing laws. A nice "Big Brother" job. It's a lot nicer for my wife and kids. They don't have to fear "that day". The day that they'll be notified that "daddy was killed over a pair of Levi's". Society is awesome sometimes.

Do the job THEN argue your "dictionary" versions of definitions.

This really isn't about the law and all of it's definitions anyways. It's about the OP claiming 7000 U.S. citizens were "VIOLENTLY" threatened by the state of Indiana. Which is complete B.S.

But you folks go on living your lives with your dictionary definitions, pretending to be "aware". That's fine.

Life isn't about "definitions". It's about paying your damn TAXES.

I'm pretty much done here. It's getting silly in this house.

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 01:38 AM by mnemeth1

reply to post by Demoncreeper

They were violently threatened.

To say otherwise is to ignore reality.

The State said - "pay now or you will be assaulted and imprisoned."

This is why thousands of people attempted to jam pack a small city building in one day.

They didn't go down there and pack themselves in because they felt like being charitable, they went down there because they were under duress.

Those citizens were under physical duress - lets be clear - they were scared for their safety and liberty, so they attempted to comply with the demands.

They acted entirely out of fear. They had fear over the physical consequences of not forking over their hard earned money.

The fear those citizens experienced was entirely due to the threat of violence against their person levied by the State in the form of arrest warrants.

You got 77 year old grandmas standing in line for hours because the State sent her a letter stating she was about to get thrown in prison for not handing over her protection money.

The State does not care about you, it cares about your paycheck. It certainly doesn't care about your grandma, otherwise it wouldn't have bankrupted socialist security and medicare.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply posted on 25-8-2010 @ 01:53 AM by Lightrule

Demoncreeper... Come on now, I was playing nice, you never even answered a single question, instead you went into some rant about how your daddy's daddy was protecting Joe Q. Taxpayer and how bad this job apparently was. I really don't care they made the choice, so did you.

Me being shot at has nothing to do with the questions I asked, why does this question even matter? Is my lack of experience in life threatening situations make me unfit to question authority? NO WAY!

But what I am reading here is you couldn't or didn't want to cut it in law school so you settled for being a cop. Then you say cops don't really care what the definition of crime/arrest/injury is because the job is dangerous and you must always get your man no matter what! (let me guess RCMP?) Then you can worry about the definitions and whether or not you were right or wrong later (talk about tyranny!). You aren't really helping yourself here by acting ignorant on ATS...

The legal definitions ARE in fact what matters here as these are the definitions used to make the arrests in the first place. You don't go around calling speeding tickets criminal offenses do you? Well maybe you do, you don't seem to understand very much about law. I on the other hand will turn to these "legal definitions" to protect me from thugs like you from stealing my hard earned property. Also I got news for you, life is most definitively NOT about paying taxes. The day is coming very soon brother when your job will become pointless and you will actually learn what life is.

I'm afraid its you who is acting silly... After all, I'll put my 8 years of legal education and 3 years of practice up against your 4 any day. It's really a shame you are working for "big brother" now... The blind leading the blind...

-Lightrule