Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

lulzsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 210 posts

Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

#21

Post by roc »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #11
PaintBucket wrote: post #4

Before anyone says, "Why harass these people? They're just trying to make a living." Think about it for a little while.

Have you bothered to "think about" this? Police officers have a sworn duty to uphold the law. They don't write it. If you have a problem with the law your issue is with the Legislators not the cops. (This is the very definition of "killing the messenger")

I'm guessing you've never been in a car when a cop plays the "I smell pot Joe. What do think?" game.

Police officers do have a sworn duty. But some of them do not uphold their oaths. Some of them even break the law outright. It's therefore quite possible to have an issue with law enforcement, separate from the laws themselves.

Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

#22

Post by ImprovedSilence »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #11
PaintBucket wrote: post #4

Before anyone says, "Why harass these people? They're just trying to make a living." Think about it for a little while.

Have you bothered to "think about" this? Police officers have a sworn duty to uphold the law. They don't write it. If you have a problem with the law your issue is with the Legislators not the cops. (This is the very definition of "killing the messenger")

Couldn't agree more. Also, im sure there are undercover po and border patrol risking their lives to keep parts of AZ from ending up like the Mexican border towns. Giving up that kind of information and risking those lives is in-excusible. Also, names and adresses of family! are u serious? That makes you no better than the gang bangers. While I do believe the war on drugs is bs, as well as that bill AZ has, there are still a lot of persons down there that would kill you just because they were told to, or kidnap you for the money. And the police and border patrol are risking themselves to keep your dumbass safe.

I realize most of Arizona isn't that bad, but the police are still ther to serve and protect. can't we just send a bunch of taquitos and a bag of weed to whoever wrote up that bill or something?

Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

#25

Post by splat »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #11
PaintBucket wrote: post #4

Before anyone says, "Why harass these people? They're just trying to make a living." Think about it for a little while.

Have you bothered to "think about" this? Police officers have a sworn duty to uphold the law. They don't write it. If you have a problem with the law your issue is with the Legislators not the cops. (This is the very definition of "killing the messenger")

I don't see how you can justify upholding laws with lethal force if you don't agree morally with the law. Just because you wear a badge on your chest doesn't mean that you aren't morally responsible for your actions as a human being. If some state passed a law which outlawed red hair, I would hope that the police would refuse to enforce it, rather than saying "take it up with your legislator." "I was just following orders" is never an excuse for your actions.

Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

#26

Post by watty »

roc wrote: post #21
TomOfTTB wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you bothered to "think about" this? Police officers have a sworn duty to uphold the law. They don't write it. If you have a problem with the law your issue is with the Legislators not the cops. (This is the very definition of "killing the messenger")

I'm guessing you've never been in a car when a cop plays the "I smell pot Joe. What do think?" game. Police officers do have a sworn duty. But some of them do not uphold their oaths. Some of them even break the law outright. It's therefore quite possible to have an issue with law enforcement, separate from the laws themselves.

Some cops are crooked so screw them all? This happens in every profession, not just law enforcement.

Edit, to the poster below: There have been many cases where a man and women have sex and the woman later claims she was raped. Try to find a case of word vs. word (no other evidence) and the man was found not guilty. Now, try to find the opposite.

Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

#27

Post by bsiemon »

watty wrote: post #26
roc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing you've never been in a car when a cop plays the "I smell pot Joe. What do think?" game. Police officers do have a sworn duty. But some of them do not uphold their oaths. Some of them even break the law outright. It's therefore quite possible to have an issue with law enforcement, separate from the laws themselves.

Some cops are crooked so screw them all? This happens in every profession, not just law enforcement. Edit, to the poster below: There have been many cases where a man and women have sex and the woman later claims she was raped. Try to find a case of word vs. word (no other evidence) and the man was found not guilty. Now, try to find the opposite.

Every profession does not grant you the ability to send people to jail based on your word.

Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

#28

Post by watty »

splat wrote: post #25
TomOfTTB wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you bothered to "think about" this? Police officers have a sworn duty to uphold the law. They don't write it. If you have a problem with the law your issue is with the Legislators not the cops. (This is the very definition of "killing the messenger")

I don't see how you can justify upholding laws with lethal force if you don't agree morally with the law. Just because you wear a badge on your chest doesn't mean that you aren't morally responsible for your actions as a human being. If some state passed a law which outlawed red hair, I would hope that the police would refuse to enforce it, rather than saying "take it up with your legislator." "I was just following o…

If you can't uphold the law as a cop you would lose your job. Laws don't just magically appear, right? By the time they pass as a law the cop is just doing their job. We didn't do our job as voters and the correct action now is to "take it up with your legislator".

Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

#29

Post by barry-cotter »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #11
PaintBucket wrote: post #4

Before anyone says, "Why harass these people? They're just trying to make a living." Think about it for a little while.

Have you bothered to "think about" this? Police officers have a sworn duty to uphold the law. They don't write it. If you have a problem with the law your issue is with the Legislators not the cops. (This is the very definition of "killing the messenger")

"I was only following orders."

Speaking as a supporter of democracy in the Arizonan context.

Re: LulzSec releases trove of AZ law enforcement documents

#30

Post by potatolicious »

watty wrote: post #28
splat wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how you can justify upholding laws with lethal force if you don't agree morally with the law. Just because you wear a badge on your chest doesn't mean that you aren't morally responsible for your actions as a human being. If some state passed a law which outlawed red hair, I would hope that the police would refuse to enforce it, rather than saying "take it up with your legislator." "I was just following o…

If you can't uphold the law as a cop you would lose your job. Laws don't just magically appear, right? By the time they pass as a law the cop is just doing their job. We didn't do our job as voters and the correct action now is to "take it up with your legislator".

> "If you can't uphold the law as a cop you would lose your job."

Your responsibility to humanity (particularly as an officer of the law) trumps your right to be fed.

Also, the world at large has upheld, many times over, that "following orders" is not a sufficient defense.

"But I have a mortgage" - the new and improved Nuremberg Defense (with apologies to Thank You For Smoking). Hell, the people who relied on the Nuremberg defense would've been shot for violating said orders. Being fired is peanuts in comparison.

Post reply on HN