Sign in to follow this  
Dog

Federal storm troopers again?

Recommended Posts

Well, to be fair, many democrats are directly opposing the police departments, and while they've tried to walk back and move the goalposts on the whole 'defund the police' thing, we're dealing with people's livelihoods.  I'm not surprised, and frankly I don't blame them in their position.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

many democrats are directly opposing the police departments,

Bullshit.

The police advocating for violence is the best argument people wishing to defund them have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Bullshit.

Really?  Oh, come on.  Demilitarization movements.  "Defund the police".  Do you think the protestors and rioters are republicans?  And do you really thing the police see this as anything other than a direct attack on them and their livelihoods??

We can try to rationalize it any way we want, but in the end it's the left end of the spectrum pushing this stuff.  I.e., democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

And do you really thing the police see this as anything other than a direct attack on them and their livelihoods??

Then I guess they aren’t public servants after all, are they? I mean, we are their fucking bosses.

If you can’t be bothered to research which politicians support defunding the police, stop spewing @Dog propaganda. It ain’t Biden https://apnews.com/afs:Content:9083703494 or probably any of the 300 people showing up in Milwaukee.

 

”the left” in this country are left of the Democratic Party. By a bit. Sacks of shit like @Dog are convinced the democrats are marxists or whatever dumb spew he’s got, it’s not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being anti-Police Brutality is being labeled as being anti-Police.

The militarization of Police, as well as their tendency to see social issues as criminal behavior, is what is fueling this.

Divert funds to more appropriate agencies to handle things like homelessness, drug addiction, and mental health.  Let the Police hold a bake sale to buy an armored personnel carrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Grrr... said:

Really?  Oh, come on.  Demilitarization movements.  "Defund the police".  Do you think the protestors and rioters are republicans?  And do you really thing the police see this as anything other than a direct attack on them and their livelihoods??

We can try to rationalize it any way we want, but in the end it's the left end of the spectrum pushing this stuff.  I.e., democrats.

Ha Ha, I fully expect the Republican National Committee to be busing in protesters, for the cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Being anti-Police Brutality is being labeled as being anti-Police.

The militarization of Police, as well as their tendency to see social issues as criminal behavior, is what is fueling this.

Divert funds to more appropriate agencies to handle things like homelessness, drug addiction, and mental health.  Let the Police hold a bake sale to buy an armored personnel carrier.

To be fair - the "anti police brutality" perspective is being presented as "anti-police".   "Defund the police"?   How ELSE can that be interpreted?  If the intent was to rationalize the other than law enforcement responsibilities we currently expect the cops ( and schools) to support - then the call would be to "fix the safety net". 


We've had this discussion, and I think you understand why I have this perspective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

To be fair - the "anti police brutality" perspective is being presented as "anti-police".   "Defund the police"?   How ELSE can that be interpreted?  If the intent was to rationalize the other than law enforcement responsibilities we currently expect the cops ( and schools) to support - then the call would be to "fix the safety net". 


We've had this discussion, and I think you understand why I have this perspective. 

Well, guess what- it worked, didn't it. A big part of the game now is to trigger the 'other side' and so when the goal is to move public funds from further militarizing the police to providing social services that police end up trying to answer for, you DEFUND THE POLICE and then mow down the opponents who come rising frothily out of their trenches.

Then of course, the response is YOU RIOTERS & LOOTERS HATE LAW & ORDER!!! SHOOT THEM ALL!!

Who wins?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

Well, guess what- it worked, didn't it. A big part of the game now is to trigger the 'other side' and so when the goal is to move public funds from further militarizing the police to providing social services that police end up trying to answer for, you DEFUND THE POLICE and then mow down the opponents who come rising frothily out of their trenches.

Then of course, the response is YOU RIOTERS & LOOTERS HATE LAW & ORDER!!! SHOOT THEM ALL!!

Who wins?

- DSK

BOTH sides could win if the focus was on objective improvements rather than trying to create the appearance of retribution for a few cops' bad behavior. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

To be fair - the "anti police brutality" perspective is being presented as "anti-police".   "Defund the police"?   How ELSE can that be interpreted?  If the intent was to rationalize the other than law enforcement responsibilities we currently expect the cops ( and schools) to support - then the call would be to "fix the safety net". 


We've had this discussion, and I think you understand why I have this perspective. 

I do.

I also believe that, if we preserve Police funding (or, when we pretend to introduce "reforms", and INCREASE funding), the purchase of weapons of war and the attendant mindset will continue.

As I understand it, the training of Police begins with being indoctrinated that they are always In imminent danger of being killed.  The mindset ( I would label it as PTSD, before the act) results in a kill or be killed situation arising far too frequently.  To my knowledge, no other post-industrialized nation has this problem.  We seem to be defective.

Reallocation of funds is necessary, as your suggestion is little more than "raise taxes" to many.  That always goes over like a wet fart n an elevator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

BOTH sides could win if the focus was on objective improvements rather than trying to create the appearance of retribution for a few cops' bad behavior. 

How the fuck does that funnel mo' money into the pockets of the 0.01%? You're talking crazy, here

FWIW I have occasionally sat in on the game of trying to allocate resources (manpower and funds, not 100% fungible) at the county level. It's an exercise in extreme frustration. And unfortunately, in the climate of confrontation then escalation, trying to make the other guys' head explode, and negotiating by asking for 200% more then you can possibly get, the one who opens fire with the biggest guns first WINS. In my county, we managed to back away from this a little bit, but the same guys are coming back every quarter and every year, louder, and it seems like they have more understudies than the voices of reason.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

I do.

I also believe that, if we preserve Police funding (or, when we pretend to introduce "reforms", and INCREASE funding), the purchase of weapons of war and the attendant mindset will continue.

As I understand it, the training of Police begins with being indoctrinated that they are always In imminent danger of being killed.  The mindset ( I would label it as PTSD, before the act) results in a kill or be killed situation arising far too frequently.  To my knowledge, no other post-industrialized nation has this problem.  We seem to be defective.

Reallocation of funds is necessary, as your suggestion is little more than "raise taxes" to many.  That always goes over like a wet fart n an elevator.

Realignment of training and reallocation of funds is necessary. No argument whatsoever.  But, if the intent is to promote improvement?  Then publicly belittling and antagonizing one group, especially when they need to be part of the future improvements, doesn't seem to be an effective approach.  There are a LOT of ways to communicate the suggested changes in a positive manner - IE - "Providing support for social services that we have wrongly been expecting the PDs to perform without appropriate staffing or support, funded by a combination of budget realignments and new allocations. "

"De-fund the police" as the label for that approach seems to intentionally incite a feeling of retribution against the cops, and presented in that way?  The hue and cry in opposition to it is deserved.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

How the fuck does that funnel mo' money into the pockets of the 0.01%? You're talking crazy, here

FWIW I have occasionally sat in on the game of trying to allocate resources (manpower and funds, not 100% fungible) at the county level. It's an exercise in extreme frustration. And unfortunately, in the climate of confrontation then escalation, trying to make the other guys' head explode, and negotiating by asking for 200% more then you can possibly get, the one who opens fire with the biggest guns first WINS. In my county, we managed to back away from this a little bit, but the same guys are coming back every quarter and every year, louder, and it seems like they have more understudies than the voices of reason.

- DSK

I understand that, and I think that you're absolutely correct in your observation.   I still think that we oughta be looking at how to make things better, and talking about that in a way that isn't intentionally demonizing every cop in uniform, as the "defund the police" label does. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Then I guess they aren’t public servants after all, are they? I mean, we are their fucking bosses.

If you can’t be bothered to research which politicians support defunding the police, stop spewing @Dog propaganda. It ain’t Biden https://apnews.com/afs:Content:9083703494 or probably any of the 300 people showing up in Milwaukee.

 

”the left” in this country are left of the Democratic Party. By a bit. Sacks of shit like @Dog are convinced the democrats are marxists or whatever dumb spew he’s got, it’s not true.

Even if there's a difference between the what the Democrat politicians are saying and what Democrats on the street are doing, it really doesn't matter.  Fact is, those marching against the police brutality likely identify as 99% left.  And vote Democrat.  So when the police are asked to protect the reps of these same people, there is no surprise at all they said no.

Being all idealized and claiming the two are separate groups may be technically true, but in reality I bet you if you ran a poll and asked if the protestors are Republican or Democrat, your responses would be 100% Dem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's the bigotry that they will protect one segment, but not the other, then there's NO WAY they can be trusted with upholding the law equally when pulling over a car

with a Trump sticker or a car with a Hillary sticker.  And that's not even getting into skin color treatment.

It means they don't look at people as humans, they look at them as friend/foe.

 

Edited by Mike G
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Realignment of training and reallocation of funds is necessary. No argument whatsoever.  But, if the intent is to promote improvement?  Then publicly belittling and antagonizing one group, especially when they need to be part of the future improvements, doesn't seem to be an effective approach.  There are a LOT of ways to communicate the suggested changes in a positive manner - IE - "Providing support for social services that we have wrongly been expecting the PDs to perform without appropriate staffing or support, funded by a combination of budget realignments and new allocations. "

"De-fund the police" as the label for that approach seems to intentionally incite a feeling of retribution against the cops, and presented in that way?  The hue and cry in opposition to it is deserved.  

I am sorry feelings are being hurt by rhetoric.  All the calls for reform have done diddly-squat.  Consent decrees are issued, things settle down, the decree expires, and we are back in business.  Lord knows, I have lived that, here in Baltimore.

Sometimes, in-your-face-antagonism gets things moving.  Rarely have we seen significant changes because everyone uses the most polite language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

I am sorry feelings are being hurt by rhetoric.  All the calls for reform have done diddly-squat.  Consent decrees are issued, things settle down, the decree expires, and we are back in business.  Lord knows, I have lived that, here in Baltimore.

 Sometimes, in-your-face-antagonism gets things moving.  Rarely have we seen significant changes because everyone uses the most polite language.

It's not about hurt feelings - it's about the public impression that's created w/such rhetoric, and the resulting decline in behavior and attitudes that will invariably increase the number of angry and violent confrontations.  

"In your face antagonism" more often ends up with someone getting punched.  It if happens now?  I'm not blaming the cops - I'm blaming the person that was in their face.  

If antagonism is the approach you want to take? Then you ought to expect a reaction to that antagonism, and can't expect the reaction to be the one you're hoping for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I understand that, and I think that you're absolutely correct in your observation.   I still think that we oughta be looking at how to make things better, and talking about that in a way that isn't intentionally demonizing every cop in uniform, as the "defund the police" label does. 

You can start by acknowledging the concerns of your fellow human beings, and that their concerns are based on cold hard unpleasant fact.

Downvoting won't change a thing

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

The virtual DNC?

Virtual stormtroopers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

"In your face antagonism" more often ends up with someone getting punched.  It if happens now?  I'm not blaming the cops - I'm blaming the person that was in their face.  

Jack boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

28 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

It's not about hurt feelings - it's about the public impression that's created w/such rhetoric, and the resulting decline in behavior and attitudes that will invariably increase the number of angry and violent confrontations.  

"In your face antagonism" more often ends up with someone getting punched.  It if happens now?  I'm not blaming the cops - I'm blaming the person that was in their face.  

If antagonism is the approach you want to take? Then you ought to expect a reaction to that antagonism, and can't expect the reaction to be the one you're hoping for. 

Unless they are Nazis. If they're Nazis, no punching allowed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 a few cops' bad behavior. 

A "few bad cops behavior" - sure like the "few" captured on these 68 vids . . 

And a "few" bad police departments are also refusing to cooperate in these investigations

https://projects.propublica.org/protest-police-videos/#982609

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember a time under Clinton when FEMA was the boogie man that was going to take over the country. Then there was Operation Jade Helm under Obama that was his secret government about to wipe out the Constitution.

Yet Barr and Trump can actually send in real storm troopers, and that's OK.

I guess it's team R., so no problemo right?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

A "few bad cops behavior" -

despite generally being quite conscientious in answering my honest questions and debate points, Guy has studiously avoided answering my clear questions about those bad apples and how they can continue to be bad apples in the presence of so many purportedly good apples.

 

 

Guy still hasn't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

despite generally being quite conscientious in answering my honest questions and debate points, Guy has studiously avoided answering my clear questions about those bad apples and how they can continue to be bad apples in the presence of so many purportedly good apples.

Guy still hasn't

You expect me to deny the existence of the Thin Blue Line?  it ain't happening pal. BUT - if it was more than a few bad apples, then given the # of police/citizen interactions that happen on a daily basis - I contend that we'd see an exponentially larger # of citizens being hurt than we do.   You want a different answer? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are always been a few bad apples, however there hasn't been much of Grossman's force-protection-first thinking in police training before: 

 https://iowastartingline.com/2020/07/02/how-iowa-police-officers-are-being-trained-in-killology/

IMO it's the most likely reason we see young and inexperienced officers (like those two cops who lost a struggle with a DUI and wound up shooting him) being much quicker on the draw nowadays. 

  Grossman's shit is very popular, and very well done for the military mindset...but the American public is not tolerating cops who believe collateral damage isn't a big deal well at all. The message is it's SOOO much better to be a live cop on trial than a dead one. That's a pernicious thought to be sticking in the heads of young men. It tells them that if you accidentally unjustifiably kill someone YOU are better off. 

     

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Mark K said:

There are always been a few bad apples, however there hasn't been much of Grossman's force-protection-first thinking in police training before: 

 https://iowastartingline.com/2020/07/02/how-iowa-police-officers-are-being-trained-in-killology/

IMO it's the most likely reason we see young and inexperienced officers (like those two cops who lost a struggle with a DUI and wound up shooting him) being much quicker on the draw nowadays. 

  Grossman's shit is very popular, and very well done for the military mindset...but the American public is not tolerating cops who believe collateral damage isn't a big deal well at all. The message is it's SOOO much better to be a live cop on trial than a dead one. That's a pernicious thought to be sticking in the heads of young men. It tells them that if you accidentally unjustifiably kill someone YOU are better off. 

     

 

Timely point - and one of the things in training that needs to be adjusted.  I'd suggest that those adjustments would be well accompanied by the public messaging that cops are people too, and it's not cool to attack them for being cops.   This is more effective if everyone works together to make it so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You expect me to deny the existence of the Thin Blue Line?  it ain't happening pal. BUT - if it was more than a few bad apples, then given the # of police/citizen interactions that happen on a daily basis - I contend that we'd see an exponentially larger # of citizens being hurt than we do.   You want a different answer? 

 

I'd like to know if a good apple who ignores crimes committed by fellow cops is still a good apple.  Yes or no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I'd like to know if a good apple who ignores crimes committed by fellow cops is still a good apple.  Yes or no.

And for that matter what crimes make someone a bad Apple. Excessive force? Cheating on taxes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted some links last night in the BLM thread that told the story of a 16 year old standing on a hill in Austin watching the protests and was hit in the forehead by a "non lethal" round resulting in severe injuries. A civilian managed to identify the officer showing he clearly took aim and shot the kid. In 2018 he was cleared of killing an unarmed man - to date no actions have been taken against the officer.

That is exactly the kind of thing that fuels protests. Well that and all those body cams turned off or video lost in so many cases. I have friends and family and LE and believe the vast majority are good sincere people but thanks to the big Law and Order push started under Reagan the old protect and serve has been replace by CYA.

edit: And if not for a good lawyer and a Grand Jury I would be a convicted felon having had 2 cops try to frame me for pot possession from the early 70s. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I'd like to know if a good apple who ignores crimes committed by fellow cops is still a good apple.  Yes or no.

Like many things people want to distill into a binary choice, I don't think it's a yes/no question.   The obvious answer is that the witness cop has an obligation to uphold the law - no matter who it is that's breaking it.  The real world answer is that the blue line exists for a reason, and that there are "degrees of wrong".   Covering up a bad shoot?  Nope - everyone involved is wrong and should fry.  Cop smacks someone who's been fighting them while subduing them?  No foul.  

Whether we're seeing a higher rate of incidence, or are just more aware of the incidents that occur, we *all* have a responsibility to act on the awareness, and that action includes a responsibility on the public to act in accordance with the attitude we expect from the police.   When something goes wrong?  Don't hide it, don't sugarcoat it, but, don't try to color everyone wearing the uniform with the mess from that particular incident.  We owe one another that much. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Like many things people want to distill into a binary choice, I don't think it's a yes/no question.   The obvious answer is that the witness cop has an obligation to uphold the law - no matter who it is that's breaking it.  The real world answer is that the blue line exists for a reason, and that there are "degrees of wrong".   Covering up a bad shoot?  Nope - everyone involved is wrong and should fry.  Cop smacks someone who's been fighting them while subduing them?  No foul.  

Whether we're seeing a higher rate of incidence, or are just more aware of the incidents that occur, we *all* have a responsibility to act on the awareness, and that action includes a responsibility on the public to act in accordance with the attitude we expect from the police.   When something goes wrong?  Don't hide it, don't sugarcoat it, but, don't try to color everyone wearing the uniform with the mess from that particular incident.  We owe one another that much. 

Do you still beat your kids? How about your wife? Now, I doubt you’ve ever done either BUT giving cops the leeway to smack someone around sounds pretty similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

Do you still beat your kids? How about your wife? Now, I doubt you’ve ever done either BUT giving cops the leeway to smack someone around sounds pretty similar.

Before I respond, let me ask what you think I meant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Before I respond, let me ask what you think I meant. 

That if a cop gave a whack to a guy in cuffs after being subdued, it would be ok to look the other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

That if a cop gave a whack to a guy in cuffs after being subdued, it would be ok to look the other way.

OK - we agree, and that's not what I meant.  I meant in the act of being subdued - you're fighting someone, and it's tough to tell when you've got 'em under control.  A cop puts in an extra hit while the fight's going on, even after his buddies have got the guy pretty much pinned?   That's still wrong, but, not something that warrants being ratted out.  Cops have and NEED situational discretion, and when they step across the line, I think that because we ask 'em to be ON the line all the time, that we need to look at the circumstances before deciding how that particular behavior should be considered.   

That's why I am hesitant to accept Clean's question about good/bad apples as he presented it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

OK - we agree, and that's not what I meant.  I meant in the act of being subdued - you're fighting someone, and it's tough to tell when you've got 'em under control.  A cop puts in an extra hit while the fight's going on, even after his buddies have got the guy pretty much pinned?   That's still wrong, but, not something that warrants being ratted out.  Cops have and NEED situational discretion, and when they step across the line, I think that because we ask 'em to be ON the line all the time, that we need to look at the circumstances before deciding how that particular behavior should be considered.   

That's why I am hesitant to accept Clean's question about good/bad apples as he presented it. 

I can agree to that grey area, to a point. It should still be documented and debriefed. It could lead to better training and procedures.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

OK - we agree, and that's not what I meant.  I meant in the act of being subdued - you're fighting someone, and it's tough to tell when you've got 'em under control.  A cop puts in an extra hit while the fight's going on, even after his buddies have got the guy pretty much pinned?   That's still wrong, but, not something that warrants being ratted out.  Cops have and NEED situational discretion, and when they step across the line, I think that because we ask 'em to be ON the line all the time, that we need to look at the circumstances before deciding how that particular behavior should be considered.   

That's why I am hesitant to accept Clean's question about good/bad apples as he presented it. 

Legally we give them “qualified immunity” for regularly going over the line, up to and including death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

OK - we agree, and that's not what I meant.  I meant in the act of being subdued - you're fighting someone, and it's tough to tell when you've got 'em under control.  A cop puts in an extra hit while the fight's going on, even after his buddies have got the guy pretty much pinned?   That's still wrong, but, not something that warrants being ratted out.  Cops have and NEED situational discretion, and when they step across the line, I think that because we ask 'em to be ON the line all the time, that we need to look at the circumstances before deciding how that particular behavior should be considered.   

That's why I am hesitant to accept Clean's question about good/bad apples as he presented it. 

I am of the opinion that "situational discretion" has been widely and routinely abused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Timely point - and one of the things in training that needs to be adjusted.  I'd suggest that those adjustments would be well accompanied by the public messaging that cops are people too, and it's not cool to attack them for being cops.   This is more effective if everyone works together to make it so. 

Wouldn't have helped in either of the two cases people are marching in the streets about. Wouldn't have helped Rodney King either.  Nope, a lot of cops have to wake the fuck up and I think it's one of those situation were it's unwise to be even slightly wishy washy about it. That would encourage the thought that it's half someones else's fault, which often is an excuse to do nothing.  Training is difficult, un-training is very difficult, impossible unless the trainee is completely convinced the old training was wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was 21, I completed a 30-minute interview to be a cop in only 2 minutes.

They asked "if you pulled over an off-duty officer for speeding, would you give him a ticket?"

I said, "If everybody was speeding, and the one guy I happened to pull over was an off-duty cop, no. But  If everybody was doing the speed limit, and one

guy passed us speeding, and he was off-duty, then yes."

The 3 guys stood up and said "Thank you for your time.  That will be all."

Walking out I couldn't help but think that they were weeding out the honest guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dog said:

After over 100 systemically racist butt-hurt snowflake police departments declined to provide security for the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee consideration is now being given to calling in the federal storm troopers.

https://www.fox6now.com/news/maybe-the-national-guard-chief-may-request-help-with-100-police-departments-pulling-out-of-dnc

 

FTFY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mike G said:

When I was 21, I completed a 30-minute interview to be a cop in only 2 minutes.

They asked "if you pulled over an off-duty officer for speeding, would you give him a ticket?"

I said, "If everybody was speeding, and the one guy I happened to pull over was an off-duty cop, no. But  If everybody was doing the speed limit, and one

guy passed us speeding, and he was off-duty, then yes."

The 3 guys stood up and said "Thank you for your time.  That will be all."

Walking out I couldn't help but think that they were weeding out the honest guys.

    "What dept does he work for?" and you would be a cop now.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 2 BIL's that are LE, they have never received a ticket. My sisters on the other hand......  which really pisses them off.

BTW, at midnight about 100 protesters, mostly the Moms crowd were dispersed by 200 heavily armed Feds lobbing tear gas. Want to know how to escalate something? Just do that kind of shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

I have 2 BIL's that are LE, they have never received a ticket. My sisters on the other hand......  which really pisses them off.

BTW, at midnight about 100 protesters, mostly the Moms crowd were dispersed by 200 heavily armed Feds lobbing tear gas. Want to know how to escalate something? Just do that kind of shit.

Jeffreaux and Jerkyboy say those moms had it comin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Ha Ha, I fully expect the Republican National Committee to be busing in protesters, for the cameras.

Yeah, they did that back in the 60s.

Oh,  no.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2020 at 2:28 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Like many things people want to distill into a binary choice, I don't think it's a yes/no question.   The obvious answer is that the witness cop has an obligation to uphold the law - no matter who it is that's breaking it.  The real world answer is that the blue line exists for a reason, and that there are "degrees of wrong".   Covering up a bad shoot?  Nope - everyone involved is wrong and should fry.  Cop smacks someone who's been fighting them while subduing them?  No foul.  

why do they take an oath if they are not willing to follow it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2020 at 3:24 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

OK - we agree, and that's not what I meant.  I meant in the act of being subdued - you're fighting someone, and it's tough to tell when you've got 'em under control.  A cop puts in an extra hit while the fight's going on, even after his buddies have got the guy pretty much pinned?   That's still wrong, but, not something that warrants being ratted out.  Cops have and NEED situational discretion, and when they step across the line, I think that because we ask 'em to be ON the line all the time, that we need to look at the circumstances before deciding how that particular behavior should be considered.   

This is a training issue, and I emphasize that many of the modern excesses of PDs is because of incredibly bad training and even worse continuing ed and retraining.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

This is a training issue, and I emphasize that many of the modern excesses of PDs is because of incredibly bad training and even worse continuing ed and retraining.

Clean, I shared this a week or two ago.  Wondering what your thoughts are surrounding the suggestion of a National Certification of Police, and the ability to decertify those who abuse the position.

How To Stop Police Officers From Getting New Police Jobs After Misconduct

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have three good friends who became cops after college.  One is a good guy who seems to like taking down legit bad guys and then has a beer when he gets home and goes back to work the next day, one made it a few years and then had some sort of "disability" and that's what he lives on and isn't a cop anymore.  The third went to prison in Florence, CO. (San Francisco people can probably figure out who that is).  I would imaging the 1/3rd ratio of decent cops is probably accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2020 at 1:01 AM, Bus Driver said:

Being anti-Police Brutality is being labeled as being anti-Police.

The militarization of Police, as well as their tendency to see social issues as criminal behavior, is what is fueling this.

Divert funds to more appropriate agencies to handle things like homelessness, drug addiction, and mental health.  Let the Police hold a bake sale to buy an armored personnel carrier.

Police brutality and targeting PoC pre-dates the militarization, but it hasn't helped at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Clean, I shared this a week or two ago.  Wondering what your thoughts are surrounding the suggestion of a National Certification of Police, and the ability to decertify those who abuse the position.

How To Stop Police Officers From Getting New Police Jobs After Misconduct

I think it should be an absolute priority for the united legislative, executive, and judicial government we are about to get.  The lack of national policing data, standardization, and reporting we seem to be OK with here is without parallel in the developed world.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we have bad cops and no data to pursue statistics, is simple, because police unions have gotten too strong. Police unions endorse people running for office who are sympathetic to their cause, they move civilian control out of police departments, instituting their own review boards who consistently rule in favor of the officer. this continual wall to effective discipline is why cops act with impunity, and do not fear punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

This is a training issue, and I emphasize that many of the modern excesses of PDs is because of incredibly bad training and even worse continuing ed and retraining.

a while ago on a newspaper over here, but that is of course on the fringes of cifilisation, a comparison was shown on the training time to become a cop in the US and the average countries in europistan .... for one hour training in the US, on average over here that would be at least 5 hours running up to 8 hours in germany (cue some nazi comments on that last one, grin)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

The reason we have bad cops and no data to pursue statistics, is simple, because police unions have gotten too strong. Police unions endorse people running for office who are sympathetic to their cause, they move civilian control out of police departments, instituting their own review boards who consistently rule in favor of the officer. this continual wall to effective discipline is why cops act with impunity, and do not fear punishment.

There's no getting rid of those unions, nor their strident self-appointed mission of aggressive defense of police officers. I'm sure that without that there would only be fools willing to do the job. The temptation for politicians to chuck police under the bus is simply too strong. 

 The issue is simply cutting back on this kind of attitude: 

 https://iowastartingline.com/2020/07/02/how-iowa-police-officers-are-being-trained-in-killology/

 

Police unions are not responsible for this kind of training being popular these days. That's all in the realm of schools and academies which the union has nothing to do with. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mark K said:

There's no getting rid of those unions, nor their strident self-appointed mission of aggressive defense of police officers. I'm sure that without that there would only be fools willing to do the job. The temptation for politicians to chuck police under the bus is simply too strong. 

 The issue is simply cutting back on this kind of attitude: 

 https://iowastartingline.com/2020/07/02/how-iowa-police-officers-are-being-trained-in-killology/

 

Police unions are not responsible for this kind of training being popular these days. That's all in the realm of schools and academies which the union has nothing to do with. 

The fish rots from the head. Minneapolis PD had 2600 civilian complaints one year, only 12 cases held officers to account. That's emblematic of everywhere else, I'm good with some accountability, but the free ride should end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2020 at 6:40 AM, Mike G said:

When I was 21, I completed a 30-minute interview to be a cop in only 2 minutes.

They asked "if you pulled over an off-duty officer for speeding, would you give him a ticket?"

I said, "If everybody was speeding, and the one guy I happened to pull over was an off-duty cop, no. But  If everybody was doing the speed limit, and one

guy passed us speeding, and he was off-duty, then yes."

The 3 guys stood up and said "Thank you for your time.  That will be all."

Walking out I couldn't help but think that they were weeding out the honest guys.

Probably not a good answer either way you look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

The fish rots from the head. Minneapolis PD had 2600 civilian complaints one year, only 12 cases held officers to account. That's emblematic of everywhere else, I'm good with some accountability, but the free ride should end.

There is certainly truth in that, but the job involves physically restraining people. Anybody who would take that job without some sort of qualified immunity is a fool. That has to be addressed. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mark K said:

There is certainly truth in that, but the job involves physically restraining people. Anybody who would take that job without some sort of qualified immunity is a fool. That has to be addressed. 

 

Qualified immunity is a little over 53 years old. Maybe it’s the problem.

Bob Kroll, the Minneapolis Union head, has had 30 complaints against him. Chauvin was a tax cheat that claimed he lived in Florida. It’s a rotten force.

Never gonna change because people don’t want to

Quote

The Commission's study of the administration of justice concentrates on police brutality—the use of unlawful violence—against Negroes. Com- plaints and litigation suggest four subdivisions of the problem. The first involves the use of racially motivated brutality to enforce sub- ordination or segregation. The second, a not altogether separate cate- gory, entails violence as a punishment. The third relates to coerced confessions. The last and largest entails the almost casual, or spon- taneous, use of force in arrests. Only the first category necessarily involves racial discrimination. In the others it may, or may not, be present, but Negroes are the victims with disproportionate frequency.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Probably not a good answer either way you look at it.

I agree.  I was trying to be a firefighter.  So i knew all the answers to the "gotcha" firefighter questions they expect to hear.  But I was taking any oral I could as practice, and wasn't up on the cop questions.  Honesty didn't pay off.  I am colorblind so I wouldn't have made it far anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mike G said:

 Honesty didn't pay off. 

So your local police screened out honest people? 

“I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling (thuggery) is going on here!” 

FIFB (Fixed it for Bogey) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike G said:

I agree.  I was trying to be a firefighter.  So i knew all the answers to the "gotcha" firefighter questions they expect to hear.  But I was taking any oral I could as practice, and wasn't up on the cop questions.  Honesty didn't pay off.  I am colorblind so I wouldn't have made it far anyways.

What I meant was that to let a cop off because everyone else is speeding may have been an honest answer but not necessarily a good one.

:rolleyes:

To imply that cops are filtering out honesty because they don't want to employ people that wouldn't  hold fellow cops to higher standards is kind of odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2020 at 8:01 AM, Bus Driver said:

Being anti-Police Brutality is being labeled as being anti-Police.

The militarization of Police, as well as their tendency to see social issues as criminal behavior, is what is fueling this.

Divert funds to more appropriate agencies to handle things like homelessness, drug addiction, and mental health.  Let the Police hold a bake sale to buy an armored personnel carrier.

In your scenario what department would handle drunk guy passed out in his running vehicle?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mark K said:

There is certainly truth in that, but the job involves physically restraining people. Anybody who would take that job without some sort of qualified immunity is a fool. That has to be addressed. 

 

Absolutely.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rok Dog said:
On 7/30/2020 at 9:01 AM, Bus Driver said:

Being anti-Police Brutality is being labeled as being anti-Police.

The militarization of Police, as well as their tendency to see social issues as criminal behavior, is what is fueling this.

Divert funds to more appropriate agencies to handle things like homelessness, drug addiction, and mental health.  Let the Police hold a bake sale to buy an armored personnel carrier.

In your scenario what department would handle drunk guy passed out in his running vehicle?  

In my "scenario", I never said to abolish the police.  I never said there are not needed.  But, nice attempt to suggest I did.

There are situations in which I most definitely want a peace officer (you can look up the definition) to respond.  So, engaging with you in this way is pointless, as you likely can conjure up countless scenarios in your quest to play "Gotcha!"

For things like homelessness, drug addiction, and mental health crises, there are people better trained to handle them than the police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

A study in contrasting responses -

 

Actually if she had allowed him to answer she might have learned that unlike the federal court in Portland primary responsibility for protection at the the capitol building in Michigan resides with local authorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

Actually if she had allowed him to answer she might have learned that unlike the federal court in Portland primary responsibility for protection at the the capitol building in Michigan resides with local authorities.

Primary responsibility for the fed court is also the local authorities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While bullshitters were bullshitting about this, Florida counted another 179 fatalities due to COVID 19. Good job, bullshitters. If only the virus was distracted by bullshit, there might be 7,000 Floridians who didn’t die from the virus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Primary responsibility for the fed court is also the local authorities. 

You mean the local authorities @Dog said failed, and who’s failure necessitated the jack booted thugs appearance? Those local authorities? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this