Likely, however, did you hear the past and childhood the little boy had; the 17 year old minor ?
17 Year Old Shot And Killed By Cop
- Thread starter patrick jane
- Start date
Likely, however, did you hear the past and childhood the little boy had; the 17 year old minor ?
Well without this clarification you seem to have been implying anyone the cops deal with is guilty automatically of something--or, at the very least, that an antagonistic posture on their part is justified no matter who it is they're dealing with.
Generally it's a jungle out there. But courts have consistently found the police are not obligated to prevent crime. Respond to it, sure; deal with it, yes. Their job is not, strictly speaking, to protect any of us. There's a substantial legal history to demonstrate as much. By way of example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...stitutional-duty-to-protect-someone.html?_r=0
Your issue's with the Supreme Court, not with me.
Again, get over yourself.
Yes, indeed, I think we've pretty well established that.
Would you say guns and their availability play any role in this whatsoever?
Then something's wrong with their training and mentality. Shoot first, ask few questions afterward, stonewall, destroy the evidence, and lie is not an acceptable MO.
We're talking about a societal problem that requires more than just dealing with police tactics. We're talking (at least I am) about a change in the mentality of police officers as they deal with and approach the public.
No.
I'm not going to humor another attempt to use this discussion to bash Obama. If it's cloudy out you guys would figure out a way to blame him for that too. It's raining in NH this afternoon. Barack's fault, probably.
Then you're a child.:chuckle:
badp
New member
Hey, not all 18 year olds are adult dummies. Some are pretty smart.
The 17 year old adult, however, was a dummy. Pot probably had something to do with it.
They said PCP. Which I've never seen available on the corner or anywhere for sale. Every person ever shot and killed by police was on PCP (Angel Dust). It's the catch all drug even though nobody can get any. It seems to be the drug of choice for knife wielding suspects, Aahhp PCP !! Yep PCP, shoot him. BTW, you are the dummy.
View attachment 20952
Cops deal with a vast spectrum of people, I have always found that you get what you give...be courteous, show respect and I have always received the same in return if this is not your experience than maybe it is you? :idunno:
You have kind or skewed what the courts have found and why. The police are not obligated protect any individual citizen from crime but, society as a whole, the reason for these rulings was to avoid vast lawsuits against state & local law enforcement for failure to act or protect someone, they are simply not liable but, protecting society as a whole does include protecting individual citizens. I see your point all the same.
I have no issue because I understand why the decisions were made.
Get a new schtick, this one is rather stale.
Then I assume this conversation is about over.
I guess that would depend on what you call available, here in CA they are far from available in fact the "Peoples Republic Of California" has done a fine job of infringing on the second amendment rights of the citizenry. I really do not know how available guns are in other states so I cannot speak to your point with any firsthand knowledge, I will say that given that cops are not legally bound to protect me or any individual citizen I would say they need to be more available to any citizen that has a clean background to own one.
Again who is charged with policy , protocol, & tactics? Ahhhh, that would be leadership, no?
Hyperbole anyone? Opinion, innuendo, and unsubstantiated accusations?...quite the emotional response Granite but, certainly not rational or accurate.
Lay it out! how would you have an officer deal with an assailant that is pointing a gun at them? or at you? Would you have them lay down their weapon & sing kumbaya? I am being facetious but really how would you..Granite..have officers to react to violent criminals? Just making a general statement that the mentality has to change does not get to the specifics of what you personally would like to see. Different situations require different tactics, no? It cannot be a one size fits all approach, I would think.
Then what are you suggesting?, you inferred that individual officers are naive, stupid, and run amok yet you expect them to "just know" how to act in a given situation without leadership to define training, policy, & tactics in a given situation? You say there is problem with law enforcement but, your ire is only directed at the individual officers and their leadership that shape the culture seem to get a pass. You might want to take a logical approach to the issue instead of an emotional one which is non-constructive.
Now, Now...I only point out what is obvious to all, except progressives I guess, I am sure they see his division & destruction as wonderful...beauty is in the the eye of the beholder I guess, and if what this man has done to the country is good with you, who am I to begrudge you an inept, race baiting, failure of a president.
You fire the first low brow remark and attempt to take the intellectual high ground...request denied! The fact that you cannot hold a civil discussion with someone who opposes you says more about your juvenile intellect than my response to it. Grow Up...
I wonder how Canadian police or officers without guns in certain parts of the world in the past would deal with a mentally punk with a knife ?
Or some cops can be jerks and abusive. Some are just bad.
Fair enough.
300 million and counting last I heard.
Are you going to pull the Obama card again?
No, not at all. What I described happened point by point in McDonald's case.
That's not what I'm talking about at all.
You would think, but a one size fits all approach is what we see a lot of. Shoot first. Force first. No attempts at de-escalation. They shoot people who flee, shoot people walking away from them, they choke people to death in broad daylight who pose no threat to anyone, they kill kids within seconds of showing up...and so on. The mentality is very much Us Versus Them. Warfare mentality. They treat citizens as potential combatants on a battlefield, not as citizens to be served. The militarization of law enforcement has led to this point.
Things like this make me wonder if you're reading my posts. I suggested you were assuming this about police officers. Go back and re-read it if you have to.
No, not at all. I've said again and again that the police unions, blue wall of silence, and war on drugs (which declared open season on the entire country whether we realized it or not) all contribute to the rampant abuse of power we see on a regular basis from law enforcement. I don't know how else to underline this point. This is a societal issue. But it takes two to tango: Police realize there is always going to be a law and order amen corner that cheerleads their brutality and excuses it, and so they will continue to act accordingly. Reform won't happen until enough people demand it.
This isn't even word salad.
Says the guy who used "booger eater" as a serious retort. You go, rocketman. You really go.
No attempt was needed, it was here when I showed up.
I'll buy that but, many cops are not, in fact I would say the majority are not. You cannot judge the group by the actions of a few.
Amount & availability are two very different things, many people in California own guns but, the availability is not so easy. If you are talking about disarming society I would say that ship left the harbor long ago, won't happen, and gun control doesn't work in gun free zones like Chicago now does it?
Didn't imply that at all now did I?
My point is that you paint with an awfully broad brush when you impugn all police officers to actions of these particular officers, not to mention we are speaking of the most corrupt city in the nation...bar none. It certainly does not represent law enforcement at large.
Well it is part & parcel to what we are talking about.
I think you see isolated incidents that the media wants to use to trump up a false narrative of serial police abuse. At roughly 2 million arrests per year what is being reported on as abuse is quite minuscule in scope. I am not saying that some of these incidents are not tragic but, it certainly does not point to great conspiracy that you seem to be asserting, or at least that is the way I personally see it.
Help me out here, you say I should re-read your words and somehow you did not infer that police officers are naive, stupid, and run amok? where have I misread what you wrote above here.
I know this is how you see it but, I just don't agree that these isolated incidents, and that is what they are in the scope of the amount of arrests made in this country every year, not to mention all the interface people have with law enforcement every day that does not end in arrest. This is the narrative that has been created & designed to create unrest within society and I personally just don't see the epidemic that you personally and the media are portraying.
If you are going to quote me at least get it right, that was "booger eating moron"...you called me a fascist, I say you throw words around completely oblivious to what they mean...just stupid and uncivil. I don't mind when you get pointed in your discourse Granite (I expect it) but, when the low brow name calling starts it degrades the entire conversation.
Now that is funny especially from you! :rotfl:
I can tell you that in Japan (I lived there for a number of years) the cops carry no guns but, if you got out of line they were fully equipped and willing to forcibly take you down... in a heartbeat. They don't care if they hurt you nor does society care if they do, their society takes a very dim view of criminals & miscreants, unlike America where a portion of the citizenry see the criminals as victims...in Japan,not so much.
That shows what I was alluding to, that bullets aren't always necessary. I still can't believe that before Van Dyke showed up, nobody had a darn taser or tried to use one, or a tackle take down.
It is the actions of those "few" that are aided and abetted by these ostensibly "good" cops.
No.
Don't need to. If he spontaneously combusted you'd grouse he didn't do it soon enough.
Except we see the same pattern of violence, cover up, and occasional (begrudging) indictment played out all over the country--on those very few occasions when the officer's even charged with a crime, much less convicted of one, which is borderline impossible to accomplish in this country.
Or the power of social media and the ubiquity of smartphones has proved a game changer.
Correct: Those are the ones being reported. In other words, what we don't know is a lot. These are the ones we know about.
How many more "suicides" in jail cells or unexplained beatings, broken necks, "lost" video footage, acquitted shooters, and other cases need to pile up before you acknowledge the problem?
My post's literally right there in front of you.
The fact that most people who encounter the police don't wind up dead seems an incredibly low standard.
I absolutely meant it. You're the guy who said flat-out he didn't care if criminals who encountered cops wound up dead. That speaks to the typical law and order (so-called) mentality that thinks most people the police kill have it coming. That dismisses any pretense of upholding due process or justice. If any crime's a capital offense (and this includes selling cigarettes on the street) and if anything goes then you see zero problem with a police state. Because when the state can kill you for absolutely any reason whatsoever, that's exactly the kind of country you're living in.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
A systematic problem? The problem with all these examples is that they are sometimes justified and sometimes not. Can you quantify how many are police corruption and how many are not? No, of course not. You can't say a majority of those events are corrupt or otherwise. So to insist either way is just to believe in a conspiracy theory by blind faith.
Of course police corruption exists, but to say its a widespread problem requires proof. A new YouTube video once a month isn't proof compared to the number of interactions police have with people.
I told you way back earlier in this thread that I have friends who are cops. What I mean by that is not that I'll defend cops no matter what. What I mean by that is that I know cops are just people, and they have good and bad days, and there are good cops and bad cops, and sometimes good people do bad things, and even vice versa.
The only logical way to treat these events is to judge them one at a time. Unless you have evidence of systematic corruption, then that should be fixed.
In Chicago...Not where I live, and certainly not for the vast majority of America. The entire culture in Chicago is polluted from the leadership to the criminals which from what we see & read, rule the streets unchallenged. You see micro and I see macro in this obviously.
Good, because it is a dead issue.
I can agree with that but, you forgot to add in that America as a whole would breathe a sigh of relief that his tyrannical, fascist (this is where the word applies correctly), imperial reign was over.
Could that be that in majority of cases the police are in the right? I would venture to say, yes.
The problem we have seen with social media is that it give a birds eye view not a front row seat, it implies things which are proven later to not always be the case. Can't believe everything you see or read these days.
So, the snippet of of what you see in Chicago & other crime ridden urban areas (mostly run by liberals I might add) is the basis for positing that all law enforcement is dirty and out of control? I connect these dots back much differently than you do...obviously.
How many more crimes and victims of crimes have to pile up for you realize that the lives & welfare of citizens & officers trump that of the criminal ? How many more innocent citizens have to affected or cops killed in the line of duty for you to realize that criminals don't respect citizens, law, or authority? There is a problem yes but, is not the law abiding citizens or the cops from where I am standing.
Then I did read it right, you did say cops were naive, stupid, and not wise enough not to run amok.
The onus of not ending up dead, or forcibly detained is on the person that is encountering the cop Granite. A person gets what they give when dealing with authority, if you are willing to comply and show respect, nothing bad will happen, if you resist, force will be applied, seems pretty simple...unless of course you feel that a person has the right to break laws & resist authority.
Which shows your ignorance to the word and it's application.
I believe that those that interface with law enforcement get exactly what they put in...if a person breaks the law (no matter how minor) chooses to resists authority, or bring violence into the mix, they, the law breaker, is the master of their own destiny, they have freely chose to accept whatever befalls them in the altercation. your focus seems to be on the safety & rights of the criminal not on the safety & rights those they harm...where is their justice & due process?
Garners death which is sad was his own doing, he could have complied and the altercation would not have occurred...he got exactly what he put into it, and considering the man had health issues complying would have been his best option but, he chose not to. Lets not try to make out Garner to be the innocent citizen that just happened to be selling cigarettes, the man was a chronic criminal with over 30 arrests since 1980 ranging from assault, grand larceny, and yes, resisting arrest who would have known... Having police enforcing the laws however small they may be does not constitute a "police state" it is the function of civil society, and either law is for some to follow when they please, or it is for all to follow, if you say it is the former than we no longer have a civil society but, anarchy.
But that is not what happened Granite, the man was breaking the law and chose to resist arrest when asked to comply. Garner didn't "get what was coming" Garner chose how the situation was going to play out through his own actions...Garner is responsible for what happened to him... could it have been handled differently? More officers maybe? certainly would have helped but, that might not have changed the outcome given his health issues. Again, if you believe in the rule of law as well as due process & justice, than the law is good for all and complying with the law is not an option but, a requirement no matter how small the infraction.
No, completely the opposite: I keep saying this is a societal problem. Are you even reading my posts?
Agreed. Newtown settled any doubts about that once and for all.
He has done absolutely nothing different than anyone before him and whoever comes after him will maintain the status quo. That's the president's job at this point. Spare me the bogeyman malarkey.
Including your lying eyes.
No, this isn't a problem limited to major cities. How many different ways do you want me to say the same thing?
Crime continues to decline in this country and it's safer than usual to be a cop. So why do they keep accumulating surplus military hardware and "engaging" the public as though they're at war with the public?
Again, exactly the opposite. Can't tell if you're playing stupid or just can't read. Not my problem.
And this is exactly the problem: You are absolutely and completely wrong to believe a citizen has a higher standard than a cop. And this goes back to your authoritarian thinking: You expect, demand, slavish, cowering obedience--not a smart citizen aware of their rights, but a serf who better toe the line or else. That unquestionably makes you a fascist.
Let me give you a perfect example to prove my point. Joe Blow, a taxpayer without a criminal record, is walking down the street, minding his own business. A cop decides he doesn't like Joe, or his face, or his shirt. Stops him, asks him what he's doing, where he's going, what he's up to. (Keep in mind, cops can do this for literally any reason whatsoever, and to say otherwise is completely ignorant.)
Now Joe's committed no crime and has zero plans on doing so. And the idea that a cop presumed to accost him and hassle him for no good reason annoys him.
If Joe tells the cop to buzz off, leave him be, and keeps on making his way, I've got zero problem with it, and would commend him for not letting some jerk give him a hard time for no good reason. But I'm willing to wager you're already working out ways to nitpick this hypothetical and justify this cop's behavior. In fact, if Joe were to use harsher language and keep on walking, you'd likely expect the cop to use violence in response (and would argue he would be justified in doing so).
That's the difference between you and I: The ability for a man on the street breaking no law to say "Screw you" to unjustified, unwarranted authority is sacrosanct in my book. In yours, it could well leading to a justified shooting.
If a cop's being a jerk and kills someone for no good reason whatsoever you'd still blame the victim, not the cop. Sorry, but that's not only un-American, that's grotesque.
Again, says every fascist, authoritarian, statist, tyrant, petty bureaucrat, and any other abuser of power. I get it, rocketman: "Do what I say and I won't kill you." You don't need to keep reiterating. The funny thing is you might well consider yourself a "patriot" and have vague ideas about how sacred "liberty" and "freedom" are. I'm sure there were Loyalists just urging people to go with the flow, respect the crown, and not make trouble. Probably would've blamed Crispus Attucks and figured he got exactly what he had coming.
Then you are deeply naive or ignorant.
See above.
You're not a thug personally, rocketman, you're something just as bad if not worse: The guy who gives the thugs a thumb's up. They literally couldn't do it without you.
Last edited:
And I disagree with you, it is only a societal problem in that we have an entire generation of people that do not respect authority, feel they can break the law without harm or consequence and that is, and should not be, the case.
The only gun control required there was mom to lock her stuff up, no? I have guns, locked in a safe, and my boys both know that to touch that safe (even though they don't have the combo) comes with serious punishment. They have been schooled in guns & gun safety and have a working knowledge of what guns do. A bit of education & discipline go a long way in having guns with children around. It is funny that 20 or 30 years ago you never even heard of a school shooting but, I guess that now that it is commonplace is the cops fault as well...yea, there is a problem with society but, it is not the fact that guns are in it, they have always been part of American heritage, it is the societal culture that has changed...and not for the better.
I will answer the rest of your post later as my wife and I are smoking a turkey for dinner and I need to help with peeling potatoes
. I like eating with the family at their house but, no leftovers, no turkey sandwiches...can't have that. Talk with you later...
Less efficiently.
How do you believe someone should respond to a person on PCP?
gcthomas
New member
I don't think efficiency is necessarily a positive thing for community police officers outside the Judge Dredd comic books.
Shoot until all the bullets are gone, :chuckle: I would say tasers for sure and possibly a bullet.
IMO, there aren't people on the streets high on PCP. The police just say that. Toxicology reports take weeks and I never hear of PCP for sale or available, it's a non-drug.