Jump to content
clapclapclap

Summer riots/protests damage & tactics documentation thread (no politics, please)

Recommended Posts

Just now, Brisketexan said:


It may be worse. The nurse really didn’t sign up for dealing with violent belligerents, but she has to...with no body armor, no gun.

Shit, in fact, when you look at all risks of death/serious bodily injury (particularly this year), it’s much more dangerous to be a nurse. But you really don’t see them refusing to do their jobs because of the risk. You don’t see them putting the public second, and themselves first, because of the risk.

I know we love the myth of cops showing up to stop the armed robbery and saving the day in a heroic gunfight, but that’s exceedingly rare. They make movies about that stuff for a reason. Those movies are mostly bullshit.

I dont buy it.

Bureau of Labor Services says there are 12.7 violence-related injuries per 10,000 nurses.  Scaled to 550k police officer, that makes 700 injuries.  FBI says 18,000 police sustain non-accidental injuries per year.

I'm sure nurses have a tough job.  Treated a guy high on PCP isnt fun, but he's strapped to the bed.  Probably not the same as trying to apprehend the guy on PCP in the first place. 

I'm not pretending AT ALL that cops are fucking heroes, but I dont see nurses going out serving warrants or investigating an intruder situation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

I dont buy it.

Bureau of Labor Services says there are 12.7 violence-related injuries per 10,000 nurses.  Scaled to 550k police officer, that makes 700 injuries.  FBI says 18,000 police sustain non-accidental injuries per year.

I'm sure nurses have a tough job.  Treated a guy high on PCP isnt fun, but he's strapped to the bed.  Probably not the same as trying to apprehend the guy on PCP in the first place. 

I'm not pretending AT ALL that cops are fucking heroes, but I dont see nurses going out serving warrants or investigating an intruder situation.

 

Dead is dead, right?  Sick/injured is sick/injured, right?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dr-claire-rezba-tracks-healthcare-workers-coronavirus-deaths/

Over 600 healthcare workers dead from COVID this year.  And healthcare workers get seriously ill, and mroe than a few die, every year from infectious diseases picked up on the job.  And from exposure to dangerous chemicals and/or radiation.  And yes, from violence, too.

None of which matters.  The point is, I don't give a flying fuck how dangerous your job is -- it doesn't excuse illegal actions 1-4 that I listed above.  Not even a little bit.

 

Share this post


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

I'm doing what a smart problem-solver should do

Smart problem solvers don't deal in absolutes and generalizations...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, irishtexan said:

But for traffic stops, why are they so dangerous? I'd argue it's because we've overly broadened the primary function of a traffic stop beyond basic enforcement of the traffic

So if an officer smells illegal substances, they...do what?  Driver is incapacitated and a danger to other drives?  Then what?  Call it in and hope nobody dies between the time a "real" officer can be routed (assuming one is even available) to handle?  A fugitive?  A kidnapping?  An unknown warrant for their arrest?  The scenarios are too many to post.

The reason they are so dangerous is just this - there can be a million different scenarios, many of which can be very bad.  You as the officer don't get to pick who you pull over, so they need more extensive training, not less.  Armed officers are being targeted and killed now, what happens when you disarm them?  It just magically stops?  Jesus, who would do that job?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

you really gonna convince us with a straight face that the violence dynamics in the duties of a social worker or ER nurse is the same as being called to literally stop crime?

Police aren't called to "literally stop crime". Cops respond to crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

You as the officer don't get to pick who you pull over...

Do you guys even think about what you're saying? At all?

OF COURSE THE COPS PICK WHO THEY PULL OVER

Share this post


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

Do you guys even think about what you're saying? At all?

OF COURSE THE COPS PICK WHO THEY PULL OVER

You're so smart.  Excuse me, I didn't realize they were able to differentiate between drivers with guns and those unarmed.  Drivers with warrants and those without.  Drivers that will snap and attack the officers and those that can't.  Drivers that might be criminals and harboring a hostage or be a fugitive from justice.

I need to know how to make these identifications so I can run to my local precinct and tell them immediately.  Please hurry....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

So if an officer smells illegal substances, they...do what?  Driver is incapacitated and a danger to other drives?  Then what?  Call it in and hope nobody dies between the time a "real" officer can be routed (assuming one is even available) to handle?  A fugitive?  A kidnapping?  An unknown warrant for their arrest?  The scenarios are too many to post.

The reason they are so dangerous is just this - there can be a million different scenarios, many of which can be very bad.  You as the officer don't get to pick who you pull over, so they need more extensive training, not less.  Armed officers are being targeted and killed now, what happens when you disarm them?  It just magically stops?  Jesus, who would do that job?

tenor.gif?itemid=13720053

Share this post


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

You're so smart.  Excuse me, I didn't realize they were able to differentiate between drivers with guns and those unarmed.  Drivers with warrants and those without.  Drivers that will snap and attack the officers and those that can't.  Drivers that might be criminals and harboring a hostage or be a fugitive from justice.

Fewer than 50 cops were purposefully murdered in 2019. You and I deal with armed people all the time even if we don't know. We deal with people with warrants or who are criminals or who are fugitives or harboring fugitives.

Given that people shooting cops is so exceedingly rare, what evidence exists that officers need to be carrying guns?

 

Share this post


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

Fewer than 50 cops were purposefully murdered in 2019. You and I deal with armed people all the time even if we don't know. We deal with people with warrants or who are criminals or who are fugitives or harboring fugitives.

Given that people shooting cops is so exceedingly rare, what evidence exists that officers need to be carrying guns?

 

Did you ever validate that 50 is in fact greater than 14?  Just checking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Smart problem solvers don't deal in absolutes and generalizations...

Sure they do.  They do it all the time - at least with respect to generalizations they do.  If I'm trying to sell more widgets, I look at what the public GENERALLY wants in a product, and I appeal to that group.  Sure, 10% of the public feels the exact other way....but I'm going to base my marketing decision based on the general public desires.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, other than refusing the acknowledge the foundational problem.  We have repeatedly asked for and rewarded "tough on crime" politics and politicians, and as a result, have given law enforcement effectively unfettered power, because "they're heroes who protect us all!"  Are there voters who have felt otherwise? Sure.  Are there specific locales that have voted otherwise?  Sure.  But generally speaking, as a country, that's how we've played it.  For fuck's sake, go read a transcript of the POTUS's remarks last night -- he echoed that sentiment, over, and over, and over.  And it works -- it appeals to the masses.  Until a majority of the public feels otherwise, it will continue to be the play.  Because politicians are good at marketing, too.  They are giving the public what they want, and they are rewarded for it by being elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Half of these tragedy shootings are people who are willing to fight an officer (or several) that they know are armed.  I’m sure they will be compliant to the “white shirts” because they ask them to please surrender. Gtfo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Did you ever validate that 50 is in fact greater than 14?  Just checking?

50.  We are willing to sacrifice the rule of law because 50 cops die a year.

Again, we'd all prefer that number to be zero.  But it doesn't matter if it's 500 -- no number justifies illegal actions 1-4 in my prior post.

Share this post


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

Half of these tragedy shootings are people who are willing to fight an officer (or several) that they know are armed.  I’m sure they will be compliant to the “white shirts” because they ask them to please surrender. Gtfo. 

You and I both know that in many cases, a fight happens because fighting words/attitudes start that shit.  Show up without a gun, and you're much less confrontational, right from the get-go.

Share this post


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

50.  We are willing to sacrifice the rule of law because 50 cops die a year.

Again, we'd all prefer that number to be zero.  But it doesn't matter if it's 500 -- no number justifies illegal actions 1-4 in my prior post.

Nobody is saying it does.  Jesus, we're not even talking about the same thing.  

Share this post


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

Sure, 10% of the public feels the exact other way....but I'm going to base my marketing decision based on the general public desires.

 

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We have repeatedly asked for and rewarded "tough on crime" politics and politicians, and as a result, have given law enforcement effectively unfettered power, because "they're heroes who protect us all!"  Are there voters who have felt otherwise? Sure.  Are there specific locales that have voted otherwise?  Sure.  But generally speaking, as a country, that's how we've played it.  For fuck's sake, go read a transcript of the POTUS's remarks last night -- he echoed that sentiment, over, and over, and over.  And it works -- it appeals to the masses.  Until a majority of the public feels otherwise, it will continue to be the play.  Because politicians are good at marketing, too.  They are giving the public what they want, and they are rewarded for it by being elected.

So the majority of the public wants the status quo, but we should change it for the minority of folks. Basically contrasting paragraphs.  

Share this post


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

 

So the majority of the public wants the status quo, but we should change it for the minority of folks. Basically contrasting paragraphs.  

Ignore.  He's replying to shit that isn't even a point being made. 

Share this post


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

Half of these tragedy shootings are people who are willing to fight an officer (or several) that they know are armed.  I’m sure they will be compliant to the “white shirts” because they ask them to please surrender. Gtfo. 

it'll probably look like the first minute of this video

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 more, in fact!

Just now, fattyflattie said:

Half of these tragedy shootings are people who are willing to fight an officer (or several) that they know are armed.  I’m sure they will be compliant to the “white shirts” because they ask them to please surrender. Gtfo. 

1) "Fighting" isn't really the issue. Killing is the issue. The job of the white shirt would sometimes entail getting an ass-kicking by a criminal. Just like what special needs workers and nurses and teachers/school administrators deal with.

2) A lot of violent confrontation is triggered by aggressive, armed police. Look at the video of the psycho who just shot two cops in Tulsa. He's squealing and being a freak in the seat and the cops escalate and escalate and escalate and escalate and escalate until BAM BAM. If people know for a fact that the cop approaching them is unarmed and non-violent, we would have lowered tension overall and less escalation towards deadly violence. And if the white shirt's response to a freakshow like Tulsa guy is to wait patiently and talk soothingly for hours if necessary then we don't have the BAM BAM.

The threat of the wildman shooter is factually rare and it's a problem everyone faces, not just cops.

And compliance is a big topic. Demanding compliance is an escalation, and an unnecessary escalation if compliance isn't actually necessary for safety reasons. If you back a dog into a corner and it bites, it has to be asked, "Why did you back that dog into a corner?"

For cops the answer too often is, "I got bored" or "I got mad" or "He was making me look bad."

Share this post


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

 

So the majority of the public wants the status quo, but we should change it for the minority of folks. Basically contrasting paragraphs.  

No, that's not what I said at all.  It is not at ALL what I said.

What we need to do is work on changing the approach and thinking of the majority.  We need to change a good chunk of the 60% of this country (or more) that blindly loves "tough on crime!  law and order! back the blue" to align more with the other 40% that thinks "yes, we need police, but we have to demand better and apply the rule of law equally and vigorously to our police."  

I'm literally saying NOT that we have to do what the minority wants, in spite of the majority.  I'm saying we have to turn the minority take into the majority take -- we need more Americans to say "you know what, I'm not happy with the way our policing is, and we should fix it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

it'll probably look like the first minute of this video

 

 

that guy is.. there's something wrong with that guy which could be he's just a bad guy, it could be some sort of weird drug thing, it could be a psychotic break. No idea. I don't blame the cops for shooting him in this situation. I think that the situation could have ended differently without a death or at least a shooting.  BT referenced the Tulsa shooting - that's another one that could have ended without loss of life.

Share this post


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

Nobody is saying it does.  Jesus, we're not even talking about the same thing.  

of course you aren't.  here is the summary from the Mayor

1. Cops are bad - maybe not all but a vast majority

2. the public wants cops who crack skulls, therefore we have a vast majority of cops who crack skulls

3. until black men are killed by police in an appropriate proportion to their population we won't have equality but even then if a gun is used on a person resisting arrest it is only warranted if said person is actually pointing a gun at the cop.  we should have way more cops(or whatever you want to call them)that don't have guns vs. cops that have guns.

4. Cop unions are bad, but they are the only public sector union that is bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah so that video is a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about.

Psycho with a knife. The cops do NOTHING. The person who disarms him is a bodega counter worker. The noble police crap their pants, scream, and wave guns around.

Embarrassing and pathetic.

 

Share this post


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

You and I both know that in many cases, a fight happens because fighting words/attitudes start that shit.  Show up without a gun, and you're much less confrontational, right from the get-go.

Sure. Lots of cops start out “wanting to help” and turn into what they do, after dealing with the absolute dregs of society. Why will this not happen to a “white shirt”, who will start with even less credibility out the gate?    All of this just sounds like a fucking fairy tale to me. It will turn into, well let’s no longer have traffic stops.  Let’s let them cool off and we’ll get them at the house later.  That is anarchy. We as a society cant even make it thru a traffic stop without starting a fight with a cop, but you expect an increase in law abiding because cops are now unarmed?  And a “gray shirt”?  Basically a guy who’s allowed to escalate it but only to fisticuffs gtfo   What happens when the white and gray shirts become prevalent?  You don’t think they’ll lie for each other, add a little lagniappe into the report for the asshole they just got assaulted by?  

 I can count the number of shitty experiences I’ve had with cops, then double it, on one hand.  You can say that’s because I’m white, I’d argue it’s because I go out of my way to avoid them by not causing trouble.  Yes sir, no sir, all that jazz.  Saying fuck you pig would never cross my mind because I don’t want the bad shit that comes from it.  Trying to fight *anyone* with a gun doesn’t cross my mind.  

Stories like thatguy posted above make me sick. If we disarm cops, the only thing that changes in his story is the cop holding him at gunpoint (which is huge).  I’m betting dollars to donuts the rest of the story stays the same.  And that’s still going to be a problem green jacket gold jacket who gives a shit. 
 

You want to add a white and gray shirt along with an armed cop or two, great.  Having to call in little swat units is stupid af. 

Share this post


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

Sure. Lots of cops start out “wanting to help” and turn into what they do, after dealing with the absolute dregs of society. Why will this not happen to a “white shirt”, who will start with even less credibility out the gate?    All of this just sounds like a fucking fairy tale to me. It will turn into, well let’s no longer have traffic stops.  Let’s let them cool off and we’ll get them at the house later.  That is anarchy. We as a society cant even make it thru a traffic stop without starting a fight with a cop, but you expect an increase in law abiding because cops are now unarmed?  And a “gray shirt”?  Basically a guy who’s allowed to escalate it but only to fisticuffs gtfo   What happens when the white and gray shirts become prevalent?  You don’t think they’ll lie for each other, add a little lagniappe into the report for the asshole they just got assaulted by?  

 I can count the number of shitty experiences I’ve had with cops, then double it, on one hand.  You can say that’s because I’m white, I’d argue it’s because I go out of my way to avoid them by not causing trouble.  Yes sir, no sir, all that jazz.  Saying fuck you pig would never cross my mind because I don’t want the bad shit that comes from it.  Trying to fight *anyone* with a gun doesn’t cross my mind.  

Stories like thatguy posted above make me sick. If we disarm cops, the only thing that changes in his story is the cop holding him at gunpoint (which is huge).  I’m betting dollars to donuts the rest of the story stays the same.  And that’s still going to be a problem green jacket gold jacket who gives a shit. 
 

You want to add a white and gray shirt along with an armed cop or two, great.  Having to call in little swat units is stupid af. 

"oh wait sir, you want to fight me instead of being arrested?  please hold while I call back up with weapons.  this may take a few minutes or you can use our chat function."

Edited by dcar00

Share this post


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

It will turn into, well let’s no longer have traffic stops.  Let’s let them cool off and we’ll get them at the house later.  That is anarchy.

Traffic stops aren't dangerous. You don't need a gun to stop someone in traffic.

If you were getting pulled over by an unarmed cop, would your behavior change at all? (Please answer this question.)

Quote

We as a society cant even make it thru a traffic stop without starting a fight with a cop,

Fewer than 50 cops per year are killed in felonious acts. There are 20M traffic stops per year. You're just misrepresenting reality.

Quote

 What happens when the white and gray shirts become prevalent?  You don’t think they’ll lie for each other, add a little lagniappe into the report for the asshole they just got assaulted by?

Bad things will happen, sure, but if there are no guns there will be far fewer deaths and far less tension overall.

Quote

Saying fuck you pig would never cross my mind because I don’t want the bad shit that comes from it.  Trying to fight *anyone* with a gun doesn’t cross my mind.

Would you fight an unarmed cop?

You guys end up telling on yourselves so often.

Just now, dcar00 said:

"oh wait sir, you want to fight me instead of being arrested?  please hold while I call back up with weapons.  this may take a few minutes or you can use our chat function."

Even if we accept this... so?

What's the problem? Wounded male pride? Authoritah disrespected for too long?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dcar00 said:

"oh wait sir, you want to fight me instead of being arrested?  please hold while I call back up.  this may take a few minutes or you can use our chat function."

"dont fucking make me call Officer Clegane..."

 

yqbozfxwoj511.jpg

 

Share this post


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

No, that's not what I said at all.  It is not at ALL what I said.

What we need to do is work on changing the approach and thinking of the majority.  We need to change a good chunk of the 60% of this country (or more) that blindly loves "tough on crime!  law and order! back the blue" to align more with the other 40% that thinks "yes, we need police, but we have to demand better and apply the rule of law equally and vigorously to our police."  

I'm literally saying NOT that we have to do what the minority wants, in spite of the majority.  I'm saying we have to turn the minority take into the majority take -- we need more Americans to say "you know what, I'm not happy with the way our policing is, and we should fix it."

So maybe I’m reading this completely wrong. But what you are saying is we need to make the current minority view, the majority view?   Then, the majority view should be implemented* 

*because it’s inline with my views now. 
 

I’m all for getting more educated, calm, respectful police in the force.  Fuck their union. Fuck their pension protection.    But this narrative that they are dealing with less shit than nurses and CPS workers is absurd. There is a reason 99% of this board wouldn’t consider the job, even though plenty here make less.  Hell even those of us that are blessed in that regard wouldn’t consider doing it. It’s a shitty job, and depending on your beat, you might be dealing with the absolute shittiest people in our society.   People who despise you, the rule of law, and life itself.   Who wants to do that?  Now do it without any way to protect yourself, aside from calmly talking a govt approved script? No thanks.  

Share this post


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

Jesus. Little roid rage there I bet. 

theres also this guy who apparently is the nicest dude in the world

654c06f8bd304e06fd47d381dc202885--fitnes

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

So maybe I’m reading this completely wrong. But what you are saying is we need to make the current minority view, the majority view?   Then, the majority view should be implemented* 

*because it’s inline with my views now. 

I mean...yeah.  That's how we bring about major change (it's not the only way, but it's a particularly effective way).  That's how we ended up with a legal system that at least contains the concepts that black people should have equal rights.  Eventually, a majority of Americans came around on that idea.

And changing the culture of policing, and what we expect our police to do, can really help with some of those downsides of the job.

Share this post


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

If you were getting pulled over by an unarmed cop, would your behavior change at all? (Please answer this question.)

 

No. I also wouldn’t act in the same manner as Jacob Blake, George Floyd, or Michael Brown.  
 

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Fewer than 50 cops per year are killed in felonious acts. There are 20M traffic stops per year. You're just misrepresenting reality.

Are we doing this again? The whole 14 vs 50 thing?  Can we move past it and agree both are too many? 
 

12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

far less tension overall.

I don’t believe this. The whites and grays will become jaded dealing with the asshole public. The public, knowing a white shirt can’t do shit to harm me, will make it plenty tense. 
 

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Would you fight an unarmed cop?

You guys end up telling on yourselves so often.

Of course not. 
 

Pray tell, what did I tell you about myself? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

fucking hilarious...traffic stops aren't dangerous.  that may be the height of comedy even from b_t the commie.

Not sure what capitalism or communism would have to do with this question, but "dangerous" is a relative term. All I can do is look at the statistics and studies.

The presented study is the first to offer an estimate for the danger rates of routine traffic stops to law enforcement officers. I reviewed a comprehensive dataset of thousands of traffic stops that resulted in violence against officers across more than 200 law enforcement agencies in Florida over a 10-year period. The findings reveal that violence against officers was rare and that incidents that do involve violence are typically low risk and do not involve weapons. Under a conservative estimate, the rate for a felonious killing of an officer during a routine traffic stop was only 1 in every 6.5 million stops, the rate for an assault resulting in serious injury to an officer was only 1 in every 361,111 stops, and the rate for an assault against officers (whether it results in injury or not) was only 1 in every 6,959 stops.

yum yum licking boots delicious

Share this post


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

I mean...yeah.  That's how we bring about major change (it's not the only way, but it's a particularly effective way).  That's how we ended up with a legal system that at least contains the concepts that black people should have equal rights.  Eventually, a majority of Americans came around on that idea.

And changing the culture of policing, and what we expect our police to do, can really help with some of those downsides of the job.

I agree 100%.  I don’t agree that means you will change people stance on “hard on crime”.  Most of the law abiding public still very much dislike criminals.  Buying tanks and shit to patrol the streets will likely come down, which is fine.  But we have enough gang/rape/murder in this country to need a real police force.   

Share this post


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

Not sure what capitalism or communism would have to do with this question, but "dangerous" is a relative term. All I can do is look at the statistics and studies.

The presented study is the first to offer an estimate for the danger rates of routine traffic stops to law enforcement officers. I reviewed a comprehensive dataset of thousands of traffic stops that resulted in violence against officers across more than 200 law enforcement agencies in Florida over a 10-year period. The findings reveal that violence against officers was rare and that incidents that do involve violence are typically low risk and do not involve weapons. Under a conservative estimate, the rate for a felonious killing of an officer during a routine traffic stop was only 1 in every 6.5 million stops, the rate for an assault resulting in serious injury to an officer was only 1 in every 361,111 stops, and the rate for an assault against officers (whether it results in injury or not) was only 1 in every 6,959 stops.

yum yum licking boots delicious

yes its rare just like police killing unarmed people.

Share this post


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

I agree 100%.  I don’t agree that means you will change people stance on “hard on crime”.  Most of the law abiding public still very much dislike criminals.  Buying tanks and shit to patrol the streets will likely come down, which is fine.  But we have enough gang/rape/murder in this country to need a real police force.   

and some divisions of a law enforecement are actually designed to root out bad actors before they act.  see NYC.

Share this post


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

So, like normal citizens, police shouldn't walk around with guns. :D

I'm so glad we agree!

nope but it appears we agree that we are up looting and rioting and destroying things over something that is rare.  glad we cleared that up, though.  thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dcar00 said:

nope but it appears we agree that we are up looting and rioting and destroying things over something that is rare.  glad we cleared that up, though.  thanks.

So since both felonious murders of non-sworn citizens and LEOs are extremely rare, should everyone also carry guns like cops and wield them like cops? Not sure what point you're trying to make.

Share this post


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

Objection your honor!

Stupidity being passed off as fact!

Like I said, "dangerous" is a relative term, but I think most reasonable people would agree that this:

Under a conservative estimate, the rate for a felonious killing of an officer during a routine traffic stop was only 1 in every 6.5 million stops

isn't extraordinarily "dangerous".

Share this post


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

I agree 100%.  I don’t agree that means you will change people stance on “hard on crime”.  Most of the law abiding public still very much dislike criminals.  Buying tanks and shit to patrol the streets will likely come down, which is fine.  But we have enough gang/rape/murder in this country to need a real police force.   

Sure we need a real police force.  Again, outside of the most fringe types, everyone seems to agree that we need a real police force.

Take away the "war on drugs," and a shitload of the "crime" that they spend their time supposedly dealing with will go away -- so many of the "criminal traffic stops" talked about above?  No longer a thing.  No more "I smelled the distinct odor of marijuana" as an excuse to create a confrontation.  Very, very few "no-knock" warrants to "get the goods before the bad guys flush 'em."

I dislike criminals.  I just think that our definition of "criminal" is fucking ridiculous.  We're mostly educated and well-off folks on this board....but if one of us shot a cop, they would damned well be able to release an "extensive criminal history" on a good chunk of us - from an old DWI, to being busted with weed, to getting into a bar fight in college.  Robbery, rape, murder?  Yep, let's have a police force that is geared at addressing those crimes.  Drugs?  Fuck that shit.  It's a waste of time and money, is counterproductive, and creates a near-limitless playscape for shitty cop shenanigans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

I hope you don't manage them through fear because it's a shitty motivator. And I call BS that you are managing 100 people. No one can effectively manage 100 people. 

   You are correct. I manage people who manage those people. But in the course of me managing the people who manage people, I often have to manage the people under the people I manage directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

   You are correct. I manage people who manage those people. But in the course of me managing the people who manage people, I often have to manage the people under the people I manage directly.

That sounds exciting.

Edited by Cheeseweasel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
   You are correct. I manage people who manage those people. But in the course of me managing the people who manage people, I often have to manage the people under the people I manage directly.


Ok can I please speak to your supervisor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

   You are correct. I manage people who manage those people. But in the course of me managing the people who manage people, I often have to manage the people under the people I manage directly.

MintyAmpleGodwit-size_restricted.gif

 

Sorry.  It just seemed necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...