Controversial Coppers: Shootings, the racist argument, and the effects

[Clem Fandango]

Yeah so?

So cops are trash.

 

 

 

I could post up the black NYPD cop who was murdered last week in a feeble attempt to change the topic as well.

And that would demonstrate what? I wasn't posting it in response to Obama either way.

 

 

 

Doesn't change the fact that what Obama is saying is true. Cops are not the reason minority communities are in shambles and have no opportunity to improve.

Um, yes it is? They would improve overnight if the cops didn't guard resources for the rich and didn't maintain a system that treats those communities as less, ignores their grievances and splits their neighbourhoods up amongst white voting districts to bar them from the democratic system. They also wouldn't have members of their communities imprisoned for essentially no reason.

Not sure what more there is to know in this one though.... nothing can justify what that officer did IMO unless the kid was armed with a knife or otherwise putting another student at risk. Then again, Don Lemon is known for his strange remarks.

Tell that to all the cops on the internet saying he handled it perfectly, only thing he did wrong was not tasing her and/or 'shooting the desk out from under her.'

[Dingdongs]

Those members of the community aren't being imprisoned because of cops. They're being imprisoned because of the laws on the books and the enforcement strategies of political officials. The rest of your points are so grossly unrelated to policing that I won't address them. As I've said 100 times and Obama has just said.... the cops are going to enforce the law on the book.

 

As for cops on the internet saying he handled it perfectly, won't dispute that, though the response from what i've seen on the police FB pages are not really that unanimous.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Irviding

[El Dildo]

So cops are trash.

well, not all of them.

 

I mean, the guy in the video certainly appears to be...

[Clem Fandango]

Those members of the community aren't being imprisoned because of cops. They're being imprisoned because of the laws on the books and the enforcement strategies of political officials.

It's kind of irrelevant whether cops are personally culpable when they accept culpability anyway by standing proudly with the nastier members in their ranks, and refusing to have any kind of dialogue with the community. In a philosophy class you could make the point that cops are too low down in the organisational structure of the state to have any moral responsibility I guess, but what are you actually saying? That black people should throw bricks at bankers instead of cops? The cops would be having none of it either way, that's the problem.

 

It's not really helpful to say the blame lies elsewhere but not tell us with who or what to do about it, since apparently like every other black person belonging to an anti-police movement is just some mass hysteria and their real beef is with the elite. What do we do about the elite then, since you're against my 'angry mob; guillotine; street party' idea? I think you aren't really interested in dealing with this issue and only want to deflect blame from the police.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Melchior

[Raavi]

Don't know what you're on about guys, just looks like the girl was in distress, stuck in her desk and the officer freed her to me. Sure he used a bit of force, and sure he could've broke some of her bones in the process. But what was he supposed to do. Cut up the desk? That would be destruction of school property!

 

In all seriousness this is obviously not proper conduct, looks like he definitely used excessive force at that. A thorough investigation should and is being conducted into ex-Officer Short Fuse's actions. In any case he definitely should take some anger management classes. However all in all I'd argue this video says more about the worrying fusion of schools and law enforcement in the US. I mean a teenage girl refusing to get up out of her desk is not exactly police business, the teacher should have been more than capable to deal with that themselves. Back in my day if some kid were to refuse to get up out of their seat, the teacher would just leave them there till the end of the period and leave the classroom. The following day they'd be called into an administrator's or social worker's office to have a talk over what happened. These teachers need some teaching lessons.

[Saggy]

I think you aren't really interested in dealing with this issue and only want to deflect blame from the police.

 

Of course from the outset he's very seldom missed a chance to talk about the poor misrepresented and persecuted police officer's plight. Remember he is pointing out how the news media deliberately tries to paint a group of people as violent and malicious, manipulating public opinion to be tolerant of their persecution... It just doesn't matter unless it happens to a cop.

 

I did not watch the video, I have no interest to really. It's just another record in the wider documentation of the current police state. Any bit of justification to be sought for the officer only serves as more evidence that part of their job description is doling out state sanctioned violence. There are enough depressing reminders of that already.

Edited October 28, 2015 by SagaciousKJB

[Dingdongs]

 

I think you aren't really interested in dealing with this issue and only want to deflect blame from the police.

Of course from the outset he's very seldom missed a chance to talk about the poor misrepresented and persecuted police officer's plight. Remember he is pointing out how the news media deliberately tries to paint a group of people as violent and malicious, manipulating public opinion to be tolerant of their persecution... It just doesn't matter unless it happens to a cop.

 

I did not watch the video, I have no interest to really. It's just another record in the wider documentation of the current police state. Any bit of justification to be sought for the officer only serves as more evidence that part of their job description is doling out state sanctioned violence. There are enough depressing reminders of that already.

 

Oh spare me your high horses. So what I talk about the plight of persecuted police officers? You and Melchior do exactly the same sh*t but it's just the other side.

 

Interestingly enough, the FBI Director, who you yourself and other people on the left critical of police cited a few months ago in a debate we had, is blaming the increased scrutiny on officers for the uptick in violent crime. Hard to do your job when you step out of your RMP and get 50 f*cking cameras jammed in your face when you are responding to a call.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/politics/fbi-comey-crime-police/

Edited October 29, 2015 by Irviding

[Saggy]

 

 

I think you aren't really interested in dealing with this issue and only want to deflect blame from the police.

 

Of course from the outset he's very seldom missed a chance to talk about the poor misrepresented and persecuted police officer's plight. Remember he is pointing out how the news media deliberately tries to paint a group of people as violent and malicious, manipulating public opinion to be tolerant of their persecution... It just doesn't matter unless it happens to a cop.

I did not watch the video, I have no interest to really. It's just another record in the wider documentation of the current police state. Any bit of justification to be sought for the officer only serves as more evidence that part of their job description is doling out state sanctioned violence. There are enough depressing reminders of that already.

 

Oh spare me your high horses. So what I talk about the plight of persecuted police officers? You and Melchior do exactly the same sh*t but it's just the other side.

 

Interestingly enough, the FBI Director, who you yourself and other people on the left critical of police cited a few months ago in a debate we had, is blaming the increased scrutiny on officers for the uptick in violent crime. Hard to do your job when you step out of your RMP and get 50 f*cking cameras jammed in your face when you are responding to a call.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/politics/fbi-comey-crime-police/

The difference is we admit our bias, you only quit denying yours when it becomes indisputable, and even then hold onto an illusion that you are thinking more objectively.

 

You are even doing it with the article you posted. The FBI director wonders "if the pendulum has swung too far" He said nothing to the effect of "Cops can't do their jobs because they have cameras in their face." That is how you are interpreting it...

 

The provocative remarks expanded on themes Comey first broached in a 2014 speech at Georgetown University, where he acknowledged racial biases were at times to blame for "lazy mental shortcuts" that lead to more police stops of young black men.

 

But in Friday's speech, and again Sunday, he said he was trying to start a conversation about whether the pendulum has swung too far.

 

"In today's YouTube world, are officers reluctant to get out of their cars and do the work that controls violent crime? Are officers answering 911 calls but avoiding the informal contact that keeps bad guys from standing around, especially with guns?" he asked in his Friday remarks. "I don't know whether this explains it entirely, but I do have a strong sense that some part of the explanation is a chill wind blowing through American law enforcement over the last year. And that wind is surely changing behavior."

He seems more questioning than he is resolved that cops can't fight crime with cameras in their faces.

 

But slow it up even more... You're still operating on a faulty premise that crime is up as a direct effect of this. Did you read the rest of the article or just key in on the parts that tacitly support your opinion? Not only is crime up by a small comparison to recent crime rates, it's not even up over more historic rates, the situation is different city to city, and no one agreed on what the spike is from... Its almost like natural crime rate fluctuation or something.

 

In the end it is once again a matter of perspective. If crimes are indeed up because police cannot operate the way they did before, let's examine what tools were available to them before that aren't now. Unchecked brutality, racial profiling, false arrests, false imprisonment, manufacturing statements, etc. So now that the scrutiny is so high they can't do any of these things, that suddenly inhibits their ability to fight crime with legal methods? What does that tell you? To me it suggests cops have a hard time enforcing the law without breaking it.

 

But I'm not just ignoring that they might be afraid of stepping out and creating an event like that, because the tactics they rely on are ulta-confrontational. When your only tool in the toolbox is throwing someone on the ground and cuffing them, no wonder it won't work in a crowd full of pissed off people, and I am guessing their usual means of crowd dispersal isn't very camera friendly, and would only cause more dissent, bringing it to life threatening levels. So essentially they can't rely on their training because thst is what is landing them in hit water in the first place, so they just sit in their cruiser, because 40k a year isn't worth that bullsh*t. You think I don't see their humanity but I do.

 

The perspective you refuse to consider is one of the people in the neighborhood cops come into. You think they point cameras at them out of some kind of vitriol, and just dismiss the notion that they are a battered community tired of taking the abuse the police dole out. The cameras empower them, when a cop throws someone on the ground for nothing, the cameras give then the ability to chastise and protest such an action without immediately being pummeled by the police. I'm sure this is exactly what is most problematic, is the police are use to dealing with a combative people that were easily sequestered by force or threat of force before. Now that they have the cameras they are not as afraid and stand up for themselves. You like to call this "obstructing", or you call it "resisting" with the implication they have no reason to resist.

 

I don't think bias is the right word for your view of police actually... Other people see the police's job as noble, just, and necessary as well. However when they see a 200 pound cop manhandling a teenage girl at a pool party for example, they know he has gone too far. Not you though, you interject with nonsense like, "Police takedowns don't actually hurt," ignoring the premise that he should not have had the right to lay a finger on her let alone body slam her with some supposed non-violent takedown--or you offer concessions saying he acted out of line, but thst they don't represent most police officers.

 

People want to say "police apologist" but I think it's more like police evangelist. It is the treatment of police as if they were some sacred entity, and as if not denying all claims of wrong doing would be sacrilege, and finally a faith--even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary--that the majority of police and their affairs are good, earnest and required, despite all tendencies of human nature indicating otherwise.

[Dingdongs]

 

 

the difference is we admit our bias, you only quit denying yours when it becomes indisputable, and even then hold onto an illusion that you are thinking more objectively.

You are even doing it with the article you posted. The FBI director wonders "if the pendulum has swung too far" He said nothing to the effect of "Cops can't do their jobs because they have cameras in their face." That is how you are interpreting it...

I have never, ever portrayed myself as being 100% objective in these cases. I've said from the getgo that I come from a cop family and that that is the perspective I bring to these discussions. I don't have a clue where you're getting that idea from.

 

 

 

He seems more questioning than he is resolved that cops can't fight crime with cameras in their faces.

But slow it up even more... You're still operating on a faulty premise that crime is up as a direct effect of this. Did you read the rest of the article or just key in on the parts that tacitly support your opinion? Not only is crime up by a small comparison to recent crime rates, it's not even up over more historic rates, the situation is different city to city, and no one agreed on what the spike is from... Its almost like natural crime rate fluctuation or something.

In the end it is once again a matter of perspective. If crimes are indeed up because police cannot operate the way they did before, let's examine what tools were available to them before that aren't now. Unchecked brutality, racial profiling, false arrests, false imprisonment, manufacturing statements, etc. So now that the scrutiny is so high they can't do any of these things, that suddenly inhibits their ability to fight crime with legal methods? What does that tell you? To me it suggests cops have a hard time enforcing the law without breaking it.

But I'm not just ignoring that they might be afraid of stepping out and creating an event like that, because the tactics they rely on are ulta-confrontational. When your only tool in the toolbox is throwing someone on the ground and cuffing them, no wonder it won't work in a crowd full of pissed off people, and I am guessing their usual means of crowd dispersal isn't very camera friendly, and would only cause more dissent, bringing it to life threatening levels. So essentially they can't rely on their training because thst is what is landing them in hit water in the first place, so they just sit in their cruiser, because 40k a year isn't worth that bullsh*t. You think I don't see their humanity but I do.

Let me phrase the question this way - we have seen a huge uptick in violent crime in cities. I don't know how you can sit here and say that we haven't. Even the NY times states as much. In fact, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a liberal crusader himself, has echoed exactly what Comey said-

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-emanuel-fetal-police-met-20151012-story.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/murder-rates-rising-sharply-in-many-us-cities.html?_r=1

 

Just because crime is down overall compared with how it was in the 90s (2000 murders a year....) doesn't mean that the uptick in crime is occuring right now. You're talking double digit upticks in homicide and general violent crime in some cities. What reasons can you come up with? The only thing that has changed in the past year is the increased scrutiny on police, to a point where again, it's gone too far. You have cops flat out saying, sometimes anonymously other times not, that they are afraid to go out and toss people in high crime areas, drug corners, etc. You have police leaders trying to downplay it (Bratton) but I suspect personally he sees the same trend, but just won't say it due to who his boss is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The perspective you refuse to consider is one of the people in the neighborhood cops come into. You think they point cameras at them out of some kind of vitriol, and just dismiss the notion that they are a battered community tired of taking the abuse the police dole out. The cameras empower them, when a cop throws someone on the ground for nothing, the cameras give then the ability to chastise and protest such an action without immediately being pummeled by the police. I'm sure this is exactly what is most problematic, is the police are use to dealing with a combative people that were easily sequestered by force or threat of force before. Now that they have the cameras they are not as afraid and stand up for themselves. You like to call this "obstructing", or you call it "resisting" with the implication they have no reason to resist.

Unfortunately, this is where you're grossly off. Other than in NYC from about 07 to 12 when Kelly left office, you'd be hard pressed to find a time where police were straight up going around stopping people and throwing them to the ground for nothing. Stop and frisk is one of the most effective techniques a cop has on his toolbelt. These men and women have years of experience working the street. Police commanders and civilian employees conduct social research not too different from what academics do to determine which corners, which sections, etc. of neighborhoods are most likely to be used to dole out drugs. When you have someone standing there dealing crack, it's likely that there's a firearm either on his person, or nearby. Cops are trained how to determine if someone is strapped or not from a distance. And again, I concede that stop and frisk was grossly overused under Ray Kelly for a plethora of reasons I'm glad to discuss if you're interested. But overall, in most American cities, it's a highly effective technique that gets more guns off the street than anything else we know of, and has saved more black lives than Al Sharpton ever will.

 

I don't think bias is the right word for your view of police actually... Other people see the police's job as noble, just, and necessary as well. However when they see a 200 pound cop manhandling a teenage girl at a pool party for example, they know he has gone too far. Not you though, you interject with nonsense like, "Police takedowns don't actually hurt," ignoring the premise that he should not have had the right to lay a finger on her let alone body slam her with some supposed non-violent takedown--or you offer concessions saying he acted out of line, but thst they don't represent most police officers.

People want to say "police apologist" but I think it's more like police evangelist. It is the treatment of police as if they were some sacred entity, and as if not denying all claims of wrong doing would be sacrilege, and finally a faith--even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary--that the majority of police and their affairs are good, earnest and required, despite all tendencies of human nature indicating otherwise.

this is just a f*cking steaming pile of bullsh*t. I look at each case and provide my take. I've said plenty of cases you posted up for discussion, the cop was wrong. The classroom takedown I said was wrong. The shooting of the kid in the car the other day I think was wrong. The pool thing was not wrong because of the takedown, it was wrong because he drew his weapon. Are we going to do this dance again? You should go follow "Police Officers" on facebook if you really want to see a group of "police evangelists". Certain cops would call someone like me who says the sheriff was right to toss that deputy off the force in the classroom incident a cop hater. This is GTAforums, I suggest you expand your horizon if that's how you think of my viewpoints.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://q13fox.com/2015/10/29/mans-facebook-post-about-traffic-stop-goes-viral/

 

 

Steven Hildreth Jr. says he was pulled over by the Tucson Police Department for a broken headlight. When the officer asked if he had any weapons, he told him he is a concealed carry permit holder and had a gun on his right hip.

Because his wallet was in his back-right pocket, the officer needed to disarm him to check his ID. Hildreth wrote about his experience with the officer and posted it to his Facebook page.

 

I’m a black man wearing a hoodie and strapped. According to certain social movements, I shouldn’t be alive right now because the police are allegedly out to kill minorities.

Maybe…just maybe…that notion is bunk.

Maybe if you treat police officers with respect, they will do the same to you.

 

 

wow what dangerous killers

 

 

 

 

Great analysis from the Washington Post, studying all police shootings and determining that, like I've been saying, most of them are pretty damn well justified.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/10/24/on-duty-under-fire/

 

Most important parts imo -

 

In 74 percent of all fatal police shootings, the individuals had already fired shots, brandished a gun or attacked a person with a weapon or their bare hands, according to an analysis of actions immediately preceding the shootings, which draws on reports from law enforcement agencies and local media coverage.

 

Another 16 percent of the shootings came after incidents that did not involve firearms or active attacks but featured other potentially dangerous threats. These shootings were most commonly of individuals who brandished knives and refused to drop them.

 

 

The 5 percent of cases that are often second-guessed include individuals who police said failed to follow their orders, made sudden movements or were accidentally shot. In another 4 percent of cases, The Post was unable to determine the circumstances of the shootings because of limited information or ongoing investigations.

 

So ultimately, you've got 5% definitely with potential to be bad shoots, and another 4% unknown. That still puts us at a solid 90% of shootings being 100% justified.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Irviding

[Saggy]

Maybe the resurgence of heroin has something to do with it? Or several other factors that have historically contributed to crime spikes? Including when they're raised artificially for political means... You know, traditional causes which are easily demonstrated, instead of some lofty theory with a few supporters and many more detractors...

 

I'm kind of tired of going in circles about the rest of it.

[Dingdongs]

Maybe the resurgence of heroin has something to do with it? Or several other factors that have historically contributed to crime spikes? Including when they're raised artificially for political means... You know, traditional causes which are easily demonstrated, instead of some lofty theory with a few supporters and many more detractors...

 

I'm kind of tired of going in circles about the rest of it.

Well, I suggest you review the Washington Post article which is one of the most liberal newspapers in the country apart from the NY Times which has concluded what I've been saying for the past year on the forum. It's hard to argue with facts.

 

And actually, this cause is quite easily demonstrated. Go ask a cop in a major city if they feel more or less comfortable using proactive policing measures since this wave of scrutiny. Those same measures that are empirically proven to lower violent crime rates. If you have an uptick of 70% is the Ferguson effect responsible for all 70% of that uptick? Of course not. Nobody is saying that. But the effect is there. The FBI Director and the Mayor of one of the most violent and dangerous cities in America knows a lot better about what is driving crime rate increases than most.

 

Bratton now also saying the Ferguson effect is happening. http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/william-bratton-says-nypd-cops-impacted-by-ferguson-effect-1.11034678

Edited October 31, 2015 by Irviding

[Saggy]

Apparently you thought I was just over-dramatic when I said I was tired of going in circles debating the "Ferguson effeft". So I hope you haven't been waiting for a rebuttal of some kind.

 

I read this in the news today...

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-cop-shooting-laquan-mcdonald-met-20151127-story.html

 

I wonder if that burger King employee will be arrested for on disability up crimes or something similar soon...

[Raj The Rager]

Most cases like these end up like this. Some smart mouth little creep gets all tough with a cop, then the person takes it to another level and then the officer kills them. Soon after everyone gets convinced by the liberal media, that it's police brutality. After all is set and done, we figure out that the Cop was doing his job and the victim wasn't really the victim.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Chamberman20

[sivispacem]

Let's try and keep the spammy, bullsh*t images out of D&D please.

 

As to whether you've said anything "wrong", I could pinpoint the numerous cases where videos showing entire sets of events have pretty much unquestionably demonstrated grossly excessive use of force by law enforcement, which sadly often go unpunished due to an intrinsic bias in the US judicial system which effectively favours the rights of individuals to "defend" themselves even when no clear or imminent threat exists over the rights of their victims to life; a legal system which rarely takes the concept of proportionality of response into consideration in these cases. I could also highlight the suggestion that the American media has an intrinsic "liberal" bias as evidence that you may not be speaking from an objective position on the matter.

[Dingdongs]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-predict-which-chicago-cops-will-commit-misconduct/

 

Thought this was very interesting. We now have statistics that demonstrate it's really a very small segment of police that cause these problems, and that small segment causes the vast majority of those problems. FiveThirtyEight studied misconduct reports for the Chicago PD and concluded that the officers who have 4 or more civilian complaints in their jackets make up 52% of total complaints. If you include those with 3, you get almost 70% of civilian complaints going to that small section of officers.

Edited December 17, 2015 by Irviding

[Clem Fandango]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-predict-which-chicago-cops-will-commit-misconduct/

 

Thought this was very interesting. We now have statistics that demonstrate it's really a very small segment of police that cause these problems, and that small segment causes the vast majority of those problems. FiveThirtyEight studied misconduct reports for the Chicago PD and concluded that the officers who have 4 or more civilian complaints in their jackets make up 52% of total complaints. If you include those with 3, you get almost 70% of civilian complaints going to that small section of officers.

So they left this Van Dyke c*nt on the street despite having dozens of complaints against him? And up to 10% of the Chicago police force is involved in misconduct? And the department refuses to address any form of scrutiny that doesn't come from the department itself? If that article is meant to be pro-police then it's terrible.

[Dingdongs]

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-to-predict-which-chicago-cops-will-commit-misconduct/

 

Thought this was very interesting. We now have statistics that demonstrate it's really a very small segment of police that cause these problems, and that small segment causes the vast majority of those problems. FiveThirtyEight studied misconduct reports for the Chicago PD and concluded that the officers who have 4 or more civilian complaints in their jackets make up 52% of total complaints. If you include those with 3, you get almost 70% of civilian complaints going to that small section of officers.

So they left this Van Dyke c*nt on the street despite having dozens of complaints against him? And up to 10% of the Chicago police force is involved in misconduct? And the department refuses to address any form of scrutiny that doesn't come from the department itself? If that article is meant to be pro-police then it's terrible.

 

Getting a civilian complaint doesn't mean you're involved in misconduct, though. You'd be hard pressed to find a cop that worked the street in uniform and never received a single one.. I would not consider the officers that have one or two as "being involved in misconduct". Three or 4 plus? Yeah, something's going on there.

 

I agree that he should've been taken off the street. Actually, if you watch the shooting video, it sort of reinforces the whole idea that not all cops are a bunch of sh*tbags like you think they are. Van Dyke was the only guy that fired his weapon out of what was it? 5-6 guys on the scene?

 

Chicago is nothing like the NYPD for example. They don't have the levels of outside scrutiny that are needed.

[Clem Fandango]

I don't really know what I'm supposed to address, you're basically conceding that the police are a broken institution. If you have three or four complaints it's a big deal but people had dozens against them and still do! Out of seven police officers only one pulled out their gun and murdered somebody. The institution does not recognise any form of criticism whatsoever even as riots break out over their conduct.

 

Like all you did was identify problems with Chicago's police. You kind of imply that these aren't core problems with the institution (I disagree but whatever) but I don't see how pointing to the possibility of vague reform that isn't being pursed is helpful. If the institution were legitimate, it wouldn't need reform in the first place and since the government isn't exactly ramming regulations on them I'd think that nobody forgot to fix these problems, rather it's a feature of the system.

 

The NYPD aren't as violent or corrupt as other police forces, are probably more open to scrutiny and have been involved in elaborate 'progressive policing' experiments. Although I'll leave you to guess why having crazed soldiers storming through the streets is good enough for Chicago and not Manhattan. It's not really like the 'NYPD model' (which is sh*t as well anyway) can be adopted elsewhere. It's no accident that Baltimore or whatever has sh*tty services.

 

Oh and how about the cops in Detroit evicting people from their homes and releasing thousands of dogs onto the street and some of them were pitbulls for dogfighting and they use the abandoned homes as dens for their packs which run the streets. Also the police refuse to deal with it, as they refuse to do anything except evict people. I didn't make any of that up.

Edited December 17, 2015 by Melchior

[Saggy]

Police broke into a man's home and assaulted him for not having a leash on his dog...

 

 

The sad thing is how easily he could have overpowered the two officers, yet he simply tried to evade their clutches.

 

Disgusting police. I wish nothing but the worst for cops that "just do their job" like this.

 

Edit: I mean legal repercussions of course, not to be misinterpreted. Hope he sues the balls off them or they get fired or something more than just a reprimand.

Edited December 29, 2015 by SagaciousKJB

[Clem Fandango]

Irving will be in shortly to reassure us that one of the officers is black and that since it was his tenth reprimand for brutality he was busted down to constable. The system works people.

[Dingdongs]

yeah that story looks like a complete crock of sh*t. Cops don't knock someone's door down for not having a leashed dog.

 

 

Melchior, constable isn't a rank here gosh.

[Shyabang Shyabang]

I think it's the cycle of fear that the dangerous criminals and the cops instill onto each other. And there are some racist cops who worsen the situation.

 

In cities that are safe, the cops are more relaxed.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Shyabang Shyabang

[Clem Fandango]

Hey Irving, one of your mates grabbed me by the collar and threatened to beat me.

 

I'll have him tell you what the view from the cross is like.

[Dingdongs]

Hey Irving, one of your mates grabbed me by the collar and threatened to beat me.

 

I'll have him tell you what the view from the cross is like.

You probably deserved it tbh. Actually though. If you were respectful and followed his orders I bet you'd have been fine.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Irviding

[Saggy]

Yeah besides if not they would just fling you to the ground with some physics defying move that somehow doesn't inflict pain. No harm done

[Clem Fandango]

lol I've never been given an 'order' from a cop, they just kind of send out the toughest guy there to stand inches from your face and make empty threats until one of you gets bored. Politics aside, they really are insufferable c*nts.

[Clem Fandango]

BLM activist calls for abolition of police

 

"The truth is we already live with murderers and rapists. We allow them to flourish, some of the most powerful people. So let’s be honest about the fact that police and prisons are not about our fear of violence. They’re about our wanting to control poor people. That’s why I push for police abolition."

 

Now this is what I like to hear.

[Tampa]

Funny how everyone forgets about the good cops who keep people safe, only worrying about the corrupt ones, then start pushing for police abolition...

[Clem Fandango]

Funny how everyone forgets about the good cops who keep people safe, only worrying about the corrupt ones, then start pushing for police abolition...

Did you read her speech? She doesn't talk about 'corrupt police' she talks about the structure of the police generally. They aren't a legitimate institution, even when going by the book.

[Tampa]

Yeah, generalizing the police in general, while the good cops get as much flak as the bad ones.