What do you all think about the atmosphere right now?

Page 7 of 9 [ 142 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

ScrewyWabbit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,154

22 Dec 2014, 6:34 pm

What I really dislike about police, and their unions, and police leadership is this:

a) the police rarely pass up an opportunity to remind us and to laud themselves about how they all put their lives on the line every day. There'd be something to be said for it - after all risking one's life for the benefit of others is pretty noble and so forth - except that despite this, the police do everything they can to shift as much of the risk away from themselves and on to everyone but themselves as they possibly can. Every police tactic, every police procedure, is written and designed with that one, singular purpose in mind. Basically, "I'm willing to die for you and I'd happily place the lives of regular, every day civilians ahead of my own" should be respected, even applauded, but "I'm willing to die for you, but only if there's absolutely, positively, no other choice, and no way to get you to die instead of me" doesn't quite deserve the air of nobility or level of respect that the police want us to ascribe to them. Most of the time when the police kill someone unnecessarily, or in a questionable manner, the excuses given all come down to their own safety - as if an innocent civilian dying is worse than a police officer dying when the police officer is supposed to be 'protecting and serving' the civilian, and not the other way around.

b) Every time the police do something bad, they ask us to remember that the vast majority of police are good people, but that they have one or two bad apples among their ranks. But I'd offer this supposition - is a person really a good person if they know of a bad person and tolerate that bad person, and tolerate bad acts from that bad person, and do nothing about that bad person? Is a person really a good person if, after the bad person in their ranks does something bad, they do not condemn that bad person and their bad acts, and rather rally support for that person and refuse to admit that what they did was bad? Because, it seems to me, no matter how 'good' most police might otherwise be, what most police officers - no, almost every single police officer, even the 'good' ones - has in common is this sort of tolerance of bad police officers and refusal to admit when the bad police officers in fact do bad things.

c) lately, I've heard a lot of talk too about how the police are really saving lives, or doing good things for their community, especially when it comes to serving the African-American community with good deeds, acts of charity etc. Well, pardon me for saying, but WTF? How many lives to you have to save before its 'ok' to unjustly take an innocent one? 10 lives? 100 lives? 1000 lives? Is there any number of lives that if you save that many, its ok to kill someone unjustly? Of course not. Is there some number of good deeds or acts of charity you can commit and then, after that, its ok to harass people, to use excessive force against them, etc., when its unwarranted? Are we really going to accept excuses that amount to "We've done so much good that when we do bad, its ok"?

With regard to the killing of the two officers in NYC over the weekend, the worse thing that could happen is exactly what some elements are trying to have happen. We're all supposed to think that the 'protesters' are wrong because, somehow, some way, the killing of these officers can be traced back to them. I'm not sure how they can be blamed for these killings, but that's what we're supposed to believe. Despite that, though, its as if because these two officers died, we're supposed to think that it automatically invalidates everything the protesters have been saying - that some idiot shooting two police officers proves that earlier actions by the police were not racist, not racially motivated, or were not, somehow, just plain wrong given the level of force used and the circumstances under which those levels of force were used, regardless of the skin color of the participants.



Last edited by ScrewyWabbit on 22 Dec 2014, 6:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Persimmonpudding
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 294

22 Dec 2014, 6:43 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Cops are authority figures so you should give them respect even if you feel wronged by them. I feel like I have been harassed by cops in the past yet I still give them my respect. It would be stupid not to. I am mature enough to have that much figured out.
You see, you can circumvent that altogether if you just make up your mind to be a respectful person. Then, it doesn't matter whether you are dealing with a cop or a bum on the street. You try to avoid causing unnecessary stress for either, and when you take into account that the cop is doing the job that earns his wages and puts food on his table, dealing with a situation smoothly is pretty simple.

Be a gentleman at all times, and let the world figure everything else out on its own.



ScrewyWabbit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,154

22 Dec 2014, 6:47 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Another thing to keep in mind, people are saying the cops are using deadly force against the unarmed but think about things for a moment...if the cops all have guns then no one is really unarmed because a big strong guy can easily get that gun from the cop suddenly he is no longer unarmed and cops know this. It helps to think about what makes them tick psychologically and reach your own conclusions. You truly are safest when you aren't challenging cops. Just do what they say and do not make any sudden moves.


There's something fundamentally wrong about the idea that if there's an altercation and one person has a gun, they can both be considered armed.

If I get into a verbal altercation with you, and say 'lets step outside and duke this out' and then we get outside I shove a gun in to your hand, and then proceed to shoot you, otherwise unprovoked, with a second gun I was carrying, and I claim self defense and justify it by claiming you were armed, does that really hold water? You may not have wanted me to give you a gun, to arm you, may have had no intentional of doing anything other than putting the gun right back down and certainly not had any thoughts of using the gun against me, but because you are suddenly 'armed', its justified for me to kill you.

The scenario you're talking about here is even more absurd - I can shoot you and justify it with some depraved interpretation of self defense, despite the fact that you are unarmed, because you might take my gun and shoot me, even though you may have absolutely no intention of doing so - the very thought may never have entered into your mind. Even though you are armed, I can claim that you are about to become armed and to disarm me despite a complete absence of evidence that you intended to do anything of the sort. I can literally impose upon you a situation where I can kill you and claim self-defense simply by showing up with a gun that I can later claim you might have tried to take away from me had I not shot you. If this is really the case, then we ought to really revisit the entire idea of having armed police, or at least the idea of having all police officers carry weapons. In countries like the UK, few do and they seem to do just fine.



androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

22 Dec 2014, 6:57 pm

As we learned from the Martin case, anyone on a sidewalk is armed.



Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

23 Dec 2014, 12:05 am

Don't dress and act like a gangster unless you want to be mistaken for one. Be civilized.



Orangez
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2014
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 320
Location: British Columbia

23 Dec 2014, 1:12 am

Humanaut wrote:
Don't dress and act like a gangster unless you want to be mistaken for one. Be civilized.


That is a very logical thing to do.

Anyways, there is nothing wrong with profiling as statics usually backs it up. For example, crime rates are usually higher in poor black areas, thus, more police are needed in that area. If someone is acting, talking and dressing like a gangster and is potential doing something bad. The fault is somewhat their own as it stems from their very own choices. However, most people really hate when you use statics to prove a negative result.



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

23 Dec 2014, 4:22 am

When you say "crime rates", are you talking about actual crimes, or ones that the state has invented? What are you basing the statistics on - reported crime, conviction rates? If you search more, you're likely to find more crime - so what comes first, the higher observed crime rate, or more policing?

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Cops are authority figures so you should give them respect even if you feel wronged by them. I feel like I have been harassed by cops in the past yet I still give them my respect. It would be stupid not to. I am mature enough to have that much figured out.


Seriously - from whence do they derive their authority? They have power, yes; the same power I would have over you if I held you at gunpoint. That doesn't mean they are in any way deserving of respect, and anyone who sacrifices their morals to another person does not deserve respect. Still, one has to pick ones battles...



ScrewyWabbit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,154

23 Dec 2014, 3:04 pm

Orangez wrote:
Anyways, there is nothing wrong with profiling as statics usually backs it up. For example, crime rates are usually higher in poor black areas, thus, more police are needed in that area. If someone is acting, talking and dressing like a gangster and is potential doing something bad. The fault is somewhat their own as it stems from their very own choices. However, most people really hate when you use statics to prove a negative result.


Most of what you said is pure, unadulterated BS. This is the United States of America. Unless you actually commit a crime, or do something that gives the police reasonable suspicion that you were involved in a specific crime, you're free to act and dress however you want, and be whatever skin color god gave you, without the police interfering with you going about your daily life for no other reason than how you are dressing or the color of your skin. We're all supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not presumed to be guilty until proven innocent, but what you say takes that entire concept and turns it on its head. Dressing or acting a certain way is not a crime.

Why don't the police go out and harass white males dressed in fancy suits? That's the type of person who robs, cheats and steals their way to millions of dollars through fraud, insider trading, currency manipulation and other financial crimes. Seems to me that "If someone is acting, talking and dressing like a..." Wall St. executive "...and is potential doing something bad. The fault is somewhat their own as it stems from their very own choices."

The police should be deployed based on actual crime statistics. If a predominantly white area has a lot of crime, the police should focus resources there. So too for a predominantly black area. But focusing police resources at a predominantly black area that does not, in fact, have a lot of crime, based on some theory that black people are more likely to commit crimes, without any specific knowledge that they are planning to commit crimes is, again, a bit backwards.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

23 Dec 2014, 4:08 pm

ScrewyWabbit wrote:
Orangez wrote:
Anyways, there is nothing wrong with profiling as statics usually backs it up. For example, crime rates are usually higher in poor black areas, thus, more police are needed in that area. If someone is acting, talking and dressing like a gangster and is potential doing something bad. The fault is somewhat their own as it stems from their very own choices. However, most people really hate when you use statics to prove a negative result.


Most of what you said is pure, unadulterated BS. This is the United States of America. Unless you actually commit a crime, or do something that gives the police reasonable suspicion that you were involved in a specific crime, you're free to act and dress however you want, and be whatever skin color god gave you, without the police interfering with you going about your daily life for no other reason than how you are dressing or the color of your skin. We're all supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not presumed to be guilty until proven innocent, but what you say takes that entire concept and turns it on its head. Dressing or acting a certain way is not a crime.


By that logic, then, if there were several bank robberies in the area and someone with a criminal past and no way to legitimately come up with $10,000 in cash should be stopped for speeding, the officer should not be permitted to question him about the $10,000 since it might be impossible to single out a particular bank robbery in which he was a suspect, the police should just wave at him as he drives away?

As far as I'm concerned, if someone acts like a gangster, then they should be treated like a gangster.



Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

23 Dec 2014, 4:09 pm

Nothing wrong with stop and frisk. Quite the contrary. It works. Between 2002 and 2013 more than half a million criminals have been convicted due to the practice. EHF-scanners and facial recognition technology could further improve the concept.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

23 Dec 2014, 5:00 pm

eric76 wrote:
By that logic, then, if there were several bank robberies in the area and someone with a criminal past and no way to legitimately come up with $10,000 in cash should be stopped for speeding, the officer should not be permitted to question him about the $10,000 since it might be impossible to single out a particular bank robbery in which he was a suspect, the police should just wave at him as he drives away?

As far as I'm concerned, if someone acts like a gangster, then they should be treated like a gangster.

Are bank robbers more likely to break the speed limit than everyone else?

And of course, the original point was about how people talk and dress. Do you have any evidence that people who dress a certain way are more likely to commit crimes, independent of other factors?



ScrewyWabbit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,154

23 Dec 2014, 5:17 pm

eric76 wrote:
ScrewyWabbit wrote:
Orangez wrote:
Anyways, there is nothing wrong with profiling as statics usually backs it up. For example, crime rates are usually higher in poor black areas, thus, more police are needed in that area. If someone is acting, talking and dressing like a gangster and is potential doing something bad. The fault is somewhat their own as it stems from their very own choices. However, most people really hate when you use statics to prove a negative result.


Most of what you said is pure, unadulterated BS. This is the United States of America. Unless you actually commit a crime, or do something that gives the police reasonable suspicion that you were involved in a specific crime, you're free to act and dress however you want, and be whatever skin color god gave you, without the police interfering with you going about your daily life for no other reason than how you are dressing or the color of your skin. We're all supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, not presumed to be guilty until proven innocent, but what you say takes that entire concept and turns it on its head. Dressing or acting a certain way is not a crime.


By that logic, then, if there were several bank robberies in the area and someone with a criminal past and no way to legitimately come up with $10,000 in cash should be stopped for speeding, the officer should not be permitted to question him about the $10,000 since it might be impossible to single out a particular bank robbery in which he was a suspect, the police should just wave at him as he drives away?

As far as I'm concerned, if someone acts like a gangster, then they should be treated like a gangster.


No, this is not really an applicable example. Having stopped a man near a bunch of bank robberies, found out he had a criminal record and also seeing he has $10,000 in cash in his possession, then yes, of course the officer should be able to question him about it. But the difference between what you said and Orangez said is that in your scenario, the police have a legitimate reason to stop the man initially - he is speeding. In Orangez's scenario, the police could stop him for simply walking down the street wearing an outfit that they don't like, or for being black in a white part of town, with no way of forming a reasonable suspicion that the man had robbed a bank or done anything else wrong.

This is why "stop and frisk" is an invalid tactic. The police don't just get to go on fishing expeditions. Sure, if you randomly stop and search people, you will find that some percentage of them have, say, drugs in their possession. You will then arrest and convict some of them. To then turn around and use that as justification for stopping large numbers of people when most of them had not only not done anything wrong, but when you had no reasonable cause to suspect any of them of having done anything wrong, is invalid. The constitution protects us against unreasonable searches, or at least it is supposed to. It is not reasonable to search people in the absence of legitimate suspicion. Saying "see, we caught all these people because of stop and frisk!" ignores all the people that were unduly searched, and ignores the fact that many or even all of the same people may have been caught anyway if the police had stuck with non-illegal tactics.



Orangez
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Nov 2014
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 320
Location: British Columbia

23 Dec 2014, 11:08 pm

Why do people care about this issue now when the Patriot Act as been in law for over 10 years? No one protest the Patriot Act, hence, society allows for this to be done for acts of terrorism. Thus, it is not surprising that this idea is bleeding over to other law enforcement.



Apple_in_my_Eye
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: in my brain

23 Dec 2014, 11:29 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
We all need to keep in mind number one thing all cops are thinking will I live to go home to my family tonight because when someone is thinking that, they are in no mood to be toyed with or messed around. It really is the smartest and safest thing to do. Just be quiet and respectful of the cops. We all have the right to remain silent but lets all remain still and calm as well. That way we all return to our families eventually, even if we have broken the law, we are still in the game.


The problem is that they already use that mindset to justify every act of excessive force or needless killing they engage in. It's why the guy in the Target holding the BB gun was shot in the back several times before they said, "freeze, police!"

It would be safer for them, whenever they pull over a car, to shoot the driver in the back of the head with a rifle. The problem is that their safety must have limits in order for the rest of us to have any. Pre-emptively rounding up and killing all non-police would be safer for them, too, right? You can't have safety at the expense of everyone else's safety. The result is my family vs. yours, and if you've got the law, guns, and grand juries on you side, then my family, and every else's but yours, is going to lose.



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

23 Dec 2014, 11:43 pm

The thing I find odd is when people justify police overreaction on the grounds that the police are just like everyone else, with their main concern being about whether they're going to get home safely. That shouldn't be their *main* concern. We wouldn't expect that in firemen...



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

24 Dec 2014, 2:25 am

Apple_in_my_Eye wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
We all need to keep in mind number one thing all cops are thinking will I live to go home to my family tonight because when someone is thinking that, they are in no mood to be toyed with or messed around. It really is the smartest and safest thing to do. Just be quiet and respectful of the cops. We all have the right to remain silent but lets all remain still and calm as well. That way we all return to our families eventually, even if we have broken the law, we are still in the game.


The problem is that they already use that mindset to justify every act of excessive force or needless killing they engage in. It's why the guy in the Target holding the BB gun was shot in the back several times before they said, "freeze, police!"

It would be safer for them, whenever they pull over a car, to shoot the driver in the back of the head with a rifle. The problem is that their safety must have limits in order for the rest of us to have any. Pre-emptively rounding up and killing all non-police would be safer for them, too, right? You can't have safety at the expense of everyone else's safety. The result is my family vs. yours, and if you've got the law, guns, and grand juries on you side, then my family, and every else's but yours, is going to lose.


Cops know America is one of the most violent countries on earth and until we address our social ills that help reinforce this violent existence you are going to continue to see cops react this way because when they do slack off, the public will demand they be tougher on crime. They always do. On the one hand, people don't want cops looking over their shoulder, on the other, when someone beats or robs them, they want the cops to do what it takes to throw the punk in jail. So you have to decide what it is you want and most people want violent thugs thrown in jail and in order to do this, some cop somewhere has to put the cuffs on him, throw him in a police car and drive him to the jail.