Let's argue about Mike Brown!

Chief Oliver is awesome.
His town has what, 3500 people stretched over maybe 25 sq miles with a population that's 98% white that's semi-rural and maybe 17% of the population at or below the poverty line? I'm sure he's dandy fellow, but I'm not really that impressed considering what he's actually popular for.

And onto my points we go!

I don't think there's a major issue with policing, but more with the high crime communities and the culture within. It's been said that there should be more community policing going on, but in order for that to be achieved, the community has to be part of the deal. And that's where problems seem to arise.

There's a culture out there that emphasizes "snitches get stitches" and discourages any interactions with the police. Cooperation with police has literally been met with violence as retribution. Segments of rap culture promote this, along with drugs, "hussling", and gangs. Hell, if you look at many of the prolific rappers now, they have or had gang associations. This culture works directly against the ideas of community policing, and for whatever reason, is acceptable in a lot of communities.
You're putting the burden on a community that didn't really have a choice in the matter. Blaming something as nebulous as "culture" ignores the history that created it and how racists try to getaway with saying they're not racist because it's not black people, but black "culture" that's bad, as if they're really making that big of a distinction beyond there being "some good ones."

Poor, especially poor black communities, have been targets of state sanctioned brutality since their inception. Is it really that much of a surprise that the police aren't really seen as people they can trust when there hasn't been a concerted effort to bridge that gap? Sure, we've made some progress, but coming from the outright penalty-free murder of black people by whites isn't exactly a high bar to meet. If you look at the history of black communities, you'll see that the pattern of harassment hasn't really changed at all. The only things that have changed are the reasons because "those people" are just "prone to more crime." That sentiment hasn't changed much either; only the terms used to describe them.

In areas with high crime, doing community events are outside the realms of the budget. Responding to crimes takes precedence over community events. This adds to the difficulty for recruiting from within the community for law enforcement in these areas. When the community works directly against law enforcement, how are you supposed to foster positive change and recruiting unless the changes come from within? Especially when the job typically requires at the very least an associates degree in Criminal Justice or a bachelors in any other field, the lower education rate in these areas slims the playing field.

I personally think there needs to be a change from within the communities.
And you expect economically depressed neighborhoods to have the funding, expertise, and organization to to do the work of the city, town, and/or state? Hell, or even the feds? Maybe there'd be money to spend on improving neighborhoods and police relations if the feds weren't busy spending money on milsurp and handing them over to places that don't really need them like Brimfield, Ohio. Even non-profit community organizations have funding and expertise that come from outside of their impact areas.

You don't have to host carnivals or street fairs to build a good relationship with people. It can start small by reaching out and partnering community organizations that work with youth and having dialogue events. You can have beat cops that are familiar with the neighborhood and it's residents like the mailman/woman. Hell, you can even use your power as an institution and union to ease certain laws. There's TONS of shit that cops can do as an institution.

One thing you need to get out of your head is that poor neighborhoods are poor because of "culture" or violent music or whatever attributes you assign to them; they're poor by design. Shitty music and contempt for authority has existed since before civilization. Plato has a quote about it and teens in the 50's didn't start fucking eachother because Elvis shook his hips anymore than kids deciding to join gangs or be cop killers because of NWA.

I always found it hilarious that some people, I don't include you in that group yet, always say that instead of looking to be a rapper or a baller, those kids should be looking to be doctors and businessmen instead. As if poor nutrition, under-resourced schools, under-resourced neighborhoods, and generational poverty doesn't already put a kid way behind a kid with good nutrition, great schools, and a upper middle class neighborhood with parents with degrees. Entertainment is actually one of the very few areas where they have a shot at making it out of the economic desert through legit means. In a community with a lack of opportunities, should anyone be surprised that a lot of people turn to less reputable means for survival?

Telling a community to pull themselves up through their own bootstraps by showing them what boots look like when they don't even have the materials isn't helpful or practical.

Of course, I also think corrupt officers should be held accountable for their actions. However, I think that the accountability has to be accurate. We still have protests going on and off involving Michael Brown while there's a preponderance of evidence backing the officer's use of force. Yet there's little mention of the completely unjustified shoot of Akai Gurley (the unarmed man who was admittedly shot accidentally by NYPD). I'm all for protesting when wrongdoing has occurred, but as of recent times, it seems these protests are going on for the wrong causes. Case in point, the completely justified shooting in St. Louis where protesters stormed the scene and attacked officers before the scene was even fully cleared. Or the recent protests for a shooting in which a man attacked an officer with a shovel, breaking bones and his body camera.
There's never going to be a perfect victim that somehow did absolutely nothing wrong ever in their lives for the cop to kill, maim, or beat them because a cop somehow feared bodily harm or mistook his gun for a taser. It isn't just about each individual incident, but how it demonstrates a pattern when it comes to black folks. It's the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.


I fully agree with changes in LE like having outside agencies investigate use of force incidents, along with body cameras being mandatory. Statistics for use of force would also be helpful for identifying trends, and possible issues.
It's also taken decades for these things to even become mainstream discussion and it's taken all of these killings to finally get something done. There's still a lot of resistance from the law enforcement community too. Glad we agree though? I can't wait until the numbers come out in a few years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Couldn't agree more about the ridiculousness of statements like "just be a doctor' as though you just snap your fingers and it happens. My wife teaches 1st grade in a city school that is designated as low income. Her school is actually one of the better ones, but she's been in schools (through workshops, functions, etc) where 99% of the school is on free lunch. At one school, over 50% of the enrollment was comprised of kids from homeless shelters.

The idea that these kids can just "work harder" and "do better" is incredibly naive. They're worrying about where they're going to sleep and what they're going to eat. Some of them have absolutely pathetic parents who spend money on drugs instead of food or clothes. These kids show up to school in 30 degree weather wearing a short sleeve t-shirt and no coat. 1st grade is 6 years old. In these types of situations, think what that means for the age of the parents. Many are barely 22-23 themselves.

We pump money into "third world countries" to build them back up. But this is our own "third world". For these kids to have any chance in hell of not repeating the exact same mistakes as their parents, the schools need resources to provide them with an incredible support system (tutoring, after school programs, sports, music, art, etc). Even welfare isn't the answer here, as you still have to be a decent parent to use that properly. And even then it doesn't mean you're doing a good job raising your child. Nobody wants to say it, but the reality is, these kids need to spend more of the day at school than they do at home.

This is where I've simplified a lot of my political beliefs (since i largely don't care to get wrapped up in the BS rhetoric anymore). If you're not putting more resources into education, then you don't give a shit about improving this country. I don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc. Unless you're going to go around forcibly sterilizing people, the "welfare queen" who has 3 kids who are given a shitty childhood with no opportunities and no help in bettering themselves ends up tripling your problem because without intervention it is EXTREMELY likely that they'll follow the exact same path (and yes, I've seen 32 year old grandmothers).

Even if you want to say "screw the parent", fine..whatever. It's probably too late for them anyway. But not doing everything in our power to break the cycle with the kids is ignorant as hell.

 
Couldn't agree more about the ridiculousness of statements like "just be a doctor' as though you just snap your fingers and it happens. My wife teaches 1st grade in a city school that is designated as low income. Her school is actually one of the better ones, but she's been in schools (through workshops, functions, etc) where 99% of the school is on free lunch. At one school, over 50% of the enrollment was comprised of kids from homeless shelters.

...

Even if you want to say "screw the parent", fine..whatever. It's probably too late for them anyway. But not doing everything in our power to break the cycle with the kids is ignorant as hell.
I agree with everything you're saying on your post, but I condensed it to just this part for the quote. Anyone saying "just be a doctor" isn't being realistic. I find the last line really pertinent though, as you'll see below.

You're putting the burden on a community that didn't really have a choice in the matter. Blaming something as nebulous as "culture" ignores the history that created it and how racists try to getaway with saying they're not racist because it's not black people, but black "culture" that's bad, as if they're really making that big of a distinction beyond there being "some good ones."

Poor, especially poor black communities, have been targets of state sanctioned brutality since their inception. Is it really that much of a surprise that the police aren't really seen as people they can trust when there hasn't been a concerted effort to bridge that gap? Sure, we've made some progress, but coming from the outright penalty-free murder of black people by whites isn't exactly a high bar to meet. If you look at the history of black communities, you'll see that the pattern of harassment hasn't really changed at all. The only things that have changed are the reasons because "those people" are just "prone to more crime." That sentiment hasn't changed much either; only the terms used to describe them.
I'm sorry, but no. When criminals run rampant in your neighborhood, and instead of "snitching", you actively work to be quiet, that's a community problem. Especially when it's these criminals that are polluting neighborhoods with drugs and violence. I don't buy "distrust of police" as an excuse, because I've personally witnessed entire departments work their asses off to help their communities. These communities continue to shelter these criminals and make excuses. Then again, maybe I'm jaded because I've witnessed countless domestic assault victims justify their attackers actions and make excuses. It seems to be the same mentality of "protect our own".

And you expect economically depressed neighborhoods to have the funding, expertise, and organization to to do the work of the city, town, and/or state? Hell, or even the feds? Maybe there'd be money to spend on improving neighborhoods and police relations if the feds weren't busy spending money on milsurp and handing them over to places that don't really need them like Brimfield, Ohio. Even non-profit community organizations have funding and expertise that come from outside of their impact areas.
That's why I brought it up as a hurdle that needs to be jumped. Especially if you want more people to be hired from within communities. Although, I don't see an issue with handing over milsurp items to LE because it's money already spent. What else are we going to do with items already bought? Throw them away or sell them to competing nations when they can be used within our own borders? Now, I don't agree with continually throwing money into these items. If they're there for the taking though, I'm not going to say "scrap it".

You don't have to host carnivals or street fairs to build a good relationship with people. It can start small by reaching out and partnering community organizations that work with youth and having dialogue events. You can have beat cops that are familiar with the neighborhood and it's residents like the mailman/woman. Hell, you can even use your power as an institution and union to ease certain laws. There's TONS of shit that cops can do as an institution.
Do you really think that hasn't been happening? I don't know of a beat cop that doesn't know his beat better than most of the residents, except for maybe the rookies. You want enraging? Knowing for a fact that people in a community witnessed a crime like a drive by (because you know the area and it's habits), and having not a soul say shit. How are police supposed to "help the community by reaching out", when people literally slam the door on their face for asking about a crime that impacts their own people? It's literally prioritizing call outs back to back. Where's the time and man power supposed to come from?

Add in the fact that parents are raising their kids to not talk to the police, and not to "snitch", and it's a vicious circle. I could show up to a house where some dude just beat the living shit out of his wife and she called 911, but the kid refuses to talk because he was told "don't to talk to the police" or "don't snitch". That's the difficulties that are facing modern police in these neighborhoods, and it's un-needed. I've worked to tear down barriers like that, but it's pretty fucking frustrating to have the community that you're trying to help actively work against you.

Depending on what you're asking for, I can agree with "easing certain laws". Although, depending on the neighborhood, I don't see that really helping because the laws that would need to be "eased" on aren't even being enforced. They have higher priorities.

I get "rebelling against authority". When I was a younger kid, I wasn't an angel. I had my own run ins with law enforcement, but I was raised to respect them and not fight. Even when I was an angsty teen that believed in the "fuck the police" mantra, I still knew better than to try to fight them because of how I was raised.

I always found it hilarious that some people, I don't include you in that group yet, always say that instead of looking to be a rapper or a baller, those kids should be looking to be doctors and businessmen instead. As if poor nutrition, under-resourced schools, under-resourced neighborhoods, and generational poverty doesn't already put a kid way behind a kid with good nutrition, great schools, and a upper middle class neighborhood with parents with degrees. Entertainment is actually one of the very few areas where they have a shot at making it out of the economic desert through legit means. In a community with a lack of opportunities, should anyone be surprised that a lot of people turn to less reputable means for survival?
I agree for the most part, all the way up until you get to that last sentence. I cannot ever condone victimizing others for your own gain. Period. Again, maybe I'm jaded and cynical, but shit like kids getting killed over some shoes isn't survival. Rape isn't survival. Robbery isn't survival. We're not talking about shoplifting a loaf of bread. At least I'm not.

There's never going to be a perfect victim that somehow did absolutely nothing wrong ever in their lives for the cop to kill, maim, or beat them because a cop somehow feared bodily harm or mistook his gun for a taser. It isn't just about each individual incident, but how it demonstrates a pattern when it comes to black folks. It's the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.
That exact situation has happened. That's your perfect victim right there. It's not the first, and it's not going to be the last. So, I have to disagree. It is about each individual incident, because the pattern I'm seeing is a lack of respect for law enforcement which leads to resisting arrest. You see the same thing with poor people of all races.

It's also taken decades for these things to even become mainstream discussion and it's taken all of these killings to finally get something done. There's still a lot of resistance from the law enforcement community too. Glad we agree though? I can't wait until the numbers come out in a few years.
To be fair, body cameras are fairly new technology that is finally becoming affordable. You might be shocked to see me say this, but I think a lot of the holdups with things like oversight from other departments have come from the conservative side because of fears of large government. It's one of the reasons that I can't identify with that party. Just like how I can't identify with the liberal side because of their views on gun ownership.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name="Msut77" post="12412420" timestamp="1421281776"]How many beat cops (or other) does Fearia know? Is it relevant?[/quote]
Man, your buttery ass couldn't find an argument anywhere in the past few pages? You really are a biscuit, aren't you?
 
Not sure how many times it needs to be stated, there has to be an argument for me to find one. I'm not going to bother with what you think about the liberal position on gun ownership.

Just to reiterate, you have a college degree, friends in law enforcement a hefty fixation on it. But you aren't a cop and have no intention of being one?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name="Msut77" post="12413731" timestamp="1421321133"]Not sure how many times it needs to be stated, there has to be an argument for me to find one. I'm not going to bother withe what you think about the liberal position on gun ownership.

Just to reiterate, you have a college degree, friends in law enforcement a hefty fixation on it. But you aren't a cop and have no intention of being one?[/quote]
Again, no. You are wrong.
 
[quote name="Msut77" post="12413770" timestamp="1421325670"]So you are in the police academy?

Also what do you think the liberal position on guns is?[/quote]
I'm not going over all my qualifications with you in detail. I'm experienced in the field. That's all you need to know.

I see the liberal position as being for unreasonable gun control measures. This is based off of the laws passed in liberal states like California, Illinois and New York. Things like restricting access to CPLs, capacity limits, and the like. Unneeded restrictions that have done more harm than good.

Again, you've made no arguments this entire time. Just passive aggressive jabs. To say no arguments have been made in the past few pages is bullshit trolling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To say I don't believe you would be an understatement.

Define unreasonable. Can you explain how limits on magazine capacity does more harm?
 
[quote name="Msut77" post="12413811" timestamp="1421327779"]To say I don't believe you would be an understatement.

Define unreasonable. Can you explain how limits on magazine capacity does more harm?[/quote]
Putting unnecessary restrictions on the law abiding citizen that harms them more than criminals.

Capacity limits are harmful in the regards that it's another law that is counterproductive to self defense while not restricting criminals. Fact of the matter is, if someone wants to do harm, a capacity limit is a law that they're not going to give 2 fucks about breaking. Yet it restricts those who follow the law. What's the good in that?

Where's the magic number of "this is acceptable", and why?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name="Msut77" post="12413835" timestamp="1421328582"]Remember what I said about arguments?
Restating your assertion is not an argument.[/quote]
You're completely ignoring the points made while not making any. Good job!
 
There would have to be a point for me to ignore one.

You said you have trouble with "liberals" or liberal view points because of guns and yet you are unable to articulate anything
 
[quote name="Msut77" post="12413863" timestamp="1421330101"]There would have to be a point for me to ignore one.

You said you have trouble with "liberals" or liberal view points because of guns and yet you are unable to articulate anything[/quote]
Alright biscuit. I tried to humor you, but it comes back to you outright ignoring the points and not making any yourself. Good job again!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please don't take the guesses about your occupation made by the clowns on here too seriously, Fearia. They besmirched my job and made several incorrect assumptions about it as well. I can forgive ignorance, but, much like Msutt has proven in this very thread, they wil not admit they were wrong or apologize. Doh claimed he knew a secret about me that I begged him to divulge. I'm still waiting to hear it. I do love to hear how more tax money should go to areas that produce hardly any tax revenue. The simple answer is for unemployed, under employed, and "disabled" people to realize that they should not have children. Instead we incentivize this behavior. Politically correct? No. Effective? Yes. I do applaud Doh for working to change things in a way he believes. Put up or shut up, right?

PS: Screw the military industrial corporate union that overcharges and under delivers.
 
The simple answer is for unemployed, under employed, and "disabled" people to realize that they should not have children. Instead we incentivize this behavior. Politically correct? No. Effective? Yes.
I don't disagree that people shouldn't have kids until they are financially and emotionally ready. But calling that an "answer" is silly. What percentage of pregnancies do you actually think are planned? Even for wealthy families this happens. They're just better equipped to deal with it. Telling people to stop having sex is about as dumb as telling somebody to just "go be a doctor".

The best shot you have at accomplishing this is easily accessible, no questions asked, free birth control (unlikely) or free, uncontested abortions (extremely unlikely). If population control and not paying for somebody elses children is legitimately the issue...and it's not masked with some other bullshit, those two things would be seen as necessary expenses to achieve your objective.

And even then...people would still have to choose to use those services. And none of us had any say in being born. To punish the child at that point is crazy. The Kardashians didn't work any harder than some kids born in a trailer park. They were just born to different parents. But yeah, throwing money at a problem isn't the solution if that money isn't being used in the right way.

That's why I'd rather see free birth control and free child care (so single parents can work) as opposed to an endless welfare carousel. To me, those things coupled with a greater investment in education and after school programs is how you bring about real change. You don't just say "do better". You teach people how to make that happen. Yes, it would cost money in the short term. But in the long term, it should save way more.

But if you believe the teachings of the great prophet George Carlin...the government wants it this way for a reason.

We're also way off topic for this thread, lol. Not sure if it really matters or how much people are sticklers for that. But I don't mind general discussion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name="Msut77" post="12414680" timestamp="1421347544"]Am I supposed to pretend you make coherent points to make your feel good about yourself?[/quote]
Whatever troll. Over 800 posts in this thread, and you've made no real points or arguments the entire time. All the while, claiming none have been made. I'm done acknowledging you as anything but a biscuit with a buttery ass.
 
I don't disagree that people shouldn't have kids until they are financially and emotionally ready. But calling that an "answer" is silly. What percentage of pregnancies do you actually think are planned? Even for wealthy families this happens. They're just better equipped to deal with it. Telling people to stop having sex is about as dumb as telling somebody to just "go be a doctor".

The best shot you have at accomplishing this is easily accessible, no questions asked, free birth control (unlikely) or free, uncontested abortions (extremely unlikely). If population control and not paying for somebody elses children is legitimately the issue...and it's not masked with some other bullshit, those two things would be seen as necessary expenses to achieve your objective.

And even then...people would still have to choose to use those services. And none of us had any say in being born. To punish the child at that point is crazy. The Kardashians didn't work any harder than some kids born in a trailer park. They were just born to different parents. But yeah, throwing money at a problem isn't the solution if that money isn't being used in the right way.

That's why I'd rather see free birth control and free child care (so single parents can work) as opposed to an endless welfare carousel. To me, those things coupled with a greater investment in education and after school programs is how you bring about real change. You don't just say "do better". You teach people how to make that happen. Yes, it would cost money in the short term. But in the long term, it should save way more.

But if you believe the teachings of the great prophet George Carlin...the government wants it this way for a reason.

We're also way off topic for this thread, lol. Not sure if it really matters or how much people are sticklers for that. But I don't mind general discussion.
I don't wish to tell anyone to stop having sex, I just want to quit rewarding them for doing so with tax money. And am I punishing a child by NOT taking someone else's money that they earned for their own children and giving it to selfish, lazy parents OR are their parents punishing them by not being responsible adults? Cold, hard personal responsibility and accepting the consequences of your own actions. Maybe if you see your son or daughter starving you will actually change. Maybe you will begin to respect when others give charity and offer help to you versus assuming that you are entitled to gov't money. My job puts me in the frontlines of seeing what damage generational welfare and single parenthood are doing to children. Maybe the only way to change people is for a generation to suffer in orphanages while their parents are held accountable for child neglect when we do away with welfare. Then those free birth control programs will be used. I would rather be hungry for a while and taken away from my parents than be taught to continue a cycle of irresponsibility, early pregnancy, single parenthood, and living a lifetime on gov't dependency while not pursuing any worthwhile life goals. Call me cruel, I see it as pragmatism and problem solving.

PS:I deplore corporate welfare even more. No one disagrees with me on that belief so we never argue over it.;-)

PSS: Should you have to prove that you are a "victim" of the state to receive tax money into your desired programs, Doh? Is any race entitled to this boon if they can show a history of abuse? How far back can this abuse go to qualify? Is it all members of a race or only certain ones? Racial profiling for benefits seems the antithesis of what MLK wanted.

Waiting for the shitstorm.....;-)

 
I like how right wingers invoke MLK when it suits their needs...  When in reality they despise everything that came from the civil rights movement.

The right has never accepted civil rights they merely tolerated it .... which continues today.

Their racist, homophobes, bigoted statements aren't blips or accidents, they are pent up anger that manifest itself once in a while through outbursts.

There was a documentary of how the KKK failed to become a powerful voting bloc through federal enforcement interference, so the breakup have moved people to become independently migrating to a party known as the republicans

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like how right wingers invoke MLK when it suits their needs... When in reality they despise everything that came from the civil rights movement.

The right has never accepted civil rights they merely tolerated it .... which continues today.

Their racist, homophobes, bigoted statements aren't blips or accidents, they are pent up anger that manifest itself once in a while through outbursts.

There was a documentary of how the KKK failed to become a powerful voting bloc through federal enforcement interference, so the breakup have moved people to become independently migrating to a party known as the republicans
As much as I enjoy when ego the resident amateur eugenicist and presumed neo nazi spews his usual ramblings this is a nice change of pace.

The right wing attempt at co-opting MLK is pure marketing based of a snippet from I have a dream. He was very vocal about his support for programs modeled on the new deal or the GI Bill (referencing "Why We Can't Wait").

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name="Msut77" post="12416304" timestamp="1421379266"]As much as I enjoy when ego the resident amateur eugenicist and presumed neo nazi spews his usual ramblings this is a nice change of pace.

The right wing attempt at co-opting MLK is pure marketing based of a snippet from I have a dream. He was very vocal about his support for programs modeled on the new deal or the GI Bill (referencing Why We Can't Wait". [/quote]
Where's your argument / point, biscuit? I don't see one. Then again, I probably shouldn't be surprised that the buttery doughy assed one is making jabs without actual substance. It's what he does.

Goes to show you how solid his side is on the argument.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't wish to tell anyone to stop having sex, I just want to quit rewarding them for doing so with tax money. And am I punishing a child by NOT taking someone else's money that they earned for their own children and giving it to selfish, lazy parents OR are their parents punishing them by not being responsible adults? Cold, hard personal responsibility and accepting the consequences of your own actions. Maybe if you see your son or daughter starving you will actually change. Maybe you will begin to respect when others give charity and offer help to you versus assuming that you are entitled to gov't money. My job puts me in the frontlines of seeing what damage generational welfare and single parenthood are doing to children. Maybe the only way to change people is for a generation to suffer in orphanages while their parents are held accountable for child neglect when we do away with welfare. Then those free birth control programs will be used. I would rather be hungry for a while and taken away from my parents than be taught to continue a cycle of irresponsibility, early pregnancy, single parenthood, and living a lifetime on gov't dependency while not pursuing any worthwhile life goals. Call me cruel, I see it as pragmatism and problem solving.
I understand the purpose behind a sentiment like this...but from my perspective there's a bucket load of things that should be cut before we turn our back on our own people. We pour millions of dollars into countries all over the globe like some righteous, compassionate do-gooder...and then turn up our noses when our own neighbors fall on hard times. Basically, people only give when there's a camera rolling.

And that's not to say it's anybody elses responsibility to pay for someone's kids. But that's not the way I look at it. It's an investment in safer streets, better property values, and a country that isn't lagging behind the rest of the world in most statistical categories. Beyond that...I wouldn't even call for an increase in taxes...but a better allocation. Mine is an argument of making better use of the money we are already putting in.

 
I'm sorry, but no. When criminals run rampant in your neighborhood, and instead of "snitching", you actively work to be quiet, that's a community problem. Especially when it's these criminals that are polluting neighborhoods with drugs and violence. I don't buy "distrust of police" as an excuse, because I've personally witnessed entire departments work their asses off to help their communities. These communities continue to shelter these criminals and make excuses. Then again, maybe I'm jaded because I've witnessed countless domestic assault victims justify their attackers actions and make excuses. It seems to be the same mentality of "protect our own".
Again, you're ignoring the history of the repression of these communities from cops that goes back to the creation of those communities. Cops were just one of the many very obvious tools to make sure that the population was contained. It should be obvious that as an institution and group, that the police aren't equipped to solve all of societies problems. All I see from you is a lot of victim-blaming. There's a reason why cops aren't social workers.

Good thing you're not a DV victim advocate because you seem to lack an important ingredient for the job: empathy.

That's why I brought it up as a hurdle that needs to be jumped. Especially if you want more people to be hired from within communities. Although, I don't see an issue with handing over milsurp items to LE because it's money already spent. What else are we going to do with items already bought? Throw them away or sell them to competing nations when they can be used within our own borders? Now, I don't agree with continually throwing money into these items. If they're there for the taking though, I'm not going to say "scrap it".
I wasn't making a point about the money already having been spent; it was about the fact that the money was spent manufacturing the damn things to begin with and how as a country, we're more interested in giving APC's to communities that don't need them than putting money into social programs and improving neighborhoods that could actually USE those resources.

Do you really think that hasn't been happening? I don't know of a beat cop that doesn't know his beat better than most of the residents, except for maybe the rookies. You want enraging? Knowing for a fact that people in a community witnessed a crime like a drive by (because you know the area and it's habits), and having not a soul say shit. How are police supposed to "help the community by reaching out", when people literally slam the door on their face for asking about a crime that impacts their own people? It's literally prioritizing call outs back to back. Where's the time and man power supposed to come from?

Add in the fact that parents are raising their kids to not talk to the police, and not to "snitch", and it's a vicious circle. I could show up to a house where some dude just beat the living shit out of his wife and she called 911, but the kid refuses to talk because he was told "don't to talk to the police" or "don't snitch". That's the difficulties that are facing modern police in these neighborhoods, and it's un-needed. I've worked to tear down barriers like that, but it's pretty fucking frustrating to have the community that you're trying to help actively work against you.
Do you know why "snitches get stiches?" Because the people that snitches snitch to are unable to protect them. Let's say that a kid calls the cop on his alcoholic/drug using/etc dad. What happens? Maybe the guy goes to jail for a little bit, the mom might need to go with the kid to an overcrowded and under-resourced shelter, maybe the mom has some issues of her own and the kid has to go to a group home that's even worse than a shelter? Or maybe the kid loses his parents and assigned to a foster home with a barebones child services department? The quote: "Better the devil you know than the devil/angel you don't" applies here.

Again, there are problems that cops can't solve because that's not their purpose and from all indications, you, personally, are really unequipped to. I'm not saying that I am either, but at least I don't have a hostile attitude about it.

Depending on what you're asking for, I can agree with "easing certain laws". Although, depending on the neighborhood, I don't see that really helping because the laws that would need to be "eased" on aren't even being enforced. They have higher priorities.
All these things are cumulative. Spending more time now means less accumulated time later. And who ever said that outreach was easy? We have FREE programs like parenting support groups and one-on-one early childhood development classes and it's still a struggle to fill up slots. We even provide actual meals too! Sorry, but the excuse of "people slam doors in my face" really rings hollow with me.

I get "rebelling against authority". When I was a younger kid, I wasn't an angel. I had my own run ins with law enforcement, but I was raised to respect them and not fight. Even when I was an angsty teen that believed in the "fuck the police" mantra, I still knew better than to try to fight them because of how I was raised.

I agree for the most part, all the way up until you get to that last sentence. I cannot ever condone victimizing others for your own gain. Period. Again, maybe I'm jaded and cynical, but shit like kids getting killed over some shoes isn't survival. Rape isn't survival. Robbery isn't survival. We're not talking about shoplifting a loaf of bread. At least I'm not.
The weakest are the ones that will get victimized, so is it any surprise that people need to be a little/lot rougher as to not be victimized? Survival isn't just about not having the money to feed yourself. To make it about stealing a loaf of bread is a little simplistic.

That exact situation has happened. That's your perfect victim right there. It's not the first, and it's not going to be the last. So, I have to disagree. It is about each individual incident, because the pattern I'm seeing is a lack of respect for law enforcement which leads to resisting arrest. You see the same thing with poor people of all races.
LOLZ...Grant was no perfect victim. People were still wanting to put him on proverbial trial for his own death. BART doesn't exactly have the best history when it comes to it's black passengers either.

To be fair, body cameras are fairly new technology that is finally becoming affordable. You might be shocked to see me say this, but I think a lot of the holdups with things like oversight from other departments have come from the conservative side because of fears of large government. It's one of the reasons that I can't identify with that party. Just like how I can't identify with the liberal side because of their views on gun ownership.
So you're a 90's republican I guess? Congrats?

If law enforcement didn't have a strong authoritarian streak, I'd believe that it had something to do with fears of a large government. Considering authoritarianism is pretty much their raison d'etre, it's more about questioning that authority that they find an affront.
 
Again, you're ignoring the history of the repression of these communities from cops that goes back to the creation of those communities. Cops were just one of the many very obvious tools to make sure that the population was contained. It should be obvious that as an institution and group, that the police aren't equipped to solve all of societies problems. All I see from you is a lot of victim-blaming. There's a reason why cops aren't social workers.
What's it going to take for these communities to trust law enforcement then? And who would you blame if people witnessed a blatantly violent crime, but refused to cooperate in assisting the investigation?

Do you know why "snitches get stiches?" Because the people that snitches snitch to are unable to protect them.
So, when someone kills a kid in a drive by in broad daylight, they're just fearful that their anonymous tip is going to somehow get brought back to them? There's resources out there for everything you've brought up. Not using them and actively working AGAINST law enforcement doesn't seem productive to me.

All these things are cumulative. Spending more time now means less accumulated time later. And who ever said that outreach was easy? We have FREE programs like parenting support groups and one-on-one early childhood development classes and it's still a struggle to fill up slots. We even provide actual meals too! Sorry, but the excuse of "people slam doors in my face" really rings hollow with me.
Are you complaining about people not taking advantage of the resources available to them? Because isn't that what I'm complaining about, just a different segment?

The weakest are the ones that will get victimized, so is it any surprise that people need to be a little/lot rougher as to not be victimized? Survival isn't just about not having the money to feed yourself. To make it about stealing a loaf of bread is a little simplistic.
So, you're justifying violent crimes like rape and murder because they need to be "a little rougher" as to not be victimized?

LOLZ...Grant was no perfect victim. People were still wanting to put him on proverbial trial for his own death. BART doesn't exactly have the best history when it comes to it's black passengers either.
So, I hand you the exact case you listed as "not being possible", and now you're arguing the idiots that want to put the dead man on trial? He was shot in the back while handcuffed. On video. The officer was charged (and served time). I expect something similar for the recent NYPD shooting in the stairwell.

So you're a 90's republican I guess? Congrats?
Because you know all my viewpoints? Pro-choice (both abortion and euthanasia for the terminally ill), for gay marriage, in the middle for tax / spend, against death penalty, for environmental regulations, for isolationist policies, against illegal immigration (but believe that the loops that need to be jumped through to immigrate legally need to be made easier) . . . but because I like guns and support LE, I must be a repugnican?

My overall sentiment is "meh". Changes do need to be made in LE, but justifying the actions of the communities and saying they don't need to change too is ridiculous to me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am tired of posting proof of how farking corrupt police are, and it seems the courts aren't there to protect innocent people either

http://gawker.com/did-a-group-of-nypd-cops-plant-guns-on-innocent-people-1670457611

LOL at don't snitch... Seems like don't snitch rule was invented by police for themselves
Yup. Police are corrupt. At least you're staying warm this winter under all those toasty blanket statements.

Can you teach us whether or not lawyers are crooked next? :)

 
Yup. Police are corrupt. At least you're staying warm this winter under all those toasty blanket statements.

Can you teach us whether or not lawyers are crooked next? :)
Seeing your comprehension is around that of a fruit fly, lets paint a better picture

1. This is not a just ONE bad cop thing, there are multiple offenders all with high ranks involved

2. Look up mafia, gangs, and criminal groups, where conspiracy charges are always leveled

3. Where are all the check and balances, seems like the courts were ok letting a man rot in prison till they figure what really went on

4. What happen to all the "ggod" cops who would rat on the bad ones, wait there wasn't one

 
Seeing your comprehension is around that of a fruit fly, lets paint a better picture

1. This is not a just ONE bad cop thing, there are multiple offenders all with high ranks involved

2. Look up mafia, gangs, and criminal groups, where conspiracy charges are always leveled

3. Where are all the check and balances, seems like the courts were ok letting a man rot in prison till they figure what really went on

4. What happen to all the "ggod" cops who would rat on the bad ones, wait there wasn't one
Yes, it's my comprehension that needs work. Why don't you do a little math problem for me.

1. How many police officers are there in the United States?

2. How many officers have been involved in these "heinous" incidents?

Take statistic 2. and divide it by statistic 1.

Do you know what that's called? A percentage. So, when you go around making blanket statements like "police are corrupt", this percentage is what you're basing your entire argument on. It's no different than saying lawyers are crooks, baseball players are on steroids, Asians are bad drivers, or black people are criminals. I'm sure similar statistics could be pulled up to support all of those claims. It doesn't make them true, and it sure as hell doesn't make you right.

In summation, you're a fucking dumbass.

 
Yes, it's my comprehension that needs work. Why don't you do a little math problem for me.

1. How many police officers are there in the United States?

2. How many officers have been involved in these "heinous" incidents?

Take statistic 2. and divide it by statistic 1.

Do you know what that's called? A percentage. So, when you go around making blanket statements like "police are corrupt", this percentage is what you're basing your entire argument on. It's no different than saying lawyers are crooks, baseball players are on steroids, Asians are bad drivers, or black people are criminals. I'm sure similar statistics could be pulled up to support all of those claims. It doesn't make them true, and it sure as hell doesn't make you right.

In summation, you're a fucking dumbass.
When "good" cops turn a blind eye and not report corruption I can safely say that the statistics you so love to throw has been moved to 90 % or plus

Again why do we condemn and PUNISH Nazi guards who were just following orders and/or no direct involvement with the actual mass murders? Yet you are so ok condoning corrupt cops ?

Seems like you are the dumbass + some :)

 
[quote name="Darby27" post="12428253" timestamp="1421811353"]

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-portage/brimfield-township-trustees-former-police-chief-david-oliver-would-likely-have-been-fired[/quote]
Sad. Very sad.

I wonder if the details will come out.


Edit:

http://www.ohio.com/news/local/brimfield-officer-who-stood-up-to-chief-oliver-recounts-bullying-vulgarities-and-retaliation-1.559275

Wow. Would've never guessed that he was like these allegations based off of how he acted online. Sigh. Disappointing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So expecting people to refrain from procreating while living off of tax payer money is silly because it is human nature to have sex, I propose that it is also human nature to take all the unearned benefits you can get and remain on the system as long as you are comfortable. Many illegal activities could be credited as just human nature. Dismissing the need to hold people accountable for their actions because of human nature is a weak cop out of an argument in my opinion. We already provide at least 12 years of free education and a ton of other programs. 19 trillion in debt ( not including the unfounded obligations such as soc security and Medicare/cade) is not the time to start new programs.
Should welfare be only given to those who graduate from high school? Are any and all expectations of those on welfare unreasonable?
 
How bad is the problem. In dollars, not including medicaid, medicare or social security. Just the poor children and bad parents you are referring to.
 
Sad. Very sad.

I wonder if the details will come out.


Edit:

http://www.ohio.com/news/local/brimfield-officer-who-stood-up-to-chief-oliver-recounts-bullying-vulgarities-and-retaliation-1.559275

Wow. Would've never guessed that he was like these allegations based off of how he acted online. Sigh. Disappointing.
Glad to see you feel bad for that asswipe but not the people he victimized with his statement.

Just a typical cop apologist who love having them in your mouth

 
Rachel Maddow just said no federal civil rights charges will be brought in the Mike Brown case. The evidence was found to clear Wilson.
 
Sad. Very sad.

I wonder if the details will come out.


Edit:


Wow. Would've never guessed that he was like these allegations based off of how he acted online. Sigh. Disappointing.
I was trying to avoid linking the Beacon Urinal because they are on my shit list until they fire two of their writers. (one wrote a hit piece on my alma mater, and the other wrote very biased stories about a punk that killed my friend's parents)

Apparently Chief Oliver had a reputation as an idiot in the local law enforcement community. (per a family friend who works for the Portage County sheriff's dept)

 
[quote name="Finger_Shocker" post="12430971" timestamp="1421880596"]Glad to see you feel bad for that asswipe but not the people he victimized with his statement.

Just a typical cop apologist who love having them in your mouth[/quote]
Yeah, because "sad" means I feel bad for the guy, right? It couldn't mean anything along the lines of being sad about the entire situation. Get the fuck out of here, troll.

I was trying to avoid linking the Beacon Urinal because they are on my shit list until they fire two of their writers. (one wrote a hit piece on my alma mater, and the other wrote very biased stories about a punk that killed my friend's parents)

Apparently Chief Oliver had a reputation as an idiot in the local law enforcement community. (per a family friend who works for the Portage County sheriff's dept)
Gotcha. Good to know.

I don't know anyone who has met him. Everyone I knew thought he was a good guy based off of his online postings. But if any of those allegations are true... yeah, totally bad.

Posting about helping kids and supporting veterans can give a pretty good impression without meeting someone. He duped a ridiculously large amount of people. Something like 180,000.
 
I mean God forbid the police officer be concerned when a known felon is in possession of a firearm. I mean it's not like he had to serve 13 years in jail for shooting at police officers previously... and it's not like he left the vehicle AFTER being told he would be shot for doing so.

Can you please find a better martyr?

 
Yeah, because "sad" means I feel bad for the guy, right? It couldn't mean anything along the lines of being sad about the entire situation. Get the fuck out of here, troll.

Gotcha. Good to know. I don't know anyone who has met him. Everyone I knew thought he was a good guy based off of his online postings. But if any of those allegations are true... yeah, totally bad. Posting about helping kids and supporting veterans can give a pretty good impression without meeting someone. He duped a ridiculously large amount of people. Something like 180,000.
BahhHHHAAA!!!! Sad about the situation? You mean the situation he caused himself, the situation he was responsible for? You were pretty happy that Mike Brown deserved what he go for the situation he started tho ...

Too bad that piggy still have a fat full pension and benefit waiting for him after he so abruptly retired, I double he deserve any pity sadness. Just another long line of corrupt/bad officials that get away with crimes and misconduct.

False heroes/idols worship !!! Sad people keep thinking just cause you have a badge you are a good person.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name="Finger_Shocker" post="12432181" timestamp="1421911967"]BahhHHHAAA!!!! Sad about the situation? You mean the situation he caused himself, the situation he was responsible for? You were pretty happy that Mike Brown deserved what he go for the situation he started tho ...

Too bad that piggy still have a fat full pension and benefit waiting for him after he so abruptly retired, I double he deserve any pity sadness. Just another long line of corrupt/bad officials that get away with crimes and misconduct.

False heroes/idols worship !!! Sad people keep thinking just cause you have a badge you are a good person.[/quote]
Irony. When a flaming liberal says shit like this, but probably was sad to find out Bill Clinton was a cheating liar.

Keep spouting your hypocrisy though. We all know your true colors: racist and a bigot.
 
Irony. When a flaming liberal says shit like this, but probably was sad to find out Bill Clinton was a cheating liar. Keep spouting your hypocrisy though. We all know your true colors: racist and a bigot.
Blah Blah Blah...... When did Clinton become a talking point? or are you trolling?

You should take a good clear look in the mirror before throwing around baseless insults

 
bread's done
Back
Top