If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
and if you (and your often spurious sources) had been right in every case posted here, waving your pitchfork around and assigning guilt before any real evidence is studied, you'd have a point. But you haven't been, not even about the case that started this thread, and you don't. That's where your common sense has utterly failed you.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Now who's being contrarian? Just throwing this out there, but why does it f*cking matter when an observation is made if it's a potentially valid one?
Because we're (I) trying to illuminate the situations, not obscure them under a morass of crap.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
That would imply you're more concerned about some kind of point scoring in an argument rather than trying to look at all perspectives in a situation to see the facts.
The only 'scoring' I'm doing is I read the comment and say to myself "He might be right" or "I didn't think of that" or "That's a good point." Your comment was the epitome of "What does that have to do with anything?"
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
If that's the case, then you aren't the type of person I thought you were.
I find my view and perception of the PL has been changing the past year or two, so this may indeed be the case. Of course, in my view I'm trying to distill threads I participate in to the meat (well that's a terrible mixed metaphor) and I've probably gotten a little evangelical about eliminating the fat (terrible arguments, misdirections, and off-topic comments).
Still, you got me off-topic on this one, so kudos to you!
1) Man is gunned down when not responding to officers
2) Under investigation officers swear the man was not wearing headphones and nothing impeded his ability to hear their commands
3) Witness photos clearly show headphones in man's ears
4) Oddly, the headphones end up in dead man's pocket
5) You come in and say "Some people don't listen to anything while wearing headphones"
This whole thread is about police misconduct and your minutely, technically valid point about some people not listening to music when wearing headphones, just is not rooted in any logic in this discussion. It is just a galazy-sized "So what?". It just boggles probably more than a couple minds here that THAT is where you choose to take the absorption of those facts.
Even if we take into account this technically correct point, and the man, while aware of being black and aware of what he was carrying, purposefully ignored stern warnings from armed officers, the headphones were still removed from the body; the situation certainly, without a doubt looks fishy at the very best.
Bingo. They tampered with evidence and a crime scene. Whether or not he was 'pretending' changes jack shit. Hence my perception that comment was stirring the pot.
Bingo. They tampered with evidence and a crime scene. Whether or not he was 'pretending' changes jack shit. Hence my perception that comment was stirring the pot.
Stirring the pot is kinda the point. You know the root of the phrase? Some have said it's about stirring a pot of shit, but that's not correct. It was the practice of vigorously stirring to reveal what was under the top layers of the cheap pub stew. (Because medieval pubs frequently would dump all of a day's leftovers into the stew pot by the fire, day after day, week after week, never bothering to clean out the thing.) It (stirring) was a practice that was strongly discouraged by the pub owners and patrons alike, because when it came to knowing what was lurking near the bottom, ignorance was bliss.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Well, I'm glad we got that in black and white. Now I can safely write-off those contrarian posts I was talking about.
What-the-****-ever, if you aren't even going to read beyond the first sentence, why reply at all?
(Completely out of persona here.)
So like OAW, you just want posts about how cops suck, a chorus of affirmatives, and no one voicing opposing ideas? I'll freely admit that sometimes it's just a case of throwing something against a wall and seeing if it sticks (though not always, and it sure as hell isn't like your "side" hasn't done that before either), but I can't for the life of me figure out why that pisses you off. It isn't an attack against you, or any other members, for that matter. Are you really that ****ing grouchy, does potentially seeing a different perspective (even a half-assed one, at times) piss you off that much?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
What-the-****-ever, if you aren't even going to read beyond the first sentence, why reply at all?
(Completely out of persona here.)
So like OAW, you just want posts about how cops suck, a chorus of affirmatives, and no one voicing opposing ideas? I'll freely admit that sometimes it's just a case of throwing something against a wall and seeing if it sticks (though not always, and it sure as hell isn't like your "side" hasn't done that before either), but I can't for the life of me figure out why that pisses you off. It isn't an attack against you, or any other members, for that matter. Are you really that ****ing grouchy, does potentially seeing a different perspective (even a half-assed one, at times) piss you off that much?
Cap, I think you might be taking this particular one a bit personally. I'm with you in general on a lot of these incidents, but we must not allow any room for malfeasance from our boys in blue, lest we want to see protesters continue to "stir the pot" in cities across our great nation. As someone who can relate very well to the point you're making: This is about the actions of the cops, not the actions of the victim. He's not here to give his side.
This one has an awful lot of smoke for a reasonable person to give the cops involved in this shoot the benefit of the doubt of their not being a fire. Evidence tampering, especially when involving a police shooting, is a strong indicator of misconduct and malfeasance. If the cops were confident on this one, they wouldn't have erased the dash cam nor moved the suspects ear buds. At the very least there needs to be an investigation into the matter for two allegations: A) Evidence tampering and B) The cops made a real bad shoot.
Side Note: I got pulled over in the middle of the mountains in Utah on Sunday. I put my windows down, hands up on the steering wheel, and turned the car off before he even got out. The officer approached me and told me I was speeding and my tints were too dark. We chatted for a bit - he asked me a couple questions to make sure I wasn't drug running which I answered truthfully and respectfully (like where I worked, where I'm coming from and where I'm going), and he came back with a warning. There's a lot of good cops out there - it's a damn shame that a relative few have so much power to turn the citizens against them.
It's not just this argument, or even just this thread.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Bingo. They tampered with evidence and a crime scene. Whether or not he was 'pretending' changes jack shit. Hence my perception that comment was stirring the pot.
Exactly. But true to form some insist upon reaching for straws to suggest that the cops must have made some sort of "innocent mistake". Or that the victim was complicit in his own killing because he may have been "pretending" to be listening to music and willfully not obeying the commands of the officers. Because you know ... it can never as simple as cops being all too quick to shoot the black guy holding the air rifle first ... and then asking questions later. It would seem the situation with John Crawford who was simply shot on sight while holding a similar air rifle in an Ohio Walmart has no parallels whatsoever for such individuals.
Two points. Yeah, he may have been ignoring cops (I don't think that's the case), more likely however is that he had them in and things went down like the cops said. Unless he was deaf as a post, no earbuds block out enough noise to fully conceal that much sound. Maybe he was wearing $1000 custom IEMs that do, they do exist, but it seems doubtful (doesn't look like it in the photo). Likely the cops saw the earbuds, thought it would complicate the matter, then put them in the guy's pocket. Was that right? Hell no. But tampering w/ evidence isn't murder.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
What-the-****-ever, if you aren't even going to read beyond the first sentence, why reply at all?
I read it. I didn't find value in your proposition.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
I can't for the life of me figure out why that pisses you off.
Society's default position is giving the cop the benefit of the doubt. Which wouldn't be an unfair position except the victim does not receive that very same benefit of the doubt. Doubly so when these people many times haven't committed crimes, but merely behaved 'improperly' during a stop or situation that may not even be lawful.
Add to that people who dehumanize and devalue criminals and their subsequent rights just because they are criminals.
Plus the Thin Blue Line, which creates situations where one cop may have engaged in wrong-doing, but because other cops who witnessed the event would rather do nothing than tell the truth and possibly implicate the officer, creating a unnecessary fog of doubt over the situation.
And on top of that, add a system predisposed to racism either due to personal views, cultural indoctrination, professional expediency, or systematic bias, and that's a lot of detritus to try and navigate to get to a place of objectivity.
So when we're dealing with a system where we mostly agree is corrupt or biased or just plain shady, and when the default reaction to most instances is to start blaming the victim for completely legal behavior, mock their decision making in high-stress situations, or speculate into theoretical situations that justifies the cops behavior (but never the latter), yes, I take umbrage at what is trying to be achieved.
I don't take every report as gospel. I don't think each case is indicative of racism. I don't think officers reactions are unreasonable in all these posts. And I've put as much in text in this thread.
You want to play devil's advocate? Then point out the faults in our reading of the situation – but do it on the apparent facts and not on fanciful conjecture. Vomiting up inconsequential 'facts' to smear the victims and have no legal ramifications will continue to be pointed out as the piece of shit logic they are.
Side Note: I got pulled over in the middle of the mountains in Utah on Sunday. I put my windows down, hands up on the steering wheel, and turned the car off before he even got out. The officer approached me and told me I was speeding and my tints were too dark. We chatted for a bit - he asked me a couple questions to make sure I wasn't drug running which I answered truthfully and respectfully (like where I worked, where I'm coming from and where I'm going), and he came back with a warning. There's a lot of good cops out there - it's a damn shame that a relative few have so much power to turn the citizens against them.
No offense, but I wouldn't make and broad assertions about the quality of an officer based on one traffic stop where a white man acts like a choir boy. I believe that's a 'best case scenario.' The real determination in the quality of an officer is how he reacts in those less than ideal situations.
If you want to crucify me, crucify me for being too squeamish to watch the videos. Leaving me in a position to make assertions based on articles and third-party descriptions rather than examination of the best evidence.
Practically every news outlet is going to paint cops in a bad light now, because it's either hip or controversy-inducing (generating more clicks). It's all tainted, it's the most corrupt system out there, and forming any concrete opinion from it is absurd. Why is public opinion so often to hang these officers, but then a jury turns around and acquits, more often than not? When people are on a jury they get to see all the evidence and information, unvarnished (or as close as it can be). It's not due to pro-police conspiracies in the justice system, it's because of Social Justice bias in the media. They don't just want to report the news, they need to create it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Why is public opinion so often to hang these officers, but then a jury turns around and acquits, more often than not? When people are on a jury they get to see all the evidence and information, unvarnished (or as close as it can be). It's not due to pro-police conspiracies in the justice system, it's because of Social Justice bias in the media. They don't just want to report the news, they need to create it.
I'll probably end up regretting even attempting to reason with you ... but here goes nothing. You do realize that most cases where cops kill people under questionable circumstances never even make it to a trial jury right?
When people are on a jury they get to see all the evidence and information, unvarnished (or as close as it can be). It's not due to pro-police conspiracies in the justice system, it's because of Social Justice bias in the media.
You don't think being a police officer creates a perception where the jury gives them the benefit of the doubt? A situation, I would add, mirrored in the very same way that being black creates an aura of suspicion?
You don't think DAs, who have to get elected, don't let how pursuing charges against police officers might affect their election chances (and funding) interfere with how they execute their job?
More shenanigans with the obligatory "He went for my gun." and "I feared for my life." claims. Something that many of us have been calling BS on for decades in these situations which is now increasingly being proven to be accurate. But only because we live in the age of smartphones ...
Follow the link for a second New York Times video which shows additional aftermath of the shooting. The white cop who shot the man appears to drop an object near Mr. Scott's body. Presumably the taser which he claims Mr. Scott struggled with him for but the video doesn't support. And a black cop who arrived later provided a modicum of medical assistance ... something which the shooter never bothered to do as is so often the case. Police reports claimed that responding officers performed CPR. But the video shows ... not so much. This dude pulled this man over for a broken taillight. And he shot at this unarmed man 8 times as he was running away. Killed him for no other reason than because because he f*cking could. And if the video didn't exist who here would bet their next paycheck that this officercrooked ass cop would be facing murder charges?
OAW
PS: In light of all the nationwide aftermath of the Ferguson situation one would think these cops would back up off this kind of BS a bit. But this just went down 3 days ago in South Carolina. So apparently one would be wrong.
PT. II - He's been indicted by a GJ. On to the trial.
The altercation between Thomas and authorities occurred after officers tracked her to her South Los Angeles apartment to arrest her on suspicion of child endangerment. Police said she'd abandoned her 3-year-old and 12-year-old children at a police station in the middle of the night because she was a drug addict and couldn't care for them. Officers at the station learned the children expected their grandmother to pick them up.
This is called incentivizing bad behavior. Do we want drug-addict mothers to endanger their children by keeping (and neglecting) them while in a drug-addled state?
Chapter 2
Thomas complained of being unable to breathe at one point, but the reports states the officers said they didn't hear her.
Suuuuuuuuuuuure
The commission specifically noted O'Callaghan's "apparent indifference" to Thomas, but wasn't able to determine whether O'Callaghan deliberately kicked Thomas or was just using her foot to push her into the car. But they determined that the decision to use her foot or leg to move Thomas into the cruiser was "ineffective and inappropriate."
Sounds like the way you might stuff a garbage bag into a can.
Chapter 3
The Police Commission, a civilian oversight board, reviewed the July 22, 2012 incident and issued a report concluding that O'Callaghan used unreasonable force on Alesia Thomas, 35, when she was restrained and in the backseat of a cruiser.
Huzzah!
An autopsy found that Thomas had cocaine in her system when she went into cardiac arrest, but left her cause of death as "undetermined" because the struggle couldn't be excluded as a contributing factor. Thomas, who had a history of bipolar disorder, had no internal injuries or bruising, according to the coroner's report.
Bipolar. Of course.
Chapter 4
Jurors on Friday convicted a Los Angeles police officer of felony assault for repeatedly kicking a handcuffed woman who later died.
The jury reached its verdict after two days of deliberations in the trial of Officer Mary O'Callaghan, 50. She pleaded not guilty to assault under color of authority in the 2012 arrest of Alesia Thomas, 35.
Under color of authority. Sounds like the right description of a lot of the actions being taken in the articles posted in this thread.
Interestingly, I could see people objecting to this as a witch hunt as the charges were minor and the cocaine played a major factor in the woman's death. I'd rebut, however, that if you're trying to reform the system, smaller but impactful incidents like these also should be disciplined.
You don't think being a police officer creates a perception where the jury gives them the benefit of the doubt? A situation, I would add, mirrored in the very same way that being black creates an aura of suspicion?
You don't think DAs, who have to get elected, don't let how pursuing charges against police officers might affect their election chances (and funding) interfere with how they execute their job?
Are you trolling me again?
Again? I've not trolled you. Playing devil's advocate (at times) isn't trolling.
I think most benefit of the doubt that may have been granted officers in the past is gone (that's not entirely a bad thing), given the state of the media (and bloggers/social media commentators, who aren't actual "news") and how they color* reports to make them more negative and controversial. Why? To attract eyeballs to their content and spin their agenda for political purposes and financial gain, of course. But, as witnessed from the cases that do make it to trial, the evidence presented strips away that bias, positive and negative, and the jury gets to decide based on the facts. As we've seen, more often than not, those cops are cleared of wrongdoing, which then leads to a shitstorm because the result doesn't fit with the popular (distorted) narrative presented by progressive sources (Mamma Jones, HuffPo, Salon, etc).
However, I believe that eventually (intelligent) people are going to question those sources, once they've been bitten enough times and I completely agree with you on one important point, I very much want to see many more indictments that lead to trials, the more the merrier, and have them shown in a completely transparent fashion. Because that's the only way the power wielded by these particular media outlets (I'm looking at you too, Fox News) will be effectively curtailed or snuffed out entirely. As an added benefit, the few officers found guilty will be removed from positions of authority and punished accordingly. So it really is a win-win.
*I'll stop short of saying the reporting was openly distorted, but in some cases (like Darren Wilson's) it's plain to see it was.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Again? I've not trolled you. Playing devil's advocate (at times) isn't trolling.
Ok, here's a thought Shaddim. Wanna meet me half-way? Label the posts where you're playing Devil's Advocate as such. Then I can choose whether I want to engage in such a debate and not feel like I've been duped.
I usually fall somewhere in the middle in this particular argument, but I think there's another concern that people aren't discussing enough. There will be a general response from law enforcement, and it's starting to rear its head.
The criticism and controversies are escalating, urban communities are increasingly restless, and cops are feeling the pressure. I think the officer pulling his gun at the pool party shows what I'm talking about: he sees the headlines and knows what people are thinking when he shows up at a scene. Based on what I saw in the video, pulling his gun was a fear-based response — not an authoritative one. Cops are scared, and that should terrify everyone who wants these issues to be resolved. A scared cop is much more likely to overreact.
There will be a general response from law enforcement, and it's starting to rear its head.
I think people are aware, however it's another case of the blame being misdirected. Cops are blaming the people they protect for making things an unsafe situation, when they should be blaming the people who employ them for not training them to properly handle the job they're being given.
It also takes one ****ed up viewpoint to see what happened to that guy in Baltimore and how the officers were charged and to say to yourself that that makes it harder for you to do your job. (Same goes for illegal chokeholds)
If one were to use a popular buzzword, Police feel entitled to using any means necessary because of the job's danger.
Edit: Police do have one legit gripe. A lot of people in charge directly or politically have been looking the other way for years (decades) and now suddenly its not ok. Again, direct your anger at them, not the civies who have had enough. If police sold out their superiors, you'd see a lot more rapid change.
I blame both the political hacks who set the tone of the various administrations and the people hired to find QUALIFIED people to be the police force. Perhaps too many former military types with PTSD have been hired without proper screening?
On the other side....
WHEN will the Blacks hammer their own to cut out the violent stupid behavior that attracts the cops in the first place? Seen Baltimore since the cops have backed off? Think its a good move on the part of the Democrats running Baltimore? The cops didn't end up like this in a vacuum. They ended up this way as a response to the types of characters they have to deal with. A racist President and DOJ do nothing to help in any way.
I blame both the political hacks who set the tone of the various administrations and the people hired to find QUALIFIED people to be the police force. Perhaps too many former military types with PTSD have been hired without proper screening?
I have three friends on the force. Two were great selections. The other guy? I wouldn't trust him as a chaperone on a trip to the museum with junior hight students.
WHEN will the Blacks hammer their own to cut out the violent stupid behavior that attracts the cops in the first place? Seen Baltimore since the cops have backed off? Think its a good move on the part of the Democrats running Baltimore? The cops didn't end up like this in a vacuum. They ended up this way as a response to the types of characters they have to deal with. A racist President and DOJ do nothing to help in any way.
There are far too many factors involved to change urban perception of law enforcement overnight. Poverty, too many absent fathers, and a systemic distrust of all authority (especially white authority) are just a few of the factors involved. Leaders like Al Sharpton do nothing to improve the situation — they only blame instead of discussing solutions.
I think there's plenty of blame to go around, both on the side of law enforcement and on the side of the communities. There are no easy solutions, but I think the people most capable of change are those who are more capable of controlling their environment, and that would be those in charge of the police force. They need to focus on hiring quality officers, perform extensive psychological screenings, and educate them as much as possible on how to deal with a community that carries an inherent distrust of the badge. We're talking about 10-20 year process.
One idea: If a cop is wearing a TAP-OUT shirt to Buffalo Wild Wings when off-duty, fire them.
I'm only partially joking.
Ok, here's a thought Shaddim. Wanna meet me half-way? Label the posts where you're playing Devil's Advocate as such. Then I can choose whether I want to engage in such a debate and not feel like I've been duped.
How's about this, I'll put a DA at the start of the post, when playing that role, and if you're feeling too grumpy you can just skip over it?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"The criminal element feels as though that we're not going to run the risk of chasing them if they are armed with a gun, and they're using this opportunity to settle old beefs, or scores, with people that they have conflict with," the officer said. "I think the public really, really sees that they asked for a softer, less aggressive police department, and we have given them that, and now they are realizing that their way of thinking does not work."
"Ultimately, it does a disservice to the law-abiding citizens. It does a disservice to the business owners. It does a disservice to everybody except the criminal element," the second officer said about operating in reactive mode.
He denied the existence of a work slowdown but said he couldn't promise proactive policing.
"Even though you have reasonable suspicion," he said, "nine out of 10 times, that officer is going to keep on driving."
It's manipulative BS, and punitive behavior in response to legitimate charges (They were indicted!). Talk about sour grapes.
"Even though you have reasonable suspicion," he said, "nine out of 10 times, that officer is going to keep on driving."
Considering that the threshold for "reasonable suspicion" is so low for police (and that's how they got into trouble in the first place), that's not a bad thing en bloc.
This is a temper tantrum being thrown by authority figures who finally reached the end of said authority.
It's shitty, comparatively low-paying work, that now is even more thankless and dangerous than ever before. I honestly don't see why anyone would choose to be in law enforcement in most parts of the country.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Alright, here's my solution to help our cops not shoot everyone: Police officer exchange program – send them to Britain and Germany and Norway and show them how cops do it without guns and without killing people.
Officer Nick Struck was branded a hero after a photograph of him comforting the tragic young crash survivor went viral.
The officer has since revealed he sang 'Twinkle Twinkle Little Star', which he often sings to his own daughter, to comfort the distressed child at the heartbreaking crash site.
He was one of the first on the scene after an SUV carrying two adults and four children left the road and rolled down an embankment in Brighton, Colorado.
All six passengers were thrown out of the vehicle, with authorities later stating that none had been "properly restrained".
Officer Struck, who has a two-year-old daughter himself, looked after the little girl while emergency services worked frantically to treat the other victims.
Is this somehow supposed to undermine that Europe gets most of its policing done without killing people?
No, but I think that with enough training, guns can and should be used as a last resort. However, I believe every officer should carry a sidearm and taser.
I should also say that I agree with the officer exchange program. The only problem is that there's no way even 10% of our force would be able to participate in such a program.
It should also be pointed out (uncomfortably, for this conservative) that most of Europe gets it's policing done without killing people because most of its citizens are unarmed.
No, but I think that with enough training, guns can and should be used as a last resort.
Then I think you misunderstand what the point of my idea is. Its not to take guns out of the hands of our police. It's to stop their excessive use of force, be it bullets or chokeholds. It bears pointing out that both Michael Brown, Eric Garner and Freddie Grey were all unarmed.
Originally Posted by Jawbone54
I should also say that I agree with the officer exchange program. The only problem is that there's no way even 10% of our force would be able to participate in such a program.
That's not a problem. The idea with exchange programs is that the returning participants share what they learned once they get back home. And of course, I'd love to see what our European counterparts think when sent here. Studying their behavior might be worthwhile in giving context into how dangerous it is out there.
Originally Posted by Jawbone54
It should also be pointed out (uncomfortably, for this conservative) that most of Europe gets it's policing done without killing people because most of its citizens are unarmed.
I'm not looking to start a gun control debate in this thread.
Then I think you misunderstand what the point of my idea is. Its not to take guns out of the hands of our police. It's to stop their excessive use of force, be it bullets or chokeholds. It bears pointing out that both Michael Brown, Eric Garner and Freddie Grey were all unarmed.
That's not a problem. The idea with exchange programs is that the returning participants share what they learned once they get back home. And of course, I'd love to see what our European counterparts think when sent here. Studying their behavior might be worthwhile in giving context into how dangerous it is out there.
Which all goes back to what are seemingly the best solutions discussed in this thread: more effective training and less hiring of idiots.
I'm not looking to start a gun control debate in this thread.
I didn't think so, but there's definitely a correlation between the aggressiveness of response and the likelihood of a suspect being armed. I'll leave it at that since you don't want this thread to fly off the rails.
Which all goes back to what are seemingly the best solutions discussed in this thread: more effective training and less hiring of idiots.
Where I think my idea differs is instead of officers getting a "if you change this will work in theory" they get to see the techniques in actual use and working. And perhaps some appalled exchange officers when they see conditions here.
Originally Posted by Jawbone54
I didn't think so, but there's definitely a correlation between the aggressiveness of response and the likelihood of a suspect being armed. I'll leave it at that since you don't want this thread to fly off the rails.
Where I think my idea differs is instead of officers getting a "if you change this will work in theory" they get to see the techniques in actual use and working. And perhaps some appalled exchange officers when they see conditions here.
It's interesting. It would be nice to see it tested on a small scale to see how our officers respond. But you're right — it would be hilarious to see European officers' responses to American tactics.
Counterpoint: Knives kill.
Not from 20-feet away. Unless...
(You can't see this during work hours)
It's interesting. It would be nice to see it tested on a small scale to see how our officers respond. But you're right — it would be hilarious to see European officers' responses to American tactics.
Actually, I meant sending them into the hood and such. Fairs is fair, after all. Though I imagine a lot of Americans being shocked into submission or all "I can't understand you" because they have a mild accent.
Originally Posted by Jawbone54
Not from 20-feet away.
correlation between the aggressiveness of response and the likelihood of a suspect being armed
Officers in Britain do have to deal with deadly armed suspects. I wouldn't dismiss their risk just because they're not as likely to die to bullets. After all, they have to get within stabbing distance to cuff them.
Actually, I meant sending them into the hood and such. Fairs is fair, after all. Though I imagine a lot of Americans being shocked into submission or all "I can't understand you" because they have a mild accent.
Oi! Bollocks!
Officers in Britain do have to deal with deadly armed suspects. I wouldn't dismiss their risk just because they're not as likely to die to bullets. After all, they have to get within stabbing distance to cuff them.
Far be it from me to dismiss their risk. I just won't equate it to wondering if the suspect whose car their approaching might have an AR-15 in his lap.
Far be it from me to dismiss their risk. I just won't equate it to wondering if the suspect whose car their approaching might have an AR-15 in his lap.
Ah – but since criminals don't obey the law, I'm told, won't they have guns in England despite the laws? According to their movies and TV shows, criminals have guns there too. Why shouldn't a Brit cop assume the same?
Ah – but since criminals don't obey the law, I'm told, won't they have guns in England despite the laws? According to their movies and TV shows, criminals have guns there too. Why shouldn't a Brit cop assume the same?
Yes, criminals will still have guns.
In a perfect world, the only people denied guns would be criminals, the mentally unstable, and Democrats.
Just throwing this out there, but why does it f*cking matter when an observation is made if it's a potentially valid one?
Top