This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Because you are such a race junky, I am not surprised you tried to inject race into a very straightforward proposition that has nothing to do with race. I am teaching my children to be very skeptical and cautious towards all law enforcement, of all races.
The claim of "numerous students" cheering the officers being struck by the car has not been verified, and if it did happen was not representative of the group of protesters (according to the Denver PD):
That's nothing. Remember Avondale? A predominantly black subdivision complained of police brutality, so he pulled all officers from the area and told them not to go in.
Couldn't have said it any better. Very well spoken.
I forgot about that. It was crazy and he was getting honors at local law schools at the time and afterwards.
Of course, all of you boot lickers have hive mind. Anyone mildly critical of law enforcement is the enemy to you types.
Incredible, no actually I didn't know that story. Add in corrupt and tied to the mob and that's Harry Lee. I think Jefferson had maybe 3-4 permanent sheriffs over the course of a century.
Bootlicker? Uh, yeah.I can guarantee you that I've got a lot more legitimate reason to dislike and not trust cops than you. Have you ever been accused of a crime you didn't commit? I have, and I was also subject to some pretty horrible treatment in the process.
Did he relax when you rolled down the window?
Sorry you sound like a bootlicker.
It sounds unfairly prejudice, don't you think?
A student claims that it was adults, who had joined the student protest, who did the cheering. Lets wait for the video to surface before making judgments.
Skepticism and caution toward people carrying guns sounds prejudiced to you?
I'm sick of it, too. But while it's going on, the people with guns who swear to serve me and then give me orders, often without legal authority for the orders they're giving, are worthy of skepticism.
Fair enough. Also not every police officer should be met with skepticism and fear.
Who said fear?
Did they swear to serve you, the individual, or society? To serve society they necessarily have to detain and restrain individuals. Of course we, society, have demands and restraints on them as well. We demand that they act lawfully, within the scope and duty of their employment. None of this is written for you, of course, since you make a living understanding that concept and bringing officers individually, and departments, back into line when they forget who and what they are and should be. Rather, there was an opening to asset the concept for those who may not have directed their attention to this matter before.
Both. They took an oath to serve me and society, and sometimes that involves making a choice. When the police lose sight of the fact that they serve both individuals and society at large is when I get involved.
Edited to show how ridiculous you are.
Sounds like TA is installing at least a very skeptical bias in his progeny.
I don't have much gripe with your position in here I don't think.I am slightly positively disposed toward cops. Meaning I give them slight deference when I encounter them. Why? Because they do good things that help me (catch criminals, arrest drunk drivers, rescue people in trouble etc.) I also believe that we are increasingly giving more power to the police and para-militaristic govt entities and that worries me.
That's a good point, Tim, but a lot of conservatives have publicly voiced their outrage over the Garner decision to include Glen Beck, Chris Wallace, etc. As well as a lot of people who normally lean right on this board believe this should have at least gone to trial. Heck, I would be in favor of a 2nd grand jury because there is no way the Feds will be able to get anything to stick in this case.
Correct. I phrased that poorly. It is often at the juncture of that moment when individuals believe they have inherent in themselves society's right to control and direct officers that problems arise or exacerbate. Individuals, little sovereigns that they are, often like to question, direct, and give what they think are lawful orders to the cops, and sometimes in most degrading manners. While cops can give individuals lawful orders individuals may not do so towards cops. This mistaken belief and practice causes a world of hurt, as much, I would submit, as cops forsaken the boundaries of the scope, course, and duties they have. (again, speaking through you, but not really to you but to others.)
To whom much power is given, from them should much be expected, and no doubt some officers and even Departments forget this. They hold a public trust, which is ironic since they seem, as a profession, to be losing the public's trust. I fight this fight. I lament that I lose far too many battles.
Peter?
It causes a world of hurt. But if I shoot a cop, I know what the result will be. Well, to be fair, I'm about 90% sure I know what the result will be if a cop shoots a citizen. 98% if the citizen is black.
Tussle inside a car and moving toward officers. Those are the similarities. This happened inside a police station and the kid was 135 lbs. That's strange that they didn't have him restrained.
Agreed. Sounds like this guy was absolutely FUBAR on drugs. No clue why he wouldn't have been restrained in the interest of everyone's safety. And (even when he wasn't) you'd like to think a cop (or two) could physically handle him well enough that deadly force was not required. Or maybe taser may have been an option (not that stuff can't go wrong with that)?And not to go off on a tangent, but these new drugs are bad news. Scary.
We need to develop the next generation of net launchers, like the ones they use in animal capture shows. If we can capture, without injury, a leopard or a mountain lion, well then we can apprehend a middle age obese guy without injury.
