17 yo boy shot by police because he wasn't resisting arrest.

[ChrisL]

Well, I have way too many replies to respond to them all on this thread, so I will just say that we need two officers to every patrol car and the officers need better training. That much is obvious, I think.

Two officers per patrol car is a waste of resources. The majority of police interactions are uneventful and positive.

Not at all. It would save tons in lawsuits.

Prove it.

Prove that two cops instead of one will keep people from filing lawsuits against police.

I don't have to prove anything. However, the fact that an officer is not alone on patrol will help save officer lives (immediate backup, instead of having to call and wait for it to show up), and this will also save citizen lives because the officer may not have to resort to using his gun if there is another officer to help restrain a suspect.

well certainly you have to prove that, you made a claim to which you have zero statistics or a study to demonstrate the feasibility. It does seem you have no information to make such a claim.

I don't have to prove anything. I think it is a good idea and better than anything you have come up with, which is a big fat ZERO.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Well, I have way too many replies to respond to them all on this thread, so I will just say that we need two officers to every patrol car and the officers need better training. That much is obvious, I think.

Two officers per patrol car is a waste of resources. The majority of police interactions are uneventful and positive.

Not at all. It would save tons in lawsuits.

Prove it.

Prove that two cops instead of one will keep people from filing lawsuits against police.

I don't have to prove anything. However, the fact that an officer is not alone on patrol will help save officer lives (immediate backup, instead of having to call and wait for it to show up), and this will also save citizen lives because the officer may not have to resort to using his gun if there is another officer to help restrain a suspect.

Don't present statements as a fact unless you're willing to back it up.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I have way too many replies to respond to them all on this thread, so I will just say that we need two officers to every patrol car and the officers need better training. That much is obvious, I think.

Two officers per patrol car is a waste of resources. The majority of police interactions are uneventful and positive.

Not at all. It would save tons in lawsuits.

Prove it.

Prove that two cops instead of one will keep people from filing lawsuits against police.

I don't have to prove anything. However, the fact that an officer is not alone on patrol will help save officer lives (immediate backup, instead of having to call and wait for it to show up), and this will also save citizen lives because the officer may not have to resort to using his gun if there is another officer to help restrain a suspect.

Don't present statements as a fact unless you're willing to back it up.

What? I can do whatever I want. What's your solution?

 

[jc456]

Two officers per patrol car is a waste of resources. The majority of police interactions are uneventful and positive.

Not at all. It would save tons in lawsuits.

explain what the hell you're stating here? You still haven't stated how to pay for this.

It would save money and lives in the long run. Do you know how expensive it is to go to court?

based on what study? Can you post that study? How does it save money? You haven't stated where the funds come from yet.

It's common sense. Duh. Do you have a solution? Let's hear it.

it is? how is it common sense, because you want it? funny how you now are judge and jury. hmmmm..getting a bit over the tips there friend.

 

[dannyboys]

Since the vast majority of encounters with a LEO are peaceful it makes no sense to have two LEOs in one patrol car.
Police forces all over the country use primarily one LEO per patrol car.
The chances of encountering a loser punk brat out looking for a problem encounter with a LEO are small.
Dash cams and now body cams are making life a lot easier for LEOs.
Last year in one Cal. county when every LEO started wearing a body cam the complaints against the LEO, mostly by negroes, went down 80%. What does that tell us?

 

[ChrisL]

Not at all. It would save tons in lawsuits.

explain what the hell you're stating here? You still haven't stated how to pay for this.

It would save money and lives in the long run. Do you know how expensive it is to go to court?

based on what study? Can you post that study? How does it save money? You haven't stated where the funds come from yet.

It's common sense. Duh. Do you have a solution? Let's hear it.

it is? how is it common sense, because you want it? funny how you now are judge and jury. hmmmm..getting a bit over the tips there friend.

I explained to you already how it is common sense. If you TWO officers instead of one, you have backup right there.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Two officers per patrol car is a waste of resources. The majority of police interactions are uneventful and positive.

Not at all. It would save tons in lawsuits.

Prove it.

Prove that two cops instead of one will keep people from filing lawsuits against police.

I don't have to prove anything. However, the fact that an officer is not alone on patrol will help save officer lives (immediate backup, instead of having to call and wait for it to show up), and this will also save citizen lives because the officer may not have to resort to using his gun if there is another officer to help restrain a suspect.

Don't present statements as a fact unless you're willing to back it up.

What? I can do whatever I want. What's your solution?

I told you, there is no solution. You cannot prevent people from making stupid decisions or acting irrationally.

 

[ChrisL]

Not at all. It would save tons in lawsuits.

Prove it.

Prove that two cops instead of one will keep people from filing lawsuits against police.

I don't have to prove anything. However, the fact that an officer is not alone on patrol will help save officer lives (immediate backup, instead of having to call and wait for it to show up), and this will also save citizen lives because the officer may not have to resort to using his gun if there is another officer to help restrain a suspect.

Don't present statements as a fact unless you're willing to back it up.

What? I can do whatever I want. What's your solution?

I told you, there is no solution. You cannot prevent people from making stupid decisions or acting irrationally.

Yes, two officers per car would cut down on police shootings and citizen shootings because they would have backup right there available. That is just common sense. You are more vulnerable when you are alone. FACT.

 

[dannyboys]

Not at all. It would save tons in lawsuits.

Prove it.

Prove that two cops instead of one will keep people from filing lawsuits against police.

I don't have to prove anything. However, the fact that an officer is not alone on patrol will help save officer lives (immediate backup, instead of having to call and wait for it to show up), and this will also save citizen lives because the officer may not have to resort to using his gun if there is another officer to help restrain a suspect.

Don't present statements as a fact unless you're willing to back it up.

What? I can do whatever I want. What's your solution?

I told you, there is no solution. You cannot prevent people from making stupid decisions or acting irrationally.

As demonstrated here by 'The Cowgirl'.

 

[jc456]

Two officers per patrol car is a waste of resources. The majority of police interactions are uneventful and positive.

Not at all. It would save tons in lawsuits.

explain what the hell you're stating here? You still haven't stated how to pay for this.

It would save money and lives in the long run. Do you know how expensive it is to go to court?

based on what study? Can you post that study? How does it save money? You haven't stated where the funds come from yet.

It's common sense. Duh. Do you have a solution? Let's hear it.

I don't know that I understand what it is your attempting to solve.

 

[jc456]

Prove it.

Prove that two cops instead of one will keep people from filing lawsuits against police.

I don't have to prove anything. However, the fact that an officer is not alone on patrol will help save officer lives (immediate backup, instead of having to call and wait for it to show up), and this will also save citizen lives because the officer may not have to resort to using his gun if there is another officer to help restrain a suspect.

Don't present statements as a fact unless you're willing to back it up.

What? I can do whatever I want. What's your solution?

I told you, there is no solution. You cannot prevent people from making stupid decisions or acting irrationally.

Yes, two officers per car would cut down on police shootings and citizen shootings because they would have backup right there available. That is just common sense. You are more vulnerable when you are alone. FACT.

to which you have zero statistics to make that statement, but thanks for playing.

Show us the feasibility study.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Prove it.

Prove that two cops instead of one will keep people from filing lawsuits against police.

I don't have to prove anything. However, the fact that an officer is not alone on patrol will help save officer lives (immediate backup, instead of having to call and wait for it to show up), and this will also save citizen lives because the officer may not have to resort to using his gun if there is another officer to help restrain a suspect.

Don't present statements as a fact unless you're willing to back it up.

What? I can do whatever I want. What's your solution?

I told you, there is no solution. You cannot prevent people from making stupid decisions or acting irrationally.

Yes, two officers per car would cut down on police shootings and citizen shootings because they would have backup right there available. That is just common sense. You are more vulnerable when you are alone. FACT.

You base that on, what? Common sense? Did this young driver have "common sense"?

 

[ChrisL]

I don't have to prove anything. However, the fact that an officer is not alone on patrol will help save officer lives (immediate backup, instead of having to call and wait for it to show up), and this will also save citizen lives because the officer may not have to resort to using his gun if there is another officer to help restrain a suspect.

Don't present statements as a fact unless you're willing to back it up.

What? I can do whatever I want. What's your solution?

I told you, there is no solution. You cannot prevent people from making stupid decisions or acting irrationally.

Yes, two officers per car would cut down on police shootings and citizen shootings because they would have backup right there available. That is just common sense. You are more vulnerable when you are alone. FACT.

to which you have zero statistics to make that statement, but thanks for playing.

Show us the feasibility study.

Do YOU have any solutions? Mine is better than yours.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't have to prove anything. However, the fact that an officer is not alone on patrol will help save officer lives (immediate backup, instead of having to call and wait for it to show up), and this will also save citizen lives because the officer may not have to resort to using his gun if there is another officer to help restrain a suspect.

Don't present statements as a fact unless you're willing to back it up.

What? I can do whatever I want. What's your solution?

I told you, there is no solution. You cannot prevent people from making stupid decisions or acting irrationally.

Yes, two officers per car would cut down on police shootings and citizen shootings because they would have backup right there available. That is just common sense. You are more vulnerable when you are alone. FACT.

You base that on, what? Common sense? Did this young driver have "common sense"?

That has nothing to do with my post. The fact is that if there are two officers instead of one, there is back up available immediately. Two officers would be more easily able to restrain a difficult suspect than just one. What in the HELL are you arguing about?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Don't present statements as a fact unless you're willing to back it up.

What? I can do whatever I want. What's your solution?

I told you, there is no solution. You cannot prevent people from making stupid decisions or acting irrationally.

Yes, two officers per car would cut down on police shootings and citizen shootings because they would have backup right there available. That is just common sense. You are more vulnerable when you are alone. FACT.

to which you have zero statistics to make that statement, but thanks for playing.

Show us the feasibility study.

Do YOU have any solutions? Mine is better than yours.

You haven't shown that your "solution" would solve anything.

 

[ChrisL]

What? I can do whatever I want. What's your solution?

I told you, there is no solution. You cannot prevent people from making stupid decisions or acting irrationally.

Yes, two officers per car would cut down on police shootings and citizen shootings because they would have backup right there available. That is just common sense. You are more vulnerable when you are alone. FACT.

to which you have zero statistics to make that statement, but thanks for playing.

Show us the feasibility study.

Do YOU have any solutions? Mine is better than yours.

You haven't shown that your "solution" would solve anything.

Of course it would. Like I said, two officers can more easily restrain a suspect. If there are two officers per car, then they have immediate backup. Now, which part of that statement do you disagree with and why?

 

[jc456]

Two officers per patrol car is a waste of resources. The majority of police interactions are uneventful and positive.

Not at all. It would save tons in lawsuits.

Prove it.

Prove that two cops instead of one will keep people from filing lawsuits against police.

I don't have to prove anything. However, the fact that an officer is not alone on patrol will help save officer lives (immediate backup, instead of having to call and wait for it to show up), and this will also save citizen lives because the officer may not have to resort to using his gun if there is another officer to help restrain a suspect.

well certainly you have to prove that, you made a claim to which you have zero statistics or a study to demonstrate the feasibility. It does seem you have no information to make such a claim.

I don't have to prove anything. I think it is a good idea and better than anything you have come up with, which is a big fat ZERO.

now that is truly special. So is this how all transactions ought to take place? Because someone says so. funny, you are indeed that. Lost but funny. I feel sorry for you, you obviously haven't done anything outside your home to think because you think something it ought to be. See in business and law making where business decisions have to be made, a feasibility study or a business case is researched to confirm or validate such a claim. And you state, because I say so. Funny. Perhaps you ought to grow up a little.

 

[jc456]

Two officers per patrol car is a waste of resources. The majority of police interactions are uneventful and positive.

Not at all. It would save tons in lawsuits.

Prove it.

Prove that two cops instead of one will keep people from filing lawsuits against police.

I don't have to prove anything. However, the fact that an officer is not alone on patrol will help save officer lives (immediate backup, instead of having to call and wait for it to show up), and this will also save citizen lives because the officer may not have to resort to using his gun if there is another officer to help restrain a suspect.

Don't present statements as a fact unless you're willing to back it up.

What? I can do whatever I want. What's your solution?

you can? What are you going to do walk into a police station and tell them all, "hey, two cops per car from now on because I said so" Funny stuff.

Please post up that video after you do that.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Don't present statements as a fact unless you're willing to back it up.

What? I can do whatever I want. What's your solution?

I told you, there is no solution. You cannot prevent people from making stupid decisions or acting irrationally.

Yes, two officers per car would cut down on police shootings and citizen shootings because they would have backup right there available. That is just common sense. You are more vulnerable when you are alone. FACT.

You base that on, what? Common sense? Did this young driver have "common sense"?

That has nothing to do with my post. The fact is that if there are two officers instead of one, there is back up available immediately. Two officers would be more easily able to restrain a difficult suspect than just one. What in the HELL are you arguing about?

Where is the evidence that two cops would cut down on police/citizen shootings and prevent people from acting irrationally and making stupid decisions. You offer a solution but then fail to show that it would actually solve what you claim it will.

 

[ChrisL]

Not at all. It would save tons in lawsuits.

Prove it.

Prove that two cops instead of one will keep people from filing lawsuits against police.

I don't have to prove anything. However, the fact that an officer is not alone on patrol will help save officer lives (immediate backup, instead of having to call and wait for it to show up), and this will also save citizen lives because the officer may not have to resort to using his gun if there is another officer to help restrain a suspect.

well certainly you have to prove that, you made a claim to which you have zero statistics or a study to demonstrate the feasibility. It does seem you have no information to make such a claim.

I don't have to prove anything. I think it is a good idea and better than anything you have come up with, which is a big fat ZERO.

now that is truly special. So is this how all transactions ought to take place? Because someone says so. funny, you are indeed that. Lost but funny. I feel sorry for you, you obviously haven't done anything outside your home to think because you think something it ought to be. See in business and law making where business decisions have to be made, a feasibility study or a business case is researched to confirm or validate such a claim. And you state, because I say so. Funny. Perhaps you ought to grow up a little.

Stop acting like a retard and address my posts. Now, which part of the statement do you disagree with and why?