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

[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?

you can? What are you going to 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.

It is a solution that could be considered. Of course, there would still be shootings, but I think there would be less if there were 2 officers per patrol car.

Police consider 2 officers per patrol vehicle in some beats

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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?

What if there are two people in the car or three or four or more!

I disagree with your conclusions that two cops will in fact prevent people from doing stupid shit, like resisting arrest. You offer up nothing to back up your statements.

 

[Care4all]

I think our police academies are FAILING us and failing the police, and need some tweaking in their training programs, if this is the kind of cop they are producing.

 

[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.

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.

Hmm. Now, WHY would they want 2 officers per car? How on EARTH does that make any sense at all?

Baltimore Sergeant Warns Superiors: “It Is About To Get Ugly”

BuzzFeed News has also learned that the Baltimore Police Department’s chief of patrol sent out a text message to all commanders ordering officers to take added caution: “2 OFFICERS PER CAR.. DOUBLE UP ALL PATROL CARS,” the order read.

 

[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.

so if you don't have to prove it, how do you supposed to make that change?

 

[ChrisL]

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?

What if there are two people in the car or three or four or more!

I disagree with your conclusions that two cops will in fact prevent people from doing stupid shit, like resisting arrest. You offer up nothing to back up your statements.

I never said it would stop people from doing stupid things. I said it would more than likely decrease officer shootings and suspect shootings by officers because they would have an extra set of hands, eyes and backup. Two officers can handle a suspect more easily than one.

Now, what is it about that statement that you disagree with and why?

 

[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.

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?

are you sure you meant this for me? I explained your position quite frankly. What is it you feel I didn't address?

 

[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.

so if you don;t have to prove it, how do you supposed to make that change?

Do I look like the fucking FBI? I'm just a concerned citizen coming up with some solutions on a message board.

 

[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.

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?

are you sure you meant this for me? I explained your position quite frankly. What is it you feel I didn't address?

I'm sorry, but you have not. Your entire post above was all about me. You addressed NOTHING about the problem with police shootings.

 

[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.

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?

are you sure you meant this for me? I explained your position quite frankly. What is it you feel I didn't address?

Are you 6 years old or something? Reading comprehension not your thing? Maybe you're just slow.

 

[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?

you can? What are you going to 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.

It is a solution that could be considered. Of course, there would still be shootings, but I think there would be less if there were 2 officers per patrol car.

Police consider 2 officers per patrol vehicle in some beats

"Officers could begin doubling up in patrol vehicles as early as January in an effort to improve response times for beats that have a high number of calls for service that require dual responses, said Columbia police patrol Capt. Brad Nelson. Domestic calls, robberies and alarm calls require two patrol vehicles to respond."

“The disadvantage is that you would see fewer black-and-whites. Still the same amount of officers, just not as many patrol vehicles out there at the same time,”

Same amount of cops fewer patrols mean some areas will not have police presence and will have to wait longer for a response when needed.

 

[jc456]

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?

What if there are two people in the car or three or four or more!

I disagree with your conclusions that two cops will in fact prevent people from doing stupid shit, like resisting arrest. You offer up nothing to back up your statements.

I never said it would stop people from doing stupid things. I said it would more than likely decrease officer shootings and suspect shootings by officers because they would have an extra set of hands, eyes and backup. Two officers can handle a suspect more easily than one.

Now, what is it about that statement that you disagree with and why?

your whole premise lacks fundamental business sense.

 

[ChrisL]

As you can see by my links above, SOME communities are actually considering the "2 officers per car" idea. So suck it!

 

[jc456]

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?

are you sure you meant this for me? I explained your position quite frankly. What is it you feel I didn't address?

Are you 6 years old or something? Reading comprehension not your thing? Maybe you're just slow.

oh, well please tell me what it is I didn't address?

 

[ChrisL]

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?

What if there are two people in the car or three or four or more!

I disagree with your conclusions that two cops will in fact prevent people from doing stupid shit, like resisting arrest. You offer up nothing to back up your statements.

I never said it would stop people from doing stupid things. I said it would more than likely decrease officer shootings and suspect shootings by officers because they would have an extra set of hands, eyes and backup. Two officers can handle a suspect more easily than one.

Now, what is it about that statement that you disagree with and why?

your whole premise lacks fundamental business sense.

And you have yet to present any kind of logical response. SHouldn't you be in school?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

Hmm. Now, WHY would they want 2 officers per car? How on EARTH does that make any sense at all?

Baltimore Sergeant Warns Superiors: “It Is About To Get Ugly”

BuzzFeed News has also learned that the Baltimore Police Department’s chief of patrol sent out a text message to all commanders ordering officers to take added caution: “2 OFFICERS PER CAR.. DOUBLE UP ALL PATROL CARS,” the order read.

Context!

This is a city where the cops are under siege, this is to protect the cops not the citizens.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

are you sure you meant this for me? I explained your position quite frankly. What is it you feel I didn't address?

Are you 6 years old or something? Reading comprehension not your thing? Maybe you're just slow.

a well please tell me what it is I didn't address?

Tell me what you disagree with about this statement. Two officers can more easily take down a difficult suspect than one officer. If there are two officers, immediate backup is available.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Hmm. Now, WHY would they want 2 officers per car? How on EARTH does that make any sense at all?

Baltimore Sergeant Warns Superiors: “It Is About To Get Ugly”

BuzzFeed News has also learned that the Baltimore Police Department’s chief of patrol sent out a text message to all commanders ordering officers to take added caution: “2 OFFICERS PER CAR.. DOUBLE UP ALL PATROL CARS,” the order read.

Context!

This is a city where the cops are under siege, this is to protect the cops not the citizens.

It helps both, cops and citizens since two officers would be able to more easily restrain a suspect. Do you not understand that? Why not? It's really quite simple concept.

 

[dannyboys]

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.

I DO I DO! Parents rising normal decent respectful kids. Instead of non-existent parents as evidenced in every fucking inner city negro shithole city in the country. Or LIB parents who are deniers and enablers of their kid's loser punk brat behavior towards everyone with any authority from their parents to teachers to cops.
Start there and we could reduce the need for LEOs drastically.

 

[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?

you can? What are you going to 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.

It is a solution that could be considered. Of course, there would still be shootings, but I think there would be less if there were 2 officers per patrol car.

Police consider 2 officers per patrol vehicle in some beats

"Officers could begin doubling up in patrol vehicles as early as January in an effort to improve response times for beats that have a high number of calls for service that require dual responses, said Columbia police patrol Capt. Brad Nelson. Domestic calls, robberies and alarm calls require two patrol vehicles to respond."

“The disadvantage is that you would see fewer black-and-whites. Still the same amount of officers, just not as many patrol vehicles out there at the same time,”

Same amount of cops fewer patrols mean some areas will not have police presence and will have to wait longer for a response when needed.

Mmm hmm. And? No solution is 100% fool proof or perfect.