Liberal Washington state softening and pu$$ifying its police academy! Yay! Hugs and kumbaya!

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

A cop will get into fights...often.

Many times because they instigate them. I've seen plenty of incidents where the police showing up only made things worse.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yeah...im wrong for wanting cops who meet higher education standards and who go through tough training for discipline and performance under stress. Such a crazy idea.

If they had required higher education standards how would you have ever become a cop?

 

[bucs90]

Yeah...im wrong for wanting cops who meet higher education standards and who go through tough training for discipline and performance under stress. Such a crazy idea.

If they had required higher education standards how would you have ever become a cop?

Dont worry. A bachelors degree from Furman University would qualify me. Football paid for it too.

Dont let those white belts hurt you too much this week.

 

[Katzndogz]

Are you trying to say that most of what a cop deals with is terrorism and gangs?

Because I could pass this on to a whole lot of cops I see doing nothing remotely like that.

Not at all. But most cops will encounter a violent criminal who will attack them...sometimes with a weapon. Some cops experience that often depending where they work. And some do it daily. At Atlanta PD I worked Zone 3. And that precinct dealt with violent gangs every single day.

Still waiting for the answer as to why that violent criminal would attack them. What exactly brings it on?

Here's your hint: I'm going for the disease here -- not just the symptom.

Um...because the violent criminal:
- Doesnt want to go to jail for his crime
- Just wants to kill some cops

So...how do you train a human employed as a cop to win that encounter?

1 - not wanting to go to jail does not automatically beget "violence". Mostly it begets flight.
2 - do you actually believe it's entirely on one party?

Cops are not military; they're supposed to be 'protecting and serving' the public. You may think they are soldiers on some fantasy field of battle but cops who think they're out to vanquish the public are the root of the whole Überpolizei syndrome -- drunk on power, smitten with unchecked authoritarianism.

Seems to me what it takes to be a good cop is not a college degree or a military mindset, but people skills. When you can defuse a potentially crazy situation -- and truly be a peace officer -- then you should get your accolades. But when you set up situations to be confrontational standoffs where the Greater Violence Wins ...... you're part of the problem. In way too many cases, you're creating the problem.

Stop creating confrontations, and you'll have a lot fewer of them to deal with.

You obviously have no clue about the real world we live in.

Cops arent waitresses. How should a cop "serve" a violent felon who refuses to go to jail...or worse...seeks out violence on a cop?

Did you ever see Demolition Man? That's what liberals want.

 

[Katzndogz]

I read someplace else that Washington was moving toward a system of restorative justice. This kind of dangerous training makes more sense if the system is going to treat the criminal as the wronged victim.

 

[Pogo]

Are you trying to say that most of what a cop deals with is terrorism and gangs?

Because I could pass this on to a whole lot of cops I see doing nothing remotely like that.

Not at all. But most cops will encounter a violent criminal who will attack them...sometimes with a weapon. Some cops experience that often depending where they work. And some do it daily. At Atlanta PD I worked Zone 3. And that precinct dealt with violent gangs every single day.

Still waiting for the answer as to why that violent criminal would attack them. What exactly brings it on?

Here's your hint: I'm going for the disease here -- not just the symptom.

Um...because the violent criminal:
- Doesnt want to go to jail for his crime
- Just wants to kill some cops

So...how do you train a human employed as a cop to win that encounter?

1 - not wanting to go to jail does not automatically beget "violence". Mostly it begets flight.
2 - do you actually believe it's entirely on one party?

Cops are not military; they're supposed to be 'protecting and serving' the public. You may think they are soldiers on some fantasy field of battle but cops who think they're out to vanquish the public are the root of the whole Überpolizei syndrome -- drunk on power, smitten with unchecked authoritarianism.

Seems to me what it takes to be a good cop is not a college degree or a military mindset, but people skills. When you can defuse a potentially crazy situation -- and truly be a peace officer -- then you should get your accolades. But when you set up situations to be confrontational standoffs where the Greater Violence Wins ...... you're part of the problem. In way too many cases, you're creating the problem.

Stop creating confrontations, and you'll have a lot fewer of them to deal with.

You obviously have no clue about the real world we live in.

Cops arent waitresses. How should a cop "serve" a violent felon who refuses to go to jail...or worse...seeks out violence on a cop?

That's where your basis is flawed. Police aren't there to serve felons; they're there to serve the public. This mentality you're advocating doesn't "serve" the public so much as "demonize" them. When you're walking the streets literally looking for trouble, chances are you're gonna find it even if you have to make it happen when it's not there. Particularly if you're given a quota to find it.

How fucked up is that. Think about it.

 

[EverCurious]

Do you agree that gang/wannabe gang members, muggers, and rapists are walking the streets looking for trouble? Yes? So if a violent individual is walking the streets looking for trouble and an officer arrives in the area it means those gang members, muggers, and rapists are no longer looking for trouble?

You'll pardon me if I have little faith in your fantasy land depiction's. I'd rather have my /neighbors/, at least 5 of whom are officers, come home to their families every night, and part of that is training those fathers and mothers to protect themselves in the event that real world violent criminals don't follow your "love and peace" beliefs...

 

[Iceweasel]

It wasn't that long ago that Officers were assassinated on separate occasions here. The media is putting pressure on law enforcement and the political appointed heads are caving. And cops are going to get killed instead of getting cookies for their letting their guard down.

 

[Pogo]

Do you agree that gang/wannabe gang members, muggers, and rapists are walking the streets looking for trouble? Yes?

There's nothing quoted here so I don't know if this is for me, but generally, no I don't. You've conflated some very different and disparate things here for whatever purpose, but no I don't believe those who end up in direct conflicts with police -- which was the topic -- get to that point out of "spoiling for a fight". That would be kind of absurd considering the odds.

So if a violent individual is walking the streets looking for trouble and an officer arrives in the area it means those gang members, muggers, and rapists are no longer looking for trouble?

No. Not even close.

You'll pardon me if I have little faith in your fantasy land depiction's.

I don't think I can pardon that errant apostrophe.
But you've completely misinterpreted my post anyway -- if that's what you're responding to.

I'd rather have my /neighbors/, at least 5 of whom are officers, come home to their families every night, and part of that is training those fathers and mothers to protect themselves in the event that real world violent criminals don't follow your "love and peace" beliefs...

Uh -- OK, sssure.

 

[EverCurious]

Do you agree that gang/wannabe gang members, muggers, and rapists are walking the streets looking for trouble? Yes?

There's nothing quoted here so I don't know if this is for me, but generally, no I don't. You've conflated some very different and disparate things here for whatever purpose, but no I don't believe those who end up in direct conflicts with police -- which was the topic -- get to that point out of "spoiling for a fight". That would be kind of absurd considering the odds.

So if a violent individual is walking the streets looking for trouble and an officer arrives in the area it means those gang members, muggers, and rapists are no longer looking for trouble?

No. Not even close.

You'll pardon me if I have little faith in your fantasy land depiction's.

I don't think I can pardon that errant apostrophe.
But you've completely misinterpreted my post anyway -- if that's what you're responding to.

So if a violent individual is walking the streets looking for trouble and an officer arrives in the area it means those gang members, muggers, and rapists are no longer looking for trouble?

No. Not even close.

You'll pardon me if I have little faith in your fantasy land depiction's.

I don't think I can pardon that errant apostrophe.
But you've completely misinterpreted my post anyway -- if that's what you're responding to.

I'd rather have my /neighbors/, at least 5 of whom are officers, come home to their families every night, and part of that is training those fathers and mothers to protect themselves in the event that real world violent criminals don't follow your "love and peace" beliefs...

Uh -- OK, sssure.

I've "misinterpreted" your postings? Perhaps you should read through them again...

You appear to imply that there is some magic switch in criminals which essentially states that, if an officer attempts to arrest them and they ran and were allowed to escape, then that criminal will no longer commit such crimes against the general public. - For to say otherwise would imply that the officers who had come to arrest them and pursued them until capture, were indeed "serving the public" a) by capturing said criminals so the public does not have to and b) making the streets safer for the general public by removing said criminals from them.

Tell you what, explain why you believe a gang member/wannabe gang member, mugger, or rapist would attack someone else (other than an officer,) since the criminals are not "walking the streets looking for trouble" according to your fantasy land depiction.

The /reality/ is that a criminal is willing to commit violence against the public, and therefore is just as willing, in fact more so willing in their attempt to avoid punishment for their crimes, to commit violence against an officer. They don't want to get caught for the crime(s) they commit, so they run, and when caught by an officer, they fight. A criminal with violent /original/ intent, is absolutely not inclined to be "passive" when arrested. If we let them "run" as you seem to suggest, it does absolutely nothing to stop them from committing another violence against the innocent public.

So how many times should we let them "run" from officers? How many crimes against the public should they be "allowed" to commit before an officer has the "right" to remove them from our streets and protect the general public? How many innocent members of the public must be subjected to their violence, before arresting them becomes an imperative "job" of a police officer? AND at that point, where it becomes an imperative job for an officer to ensure the safety of the public - that is why officers need the "militaristic" training.

You want to pretend that police are "waging war" but in reality it is just officers being trained to do their jobs and criminals being criminals with no respect for the public, nor the officer, and no fear of causing phisical pain to /anyone/ who stands in the way of them committing their crime(s,) OR attempts to put them in jail for their crime(s). The officers are just as much victims of these criminals violence as the original victims were, not the other way around. Being arrested for suspicion of committing a crime is /not/ "violence" nor is it a "violent" action on the part of the officer, it is an attempt, on behalf of the public, to bring criminals to justice.

There is actually no need at all for an officer to say more than "you are under arrest." IF someone thinks they are being arrested unfairly then they need to accept the arrest and take their grievance to a judge - an officer does not have the power to proclaim them innocent on the spot regardless. The officers "job" is to take the suspect in to see the judge who will make that determination. Fighting that arrest is what starts the violence. When a criminal reacts to arrest with violence, as they often do, then it is 100% correct to train our officers to defend themselves from that violence they will likely face.

If you think you can teach criminals not to resist arrest with violence then I'd be willing to agree we could stop training officer's to deal with violence.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Because violent criminals are violent.

Gee sus! You really can't be this stupid.

No Pogo truly IS that stupid.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The cops arent military and they arent "making war".

But tell me....

An Army infantryman tries to take an ISIS terrorist into custody in Iraq...and the terrorist fights.
A Texas cops tries to take a cartel member...or lately a terrorist. ..into custody and he fights.

Would you say the same principles of human fighting will lead to a successful outcome for both? Uniforms and labels and borders are irrelevant to what it takes to train a human to survive and win a violent encounter.

Are you trying to say that most of what a cop deals with is terrorism and gangs?

Because I could pass this on to a whole lot of cops I see doing nothing remotely like that.

Not at all. But most cops will encounter a violent criminal who will attack them...sometimes with a weapon. Some cops experience that often depending where they work. And some do it daily. At Atlanta PD I worked Zone 3. And that precinct dealt with violent gangs every single day.

Still waiting for the answer as to why that violent criminal would attack them. What exactly brings it on?

Here's your hint: I'm going for the disease here -- not just the symptom.

Um...because the violent criminal:
- Doesnt want to go to jail for his crime
- Just wants to kill some cops

So...how do you train a human employed as a cop to win that encounter?

1 - not wanting to go to jail does not automatically beget "violence". Mostly it begets flight.
2 - do you actually believe it's entirely on one party?

Cops are not military; they're supposed to be 'protecting and serving' the public. You may think they are soldiers on some fantasy field of battle but cops who think they're out to vanquish the public are the root of the whole Überpolizei syndrome -- drunk on power, smitten with unchecked authoritarianism.

Seems to me what it takes to be a good cop is not a college degree or a military mindset, but people skills. When you can defuse a potentially crazy situation -- and truly be a peace officer -- then you should get your accolades. But when you set up situations to be confrontational standoffs where the Greater Violence Wins ...... you're part of the problem. In way too many cases, you're creating the problem.

Stop creating confrontations, and you'll have a lot fewer of them to deal with.

Jesus you are stupid

LEOs are charged with APPREHENDING criminals. That means if they flee, they pursue.

 

[Pogo]

Do you agree that gang/wannabe gang members, muggers, and rapists are walking the streets looking for trouble? Yes?

There's nothing quoted here so I don't know if this is for me, but generally, no I don't. You've conflated some very different and disparate things here for whatever purpose, but no I don't believe those who end up in direct conflicts with police -- which was the topic -- get to that point out of "spoiling for a fight". That would be kind of absurd considering the odds.

So if a violent individual is walking the streets looking for trouble and an officer arrives in the area it means those gang members, muggers, and rapists are no longer looking for trouble?

No. Not even close.

You'll pardon me if I have little faith in your fantasy land depiction's.

I don't think I can pardon that errant apostrophe.
But you've completely misinterpreted my post anyway -- if that's what you're responding to.

So if a violent individual is walking the streets looking for trouble and an officer arrives in the area it means those gang members, muggers, and rapists are no longer looking for trouble?

No. Not even close.

You'll pardon me if I have little faith in your fantasy land depiction's.

I don't think I can pardon that errant apostrophe.
But you've completely misinterpreted my post anyway -- if that's what you're responding to.

I'd rather have my /neighbors/, at least 5 of whom are officers, come home to their families every night, and part of that is training those fathers and mothers to protect themselves in the event that real world violent criminals don't follow your "love and peace" beliefs...

Uh -- OK, sssure.

I've "misinterpreted" your postings? Perhaps you should read through them again...

You appear to imply that there is some magic switch in criminals which essentially states that, if an officer attempts to arrest them and they ran and were allowed to escape, then that criminal will no longer commit such crimes against the general public. - For to say otherwise would imply that the officers who had come to arrest them and pursued them until capture, were indeed "serving the public" a) by capturing said criminals so the public does not have to and b) making the streets safer for the general public by removing said criminals from them.

Tell you what, explain why you believe a gang member/wannabe gang member, mugger, or rapist would attack someone else (other than an officer,) since the criminals are not "walking the streets looking for trouble" according to your fantasy land depiction.

The /reality/ is that a criminal is willing to commit violence against the public, and therefore is just as willing, in fact more so willing in their attempt to avoid punishment for their crimes, to commit violence against an officer. They don't want to get caught for the crime(s) they commit, so they run, and when caught by an officer, they fight. A criminal with violent /original/ intent, is absolutely not inclined to be "passive" when arrested. If we let them "run" as you seem to suggest, it does absolutely nothing to stop them from committing another violence against the innocent public.

So how many times should we let them "run" from officers? How many crimes against the public should they be "allowed" to commit before an officer has the "right" to remove them from our streets and protect the general public? How many innocent members of the public must be subjected to their violence, before arresting them becomes an imperative "job" of a police officer? AND at that point, where it becomes an imperative job for an officer to ensure the safety of the public - that is why officers need the "militaristic" training.

You want to pretend that police are "waging war" but in reality it is just officers being trained to do their jobs and criminals being criminals with no respect for the public, nor the officer, and no fear of causing phisical pain to /anyone/ who stands in the way of them committing their crime(s,) OR attempts to put them in jail for their crime(s). The officers are just as much victims of these criminals violence as the original victims were, not the other way around. Being arrested for suspicion of committing a crime is /not/ "violence" nor is it a "violent" action on the part of the officer, it is an attempt, on behalf of the public, to bring criminals to justice.

There is actually no need at all for an officer to say more than "you are under arrest." IF someone thinks they are being arrested unfairly then they need to accept the arrest and take their grievance to a judge - an officer does not have the power to proclaim them innocent on the spot regardless. The officers "job" is to take the suspect in to see the judge who will make that determination. Fighting that arrest is what starts the violence. When a criminal reacts to arrest with violence, as they often do, then it is 100% correct to train our officers to defend themselves from that violence they will likely face.

If you think you can teach criminals not to resist arrest with violence then I'd be willing to agree we could stop training officer's to deal with violence.

I literally cannot even muddle through this post. It has nothing to do with anything I said. I believe you're lost.

 

[EverCurious]

Do you agree that gang/wannabe gang members, muggers, and rapists are walking the streets looking for trouble? Yes?

There's nothing quoted here so I don't know if this is for me, but generally, no I don't. You've conflated some very different and disparate things here for whatever purpose, but no I don't believe those who end up in direct conflicts with police -- which was the topic -- get to that point out of "spoiling for a fight". That would be kind of absurd considering the odds.

So if a violent individual is walking the streets looking for trouble and an officer arrives in the area it means those gang members, muggers, and rapists are no longer looking for trouble?

No. Not even close.

You'll pardon me if I have little faith in your fantasy land depiction's.

I don't think I can pardon that errant apostrophe.
But you've completely misinterpreted my post anyway -- if that's what you're responding to.

So if a violent individual is walking the streets looking for trouble and an officer arrives in the area it means those gang members, muggers, and rapists are no longer looking for trouble?

No. Not even close.

You'll pardon me if I have little faith in your fantasy land depiction's.

I don't think I can pardon that errant apostrophe.
But you've completely misinterpreted my post anyway -- if that's what you're responding to.

I'd rather have my /neighbors/, at least 5 of whom are officers, come home to their families every night, and part of that is training those fathers and mothers to protect themselves in the event that real world violent criminals don't follow your "love and peace" beliefs...

Uh -- OK, sssure.

I've "misinterpreted" your postings? Perhaps you should read through them again...

You appear to imply that there is some magic switch in criminals which essentially states that, if an officer attempts to arrest them and they ran and were allowed to escape, then that criminal will no longer commit such crimes against the general public. - For to say otherwise would imply that the officers who had come to arrest them and pursued them until capture, were indeed "serving the public" a) by capturing said criminals so the public does not have to and b) making the streets safer for the general public by removing said criminals from them.

Tell you what, explain why you believe a gang member/wannabe gang member, mugger, or rapist would attack someone else (other than an officer,) since the criminals are not "walking the streets looking for trouble" according to your fantasy land depiction.

The /reality/ is that a criminal is willing to commit violence against the public, and therefore is just as willing, in fact more so willing in their attempt to avoid punishment for their crimes, to commit violence against an officer. They don't want to get caught for the crime(s) they commit, so they run, and when caught by an officer, they fight. A criminal with violent /original/ intent, is absolutely not inclined to be "passive" when arrested. If we let them "run" as you seem to suggest, it does absolutely nothing to stop them from committing another violence against the innocent public.

So how many times should we let them "run" from officers? How many crimes against the public should they be "allowed" to commit before an officer has the "right" to remove them from our streets and protect the general public? How many innocent members of the public must be subjected to their violence, before arresting them becomes an imperative "job" of a police officer? AND at that point, where it becomes an imperative job for an officer to ensure the safety of the public - that is why officers need the "militaristic" training.

You want to pretend that police are "waging war" but in reality it is just officers being trained to do their jobs and criminals being criminals with no respect for the public, nor the officer, and no fear of causing phisical pain to /anyone/ who stands in the way of them committing their crime(s,) OR attempts to put them in jail for their crime(s). The officers are just as much victims of these criminals violence as the original victims were, not the other way around. Being arrested for suspicion of committing a crime is /not/ "violence" nor is it a "violent" action on the part of the officer, it is an attempt, on behalf of the public, to bring criminals to justice.

There is actually no need at all for an officer to say more than "you are under arrest." IF someone thinks they are being arrested unfairly then they need to accept the arrest and take their grievance to a judge - an officer does not have the power to proclaim them innocent on the spot regardless. The officers "job" is to take the suspect in to see the judge who will make that determination. Fighting that arrest is what starts the violence. When a criminal reacts to arrest with violence, as they often do, then it is 100% correct to train our officers to defend themselves from that violence they will likely face.

If you think you can teach criminals not to resist arrest with violence then I'd be willing to agree we could stop training officer's to deal with violence.

I literally cannot even muddle through this post. It has nothing to do with anything I said. I believe you're lost.

Actually I believe you're lost. No worries though, I've pretty much written you off as a kid who has no real foundation for the "gotcha" type comments they randomly add to discussion, in an attempt to have some relative input - unfortunately this merely paints one as both unintelligent and disingenuous.

Perhaps when you actually find your /own/ beliefs it'll be worth debating with you, but as it stands it appears you make up whatever "sounds good" on the fly and have no retention for your previous statements, and certainly no flow of relativity between one comment you've made and the next, that could allow an actual continuance of discussion with you. I suppose it's slightly better than being a straight up troll...

 

[bucs90]

Are you trying to say that most of what a cop deals with is terrorism and gangs?

Because I could pass this on to a whole lot of cops I see doing nothing remotely like that.

Not at all. But most cops will encounter a violent criminal who will attack them...sometimes with a weapon. Some cops experience that often depending where they work. And some do it daily. At Atlanta PD I worked Zone 3. And that precinct dealt with violent gangs every single day.

Still waiting for the answer as to why that violent criminal would attack them. What exactly brings it on?

Here's your hint: I'm going for the disease here -- not just the symptom.

Um...because the violent criminal:
- Doesnt want to go to jail for his crime
- Just wants to kill some cops

So...how do you train a human employed as a cop to win that encounter?

1 - not wanting to go to jail does not automatically beget "violence". Mostly it begets flight.
2 - do you actually believe it's entirely on one party?

Cops are not military; they're supposed to be 'protecting and serving' the public. You may think they are soldiers on some fantasy field of battle but cops who think they're out to vanquish the public are the root of the whole Überpolizei syndrome -- drunk on power, smitten with unchecked authoritarianism.

Seems to me what it takes to be a good cop is not a college degree or a military mindset, but people skills. When you can defuse a potentially crazy situation -- and truly be a peace officer -- then you should get your accolades. But when you set up situations to be confrontational standoffs where the Greater Violence Wins ...... you're part of the problem. In way too many cases, you're creating the problem.

Stop creating confrontations, and you'll have a lot fewer of them to deal with.

Jesus you are stupid

LEOs are charged with APPREHENDING criminals. That means if they flee, they pursue.

Haha...according to him and liberals no...cops arent. They are NOT tasked with apprehending violent criminals and, if necessary, use force to do so and protect themselves.

Cops are..."supposed to serve". Whatever their interpretation of that is. But apparently catching violent criminals and even fighting the occasional terrorist...isnt their job.

 

[mdk]

Yeah...im wrong for wanting cops who meet higher education standards and who go through tough training for discipline and performance under stress. Such a crazy idea.

If they had required higher education standards how would you have ever become a cop?

Dont worry. A bachelors degree from Furman University would qualify me. Football paid for it too.

Dont let those white belts hurt you too much this week.

Who knew Mark Fuhrman University has a football team?!

 

[bucs90]

Yeah...im wrong for wanting cops who meet higher education standards and who go through tough training for discipline and performance under stress. Such a crazy idea.

If they had required higher education standards how would you have ever become a cop?

Dont worry. A bachelors degree from Furman University would qualify me. Football paid for it too.

Dont let those white belts hurt you too much this week.

Who knew Mark Fuhrman University has a football team?!

Thats Furman University. In Greenville SC. An outstanding academic school. You probably wouldnt get in.

And our Paladins football team was quite good. Southern Conference champions.

 

[Pogo]

Do you agree that gang/wannabe gang members, muggers, and rapists are walking the streets looking for trouble? Yes?

There's nothing quoted here so I don't know if this is for me, but generally, no I don't. You've conflated some very different and disparate things here for whatever purpose, but no I don't believe those who end up in direct conflicts with police -- which was the topic -- get to that point out of "spoiling for a fight". That would be kind of absurd considering the odds.

So if a violent individual is walking the streets looking for trouble and an officer arrives in the area it means those gang members, muggers, and rapists are no longer looking for trouble?

No. Not even close.

You'll pardon me if I have little faith in your fantasy land depiction's.

I don't think I can pardon that errant apostrophe.
But you've completely misinterpreted my post anyway -- if that's what you're responding to.

So if a violent individual is walking the streets looking for trouble and an officer arrives in the area it means those gang members, muggers, and rapists are no longer looking for trouble?

No. Not even close.

You'll pardon me if I have little faith in your fantasy land depiction's.

I don't think I can pardon that errant apostrophe.
But you've completely misinterpreted my post anyway -- if that's what you're responding to.

I'd rather have my /neighbors/, at least 5 of whom are officers, come home to their families every night, and part of that is training those fathers and mothers to protect themselves in the event that real world violent criminals don't follow your "love and peace" beliefs...

Uh -- OK, sssure.

I've "misinterpreted" your postings? Perhaps you should read through them again...

You appear to imply that there is some magic switch in criminals which essentially states that, if an officer attempts to arrest them and they ran and were allowed to escape, then that criminal will no longer commit such crimes against the general public. - For to say otherwise would imply that the officers who had come to arrest them and pursued them until capture, were indeed "serving the public" a) by capturing said criminals so the public does not have to and b) making the streets safer for the general public by removing said criminals from them.

Tell you what, explain why you believe a gang member/wannabe gang member, mugger, or rapist would attack someone else (other than an officer,) since the criminals are not "walking the streets looking for trouble" according to your fantasy land depiction.

The /reality/ is that a criminal is willing to commit violence against the public, and therefore is just as willing, in fact more so willing in their attempt to avoid punishment for their crimes, to commit violence against an officer. They don't want to get caught for the crime(s) they commit, so they run, and when caught by an officer, they fight. A criminal with violent /original/ intent, is absolutely not inclined to be "passive" when arrested. If we let them "run" as you seem to suggest, it does absolutely nothing to stop them from committing another violence against the innocent public.

So how many times should we let them "run" from officers? How many crimes against the public should they be "allowed" to commit before an officer has the "right" to remove them from our streets and protect the general public? How many innocent members of the public must be subjected to their violence, before arresting them becomes an imperative "job" of a police officer? AND at that point, where it becomes an imperative job for an officer to ensure the safety of the public - that is why officers need the "militaristic" training.

You want to pretend that police are "waging war" but in reality it is just officers being trained to do their jobs and criminals being criminals with no respect for the public, nor the officer, and no fear of causing phisical pain to /anyone/ who stands in the way of them committing their crime(s,) OR attempts to put them in jail for their crime(s). The officers are just as much victims of these criminals violence as the original victims were, not the other way around. Being arrested for suspicion of committing a crime is /not/ "violence" nor is it a "violent" action on the part of the officer, it is an attempt, on behalf of the public, to bring criminals to justice.

There is actually no need at all for an officer to say more than "you are under arrest." IF someone thinks they are being arrested unfairly then they need to accept the arrest and take their grievance to a judge - an officer does not have the power to proclaim them innocent on the spot regardless. The officers "job" is to take the suspect in to see the judge who will make that determination. Fighting that arrest is what starts the violence. When a criminal reacts to arrest with violence, as they often do, then it is 100% correct to train our officers to defend themselves from that violence they will likely face.

If you think you can teach criminals not to resist arrest with violence then I'd be willing to agree we could stop training officer's to deal with violence.

I literally cannot even muddle through this post. It has nothing to do with anything I said. I believe you're lost.

Actually I believe you're lost. No worries though, I've pretty much written you off as a kid who has no real foundation for the "gotcha" type comments they randomly add to discussion, in an attempt to have some relative input - unfortunately this merely paints one as both unintelligent and disingenuous.

Perhaps when you actually find your /own/ beliefs it'll be worth debating with you, but as it stands it appears you make up whatever "sounds good" on the fly and have no retention for your previous statements, and certainly no flow of relativity between one comment you've made and the next, that could allow an actual continuance of discussion with you. I suppose it's slightly better than being a straight up troll...

Fine well if you're just into making shit up that was never there you're not worth my time. I don't hang with dishonesty. Ciao.

 

[Ernie S.]

Possum boy admits he can't hang with himself. I wonder if he has himself on ignore too?