ONLY Democrats Could Be Amazed At Crime Surge After De-Funding the Police

[easyt65]

Minneapolis City Council alarmed by surge in crime months after voting to defund the police

Council members pressed police Chief Medaria Arradondo about the uptick in crimes that include daylight carjackings, robberies, assaults, shootings and street racing.

www.foxnews.com

Unfortunately good, law-abiding Americans have to suffer because of STUPIDITY, INCOMPETENCE, & LACK OF COMMON SENSE of Democrats in charge...

.

They haven't actually done anything yet.

Police are sulky and shirking their responsibilities.

Why take risks arresting people and fighting crime if you know the government you work for doesn't have your back?

Police don't take usually or have to take any significant risks.
They are supposed to call for backup and never need to do a thing until they have over whelming control over any situation.
And as long as they are accepting pay, they should do the job they are paid for.
If police would do what WE want, then WE would support them.
But as long as the police incorrectly THINK they are working for "the government", then they remain the enemy to any democratic republic.

How long have you served or did you serve as a policeman?

2 policemen just sitting in a car were just shot by a would-be assassin.

Ordinary traffic stops could be deadly for police.

Those 2 policemen did not get shot because they thought they worked for the government.

There isn't 1 intelligent thing you said.

 

[Rigby5]

And when cops know that they'll be tossed under the bus at a moment's notice as the next sacrifices to the SJW Gods they'll pull back.

Seems like they’re recoiling at the thought of actually being accountable for their actions.

If that makes them not want to do their jobs, then they should find new ones.

That's one way of looking at it, however, the statistical facts from a study of the Chicago PD indicated that roughly 40% of cops had zero complaints over a 4-5 year period and of those that did have recurrent complaints 10% of that 60% that did have complaints, or actually only 6% of the police force accounted for approximately 30% of the complaints, ie, 94% of cops did not show these types of recurrent issues in terms of complaints.

Based on that, I do not think this is cops not wanting to be held accountable for their actions, as most of them have absolutely nothing to worry about, however, when you are in a job where you may be raked over the coals due to today's cause du jour when you are tasked with a sometimes very violent and dangerous job, and that nonsense may result in suspension, a lengthy trial etc., for simply doing your job and in some cases justifiably using force, it is pretty clear why they would want to avoid those things. I can't say I blame them.

Seems to me that good cops have a vested interest in making sure the 6% of them that are unfit are handled, yet time and time again we see them protecting their own. This destroys trust with the community and ultimately endangers them.

So no, accountability is definitely the issue.

This issue with accountability of these bad apples is an issue, and the union routinely attempts to block release of any data, so in terms of accountability on that level, yes.

In terms of personal accountability in terms of general day to day activities by these officers, no. Same thing happened in Baltimore. Cops responded to calls, but officer initiated interventions dropped dramatically, something like 70%, so anyone that remembers that knew what would happen here.

Baltimore police stopped noticing crime after Freddie Gray's death. A wave of killings followed.

Baltimore's murder rate reached an all-time high last year. Before that happened, police there suddenly stopped noticing crime.

www.usatoday.com

Baltimore police stopped noticing crime after Freddie Gray's death. A wave of killings followed.

..."

Police typically learn about crime in one of two ways: either someone calls for help, or an officer sees a crime himself and stops to do something. The second category, known among police as an “on-view,” offers a sense of how aggressively officers are doing their job. Car stops are a good example: Few people call 911 to report someone speeding – instead, officers see it and choose to pull someone over. Or choose not to.

Millions of police records show officers in Baltimore respond to calls as quickly as ever. But they now begin far fewer encounters themselves. From 2014 to 2017, dispatch records show the number of suspected narcotics offenses police reported themselves dropped 30 percent; the number of people they reported seeing with outstanding warrants dropped by half. The number of field interviews – instances in which the police approach someone for questioning – dropped 70 percent."

Bad apples spoil the entire bunch. Haven’t you heard the idiom? I think we need to remind ourselves that bad apples are the problem. The union represents the entire force, so if that’s the problem, the officers themselves are certainly culpable.

Sure, if we're talking about a barrel of apples.

Does that apply to groups of people, with diverse viewpoints, experience and world views? I don't think so, any more than other sweeping generalizaton fallacies hold true when people try to paint all Republicans as ___________ or Dems as _________ etc.

Most cops are not out there roughing up people beyond their authority and generating systemic patterns of complaints. That is statistically proven, at least as borne out by the Chicago PD study, so there is no way I'm buying into the blame them all camp, as it just isn't supported. 40% of cops had zero complaints over a 4-5 year period, as in absolutely none, with who knows how many interactions in the city of Chicago, not some sleepy backwoods town.

I do think that the unions need a come to Jesus moment to allow for this type of statistical analysis as a means of identifying and reigning in these bad actors, and have thought that for several years. Posted a thread on it about 5 years ago actually. On that level, we need some change.

We are focusing, however, in the wrong place, IMO, by focusing on these incidents and tagging all cops as bad and, in reality, shooting ourselves right in the ass by doing so. This is a piecemeal approach at best, doesn't actually change anything, and results in actually higher crime, which the cops are then blamed for also.

I think all cops must be bad apples, or else they would be complaining more about the inherent corruption and things that are wrong. For example, parking tickets, the war on drugs, no-knock warrants, etc. As long as police do these blatantly illegal things without complaint, they have to all be guilty.

That's fine. I have no problem with you believing whatever you'd like, however, the primary issue is police brutality, not parking tickets. People aren't marching and burning stuff because of parking tickets. That is the discussion I was having, not a granular discussion of every action taken by police in general and whether or not I agree with this or that, although I don't disagree with you on some things, I think. For instance, the war on drugs was an obvious failure and fed the corporate prison complex and was likely perpetuated by it. No knock warrants are problematic, but I can also see how they are necessary.

In terms of this current issue of police brutality, no, not all cops are out there exceeding their authority to get their rocks off or because they've got a Rambo complex or whatever. The statistics simply don't bear that out so, in that context, we are without question talking about a small percentage of cops.

If we were only talking about a small % of cops, then I would not see police routinely pointing guns at people.
That is illegal.
Pointing a gun at someone is conduct regardless of life, because guns often go off very easily, with a flinch or stumble.
Yet police not only do it routinely, but are illegally trained to do it.
And they all have to know that is illegal, because they would never point a gun at someone at the range.
They have to know they are violating basic gun safety principles.

As for no-knock warrants, I agree they can be necessary, but only in a hostage situation.
A no-knock warrant is NOT legal to just gain evidence, because the evidence should already be there before one should be able to get a warrant at all. Fishing expeditions to gain evidence are totally and completely illegal.

If their pointing guns at people is illegal there should be a statute somewhere that says this. I think it's likely there is a code of conduct or whatever that indicates when it is or is not acceptable to point a loaded weapon at someone while on the job, but I honestly don't know what that is. Likely it's a judgement call of some kind, if they fear for their safety or that of others or something, but I very much doubt it's just illegal.

Cops don't make the laws. It isn't their job to either make them or interpret them, so I can't declare them corrupt for enforcing laws.

I don't disagree that often the rules are bent/twisted all to hell, but if these things are actually legal, then they're legal and that's an issue for legislators to change them, and maybe judges to interpret those laws and declare them unconstitutional or whatever, but that doesn't fall to officers on the street.

It is identical if any one points a gun at other, to if the police do.
It is only legal when there is an imminent threat that would allow you to kill.
And that has to be identical for all private citizens, equally with police.
Police can never have superior authority, because in a democratic republic, WE are the only source of authority, not government.
Unless you have justification to kill, then you do not have justification to point.

Whether or not laws are right or wrong, it IS wrong for police to enforce laws they know are wrong. That is the point of civilization, where each individual is responsible for what they do.
That is why we executed the Nazis who claimed they were just "following orders".
That is not a legal defense.

The whole point of a democratic republic is that you can't have a dictatorship if all individuals act ethically. Police do not get an exception to that inherent responsibility. Law and justice is superior to mere legislation, and a crime by legislators is to be equally resisted as a crime by an individual bank robber, in a democratic republic.

 

[Rigby5]

Minneapolis City Council alarmed by surge in crime months after voting to defund the police

Council members pressed police Chief Medaria Arradondo about the uptick in crimes that include daylight carjackings, robberies, assaults, shootings and street racing.

www.foxnews.com

Unfortunately good, law-abiding Americans have to suffer because of STUPIDITY, INCOMPETENCE, & LACK OF COMMON SENSE of Democrats in charge...

POLICE CHIEFS who have quit so far:

Bridgeport, Conn.
Alburquerque, N.M.
Rochester, N.Y.
Tiburon, Calif.
Orlando Hills, Ill.
Lake City, S.C..
Marion, S.C.
Pamplico, S.C.
West Seneca, N.Y.
Cobden, Ill.
Seattle
Opa-locka, Fla.
Nashville, Tenn.
Milwaukee
Las Cruces, N.M.
Rising Star, Texas
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Los Angeles
Jefferson City, Texas
Prince George County, Md.
Richmond, Va.
Atlanta
Put-in-Bay, Ohio
Eugene, Ore.
Portland, Ore.
Louisville, Ky.

The Leftist assault on America continues.

Police chiefs who have resigned or retired since George Floyd death

Multiple police chiefs across the country have either resigned or accelerated their retirements since the death of George Floyd, which was followed by calls for police reform coupled with growing animosity and distrust of law enforcement.

www.foxnews.com

Great news!
Maybe now we can get back to a democratic republic instead of a police state.
The War on Drugs should be the next target.

 

[Rigby5]

Minneapolis City Council alarmed by surge in crime months after voting to defund the police

Council members pressed police Chief Medaria Arradondo about the uptick in crimes that include daylight carjackings, robberies, assaults, shootings and street racing.

www.foxnews.com

Unfortunately good, law-abiding Americans have to suffer because of STUPIDITY, INCOMPETENCE, & LACK OF COMMON SENSE of Democrats in charge...

.

They haven't actually done anything yet.

Police are sulky and shirking their responsibilities.

Why take risks arresting people and fighting crime if you know the government you work for doesn't have your back?

Police don't take usually or have to take any significant risks.
They are supposed to call for backup and never need to do a thing until they have over whelming control over any situation.
And as long as they are accepting pay, they should do the job they are paid for.
If police would do what WE want, then WE would support them.
But as long as the police incorrectly THINK they are working for "the government", then they remain the enemy to any democratic republic.

How long have you served or did you serve as a policeman?

2 policemen just sitting in a car were just shot by a would-be assassin.

Ordinary traffic stops could be deadly for police.

Those 2 policemen did not get shot because they thought they worked for the government.

There isn't 1 intelligent thing you said.

That is silly.
About 100 cops are killed by criminals a year, while over 500 die from traffic, and police murder thousands a year.
You have your priorities all screwed up.

If police actually wanted to be safer, all they would have to do is change policies.
For example, at a traffic stop they could just use the loudspeaker to ask the driver to exit the car.
That is what they often did 20 years ago.
If police change policies to something dangerous, that is their own fault.

 

[Fueri]

And when cops know that they'll be tossed under the bus at a moment's notice as the next sacrifices to the SJW Gods they'll pull back.

Seems like they’re recoiling at the thought of actually being accountable for their actions.

If that makes them not want to do their jobs, then they should find new ones.

That's one way of looking at it, however, the statistical facts from a study of the Chicago PD indicated that roughly 40% of cops had zero complaints over a 4-5 year period and of those that did have recurrent complaints 10% of that 60% that did have complaints, or actually only 6% of the police force accounted for approximately 30% of the complaints, ie, 94% of cops did not show these types of recurrent issues in terms of complaints.

Based on that, I do not think this is cops not wanting to be held accountable for their actions, as most of them have absolutely nothing to worry about, however, when you are in a job where you may be raked over the coals due to today's cause du jour when you are tasked with a sometimes very violent and dangerous job, and that nonsense may result in suspension, a lengthy trial etc., for simply doing your job and in some cases justifiably using force, it is pretty clear why they would want to avoid those things. I can't say I blame them.

Seems to me that good cops have a vested interest in making sure the 6% of them that are unfit are handled, yet time and time again we see them protecting their own. This destroys trust with the community and ultimately endangers them.

So no, accountability is definitely the issue.

This issue with accountability of these bad apples is an issue, and the union routinely attempts to block release of any data, so in terms of accountability on that level, yes.

In terms of personal accountability in terms of general day to day activities by these officers, no. Same thing happened in Baltimore. Cops responded to calls, but officer initiated interventions dropped dramatically, something like 70%, so anyone that remembers that knew what would happen here.

Baltimore police stopped noticing crime after Freddie Gray's death. A wave of killings followed.

Baltimore's murder rate reached an all-time high last year. Before that happened, police there suddenly stopped noticing crime.

www.usatoday.com

Baltimore police stopped noticing crime after Freddie Gray's death. A wave of killings followed.

..."

Police typically learn about crime in one of two ways: either someone calls for help, or an officer sees a crime himself and stops to do something. The second category, known among police as an “on-view,” offers a sense of how aggressively officers are doing their job. Car stops are a good example: Few people call 911 to report someone speeding – instead, officers see it and choose to pull someone over. Or choose not to.

Millions of police records show officers in Baltimore respond to calls as quickly as ever. But they now begin far fewer encounters themselves. From 2014 to 2017, dispatch records show the number of suspected narcotics offenses police reported themselves dropped 30 percent; the number of people they reported seeing with outstanding warrants dropped by half. The number of field interviews – instances in which the police approach someone for questioning – dropped 70 percent."

Bad apples spoil the entire bunch. Haven’t you heard the idiom? I think we need to remind ourselves that bad apples are the problem. The union represents the entire force, so if that’s the problem, the officers themselves are certainly culpable.

Sure, if we're talking about a barrel of apples.

Does that apply to groups of people, with diverse viewpoints, experience and world views? I don't think so, any more than other sweeping generalizaton fallacies hold true when people try to paint all Republicans as ___________ or Dems as _________ etc.

Most cops are not out there roughing up people beyond their authority and generating systemic patterns of complaints. That is statistically proven, at least as borne out by the Chicago PD study, so there is no way I'm buying into the blame them all camp, as it just isn't supported. 40% of cops had zero complaints over a 4-5 year period, as in absolutely none, with who knows how many interactions in the city of Chicago, not some sleepy backwoods town.

I do think that the unions need a come to Jesus moment to allow for this type of statistical analysis as a means of identifying and reigning in these bad actors, and have thought that for several years. Posted a thread on it about 5 years ago actually. On that level, we need some change.

We are focusing, however, in the wrong place, IMO, by focusing on these incidents and tagging all cops as bad and, in reality, shooting ourselves right in the ass by doing so. This is a piecemeal approach at best, doesn't actually change anything, and results in actually higher crime, which the cops are then blamed for also.

I think all cops must be bad apples, or else they would be complaining more about the inherent corruption and things that are wrong. For example, parking tickets, the war on drugs, no-knock warrants, etc. As long as police do these blatantly illegal things without complaint, they have to all be guilty.

That's fine. I have no problem with you believing whatever you'd like, however, the primary issue is police brutality, not parking tickets. People aren't marching and burning stuff because of parking tickets. That is the discussion I was having, not a granular discussion of every action taken by police in general and whether or not I agree with this or that, although I don't disagree with you on some things, I think. For instance, the war on drugs was an obvious failure and fed the corporate prison complex and was likely perpetuated by it. No knock warrants are problematic, but I can also see how they are necessary.

In terms of this current issue of police brutality, no, not all cops are out there exceeding their authority to get their rocks off or because they've got a Rambo complex or whatever. The statistics simply don't bear that out so, in that context, we are without question talking about a small percentage of cops.

If we were only talking about a small % of cops, then I would not see police routinely pointing guns at people.
That is illegal.
Pointing a gun at someone is conduct regardless of life, because guns often go off very easily, with a flinch or stumble.
Yet police not only do it routinely, but are illegally trained to do it.
And they all have to know that is illegal, because they would never point a gun at someone at the range.
They have to know they are violating basic gun safety principles.

As for no-knock warrants, I agree they can be necessary, but only in a hostage situation.
A no-knock warrant is NOT legal to just gain evidence, because the evidence should already be there before one should be able to get a warrant at all. Fishing expeditions to gain evidence are totally and completely illegal.

If their pointing guns at people is illegal there should be a statute somewhere that says this. I think it's likely there is a code of conduct or whatever that indicates when it is or is not acceptable to point a loaded weapon at someone while on the job, but I honestly don't know what that is. Likely it's a judgement call of some kind, if they fear for their safety or that of others or something, but I very much doubt it's just illegal.

Cops don't make the laws. It isn't their job to either make them or interpret them, so I can't declare them corrupt for enforcing laws.

I don't disagree that often the rules are bent/twisted all to hell, but if these things are actually legal, then they're legal and that's an issue for legislators to change them, and maybe judges to interpret those laws and declare them unconstitutional or whatever, but that doesn't fall to officers on the street.

It is identical if any one points a gun at other, to if the police do.
It is only legal when there is an imminent threat that would allow you to kill.
And that has to be identical for all private citizens, equally with police.
Police can never have superior authority, because in a democratic republic, WE are the only source of authority, not government.
Unless you have justification to kill, then you do not have justification to point.

Whether or not laws are right or wrong, it IS wrong for police to enforce laws they know are wrong. That is the point of civilization, where each individual is responsible for what they do.
That is why we executed the Nazis who claimed they were just "following orders".
That is not a legal defense.

The whole point of a democratic republic is that you can't have a dictatorship if all individuals act ethically. Police do not get an exception to that inherent responsibility. Law and justice is superior to mere legislation, and a crime by legislators is to be equally resisted as a crime by an individual bank robber, in a democratic republic.

Well, that obviates that someone has to then be pointing a gun at a cop first for them to pull their weapon, and/or if a cop pulls a gun, the other party has a right to. That's going to end up resulting in dead cops or dead civilians.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one....

 

[Blues Man]

Minneapolis City Council alarmed by surge in crime months after voting to defund the police

Council members pressed police Chief Medaria Arradondo about the uptick in crimes that include daylight carjackings, robberies, assaults, shootings and street racing.

www.foxnews.com

Unfortunately good, law-abiding Americans have to suffer because of STUPIDITY, INCOMPETENCE, & LACK OF COMMON SENSE of Democrats in charge...

.

The proposed defunding hasn't taken place yet so why aren't the cops doing their jobs?

 

[toobfreak]

Great news! Maybe now we can get back to a democratic republic instead of a police state.

I never knew that being a democratic republic was mutually exclusive with law and order, considering that the very definition of a republic IS the RULE OF LAW.

 

[Rigby5]

And when cops know that they'll be tossed under the bus at a moment's notice as the next sacrifices to the SJW Gods they'll pull back.

Seems like they’re recoiling at the thought of actually being accountable for their actions.

If that makes them not want to do their jobs, then they should find new ones.

That's one way of looking at it, however, the statistical facts from a study of the Chicago PD indicated that roughly 40% of cops had zero complaints over a 4-5 year period and of those that did have recurrent complaints 10% of that 60% that did have complaints, or actually only 6% of the police force accounted for approximately 30% of the complaints, ie, 94% of cops did not show these types of recurrent issues in terms of complaints.

Based on that, I do not think this is cops not wanting to be held accountable for their actions, as most of them have absolutely nothing to worry about, however, when you are in a job where you may be raked over the coals due to today's cause du jour when you are tasked with a sometimes very violent and dangerous job, and that nonsense may result in suspension, a lengthy trial etc., for simply doing your job and in some cases justifiably using force, it is pretty clear why they would want to avoid those things. I can't say I blame them.

Seems to me that good cops have a vested interest in making sure the 6% of them that are unfit are handled, yet time and time again we see them protecting their own. This destroys trust with the community and ultimately endangers them.

So no, accountability is definitely the issue.

This issue with accountability of these bad apples is an issue, and the union routinely attempts to block release of any data, so in terms of accountability on that level, yes.

In terms of personal accountability in terms of general day to day activities by these officers, no. Same thing happened in Baltimore. Cops responded to calls, but officer initiated interventions dropped dramatically, something like 70%, so anyone that remembers that knew what would happen here.

Baltimore police stopped noticing crime after Freddie Gray's death. A wave of killings followed.

Baltimore's murder rate reached an all-time high last year. Before that happened, police there suddenly stopped noticing crime.

www.usatoday.com

Baltimore police stopped noticing crime after Freddie Gray's death. A wave of killings followed.

..."

Police typically learn about crime in one of two ways: either someone calls for help, or an officer sees a crime himself and stops to do something. The second category, known among police as an “on-view,” offers a sense of how aggressively officers are doing their job. Car stops are a good example: Few people call 911 to report someone speeding – instead, officers see it and choose to pull someone over. Or choose not to.

Millions of police records show officers in Baltimore respond to calls as quickly as ever. But they now begin far fewer encounters themselves. From 2014 to 2017, dispatch records show the number of suspected narcotics offenses police reported themselves dropped 30 percent; the number of people they reported seeing with outstanding warrants dropped by half. The number of field interviews – instances in which the police approach someone for questioning – dropped 70 percent."

Bad apples spoil the entire bunch. Haven’t you heard the idiom? I think we need to remind ourselves that bad apples are the problem. The union represents the entire force, so if that’s the problem, the officers themselves are certainly culpable.

Sure, if we're talking about a barrel of apples.

Does that apply to groups of people, with diverse viewpoints, experience and world views? I don't think so, any more than other sweeping generalizaton fallacies hold true when people try to paint all Republicans as ___________ or Dems as _________ etc.

Most cops are not out there roughing up people beyond their authority and generating systemic patterns of complaints. That is statistically proven, at least as borne out by the Chicago PD study, so there is no way I'm buying into the blame them all camp, as it just isn't supported. 40% of cops had zero complaints over a 4-5 year period, as in absolutely none, with who knows how many interactions in the city of Chicago, not some sleepy backwoods town.

I do think that the unions need a come to Jesus moment to allow for this type of statistical analysis as a means of identifying and reigning in these bad actors, and have thought that for several years. Posted a thread on it about 5 years ago actually. On that level, we need some change.

We are focusing, however, in the wrong place, IMO, by focusing on these incidents and tagging all cops as bad and, in reality, shooting ourselves right in the ass by doing so. This is a piecemeal approach at best, doesn't actually change anything, and results in actually higher crime, which the cops are then blamed for also.

I think all cops must be bad apples, or else they would be complaining more about the inherent corruption and things that are wrong. For example, parking tickets, the war on drugs, no-knock warrants, etc. As long as police do these blatantly illegal things without complaint, they have to all be guilty.

That's fine. I have no problem with you believing whatever you'd like, however, the primary issue is police brutality, not parking tickets. People aren't marching and burning stuff because of parking tickets. That is the discussion I was having, not a granular discussion of every action taken by police in general and whether or not I agree with this or that, although I don't disagree with you on some things, I think. For instance, the war on drugs was an obvious failure and fed the corporate prison complex and was likely perpetuated by it. No knock warrants are problematic, but I can also see how they are necessary.

In terms of this current issue of police brutality, no, not all cops are out there exceeding their authority to get their rocks off or because they've got a Rambo complex or whatever. The statistics simply don't bear that out so, in that context, we are without question talking about a small percentage of cops.

If we were only talking about a small % of cops, then I would not see police routinely pointing guns at people.
That is illegal.
Pointing a gun at someone is conduct regardless of life, because guns often go off very easily, with a flinch or stumble.
Yet police not only do it routinely, but are illegally trained to do it.
And they all have to know that is illegal, because they would never point a gun at someone at the range.
They have to know they are violating basic gun safety principles.

As for no-knock warrants, I agree they can be necessary, but only in a hostage situation.
A no-knock warrant is NOT legal to just gain evidence, because the evidence should already be there before one should be able to get a warrant at all. Fishing expeditions to gain evidence are totally and completely illegal.

If their pointing guns at people is illegal there should be a statute somewhere that says this. I think it's likely there is a code of conduct or whatever that indicates when it is or is not acceptable to point a loaded weapon at someone while on the job, but I honestly don't know what that is. Likely it's a judgement call of some kind, if they fear for their safety or that of others or something, but I very much doubt it's just illegal.

Cops don't make the laws. It isn't their job to either make them or interpret them, so I can't declare them corrupt for enforcing laws.

I don't disagree that often the rules are bent/twisted all to hell, but if these things are actually legal, then they're legal and that's an issue for legislators to change them, and maybe judges to interpret those laws and declare them unconstitutional or whatever, but that doesn't fall to officers on the street.

It is identical if any one points a gun at other, to if the police do.
It is only legal when there is an imminent threat that would allow you to kill.
And that has to be identical for all private citizens, equally with police.
Police can never have superior authority, because in a democratic republic, WE are the only source of authority, not government.
Unless you have justification to kill, then you do not have justification to point.

Whether or not laws are right or wrong, it IS wrong for police to enforce laws they know are wrong. That is the point of civilization, where each individual is responsible for what they do.
That is why we executed the Nazis who claimed they were just "following orders".
That is not a legal defense.

The whole point of a democratic republic is that you can't have a dictatorship if all individuals act ethically. Police do not get an exception to that inherent responsibility. Law and justice is superior to mere legislation, and a crime by legislators is to be equally resisted as a crime by an individual bank robber, in a democratic republic.

Well, that obviates that someone has to then be pointing a gun at a cop first for them to pull their weapon, and/or if a cop pulls a gun, the other party has a right to. That's going to end up resulting in dead cops or dead civilians.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one....

Huge difference.
I said "pointing" a gun at someone is illegal, (unless you have justification to shoot).
Simply "drawing" a gun is not illegal, as long as you do not point it at anyone.

The time it takes to draw is huge compared to the time it takes to point.

 

[Rigby5]

Great news! Maybe now we can get back to a democratic republic instead of a police state.

I never knew that being a democratic republic was mutually exclusive with law and order, considering that the very definition of a republic IS the RULE OF LAW.

Democratic republics are identical to the rule of law, and order.
But it is police who are antithetical to the rule of law and order.
Police are inherently corrupt because they are paid mercenaries, who take orders from a corrupt, wealthy elite, who tend to be able to take over government bureaucracies.
The whole point of the rule of law is that we are all equal and all equally the source of all legal authority, through our codified inherent rights.
Corruption is and comes from someone assuming or claiming more authority than they can legally have, like police.
That is the opposite of law and order, but is the anarchy of a dictatorship.

 

[easyt65]

Democrats think they can lay down with dogs (looters, rapists, arsonists, murderers, cop killers, and BLM / Antifa terrorists) and not get fleas...

 

[Meathead]

Democrats think they can lay down with dogs (looters, rapists, arsonists, murderers, cop killers, and BLM / Antifa terrorists) and not get fleas...

Or their women. Have you seen their women?!

 

[easyt65]

And when cops know that they'll be tossed under the bus at a moment's notice as the next sacrifices to the SJW Gods they'll pull back.

Seems like they’re recoiling at the thought of actually being accountable for their actions.

If that makes them not want to do their jobs, then they should find new ones.

That's one way of looking at it, however, the statistical facts from a study of the Chicago PD indicated that roughly 40% of cops had zero complaints over a 4-5 year period and of those that did have recurrent complaints 10% of that 60% that did have complaints, or actually only 6% of the police force accounted for approximately 30% of the complaints, ie, 94% of cops did not show these types of recurrent issues in terms of complaints.

Based on that, I do not think this is cops not wanting to be held accountable for their actions, as most of them have absolutely nothing to worry about, however, when you are in a job where you may be raked over the coals due to today's cause du jour when you are tasked with a sometimes very violent and dangerous job, and that nonsense may result in suspension, a lengthy trial etc., for simply doing your job and in some cases justifiably using force, it is pretty clear why they would want to avoid those things. I can't say I blame them.

Seems to me that good cops have a vested interest in making sure the 6% of them that are unfit are handled, yet time and time again we see them protecting their own. This destroys trust with the community and ultimately endangers them.

So no, accountability is definitely the issue.

This issue with accountability of these bad apples is an issue, and the union routinely attempts to block release of any data, so in terms of accountability on that level, yes.

In terms of personal accountability in terms of general day to day activities by these officers, no. Same thing happened in Baltimore. Cops responded to calls, but officer initiated interventions dropped dramatically, something like 70%, so anyone that remembers that knew what would happen here.

Baltimore police stopped noticing crime after Freddie Gray's death. A wave of killings followed.

Baltimore's murder rate reached an all-time high last year. Before that happened, police there suddenly stopped noticing crime.

www.usatoday.com

Baltimore police stopped noticing crime after Freddie Gray's death. A wave of killings followed.

..."

Police typically learn about crime in one of two ways: either someone calls for help, or an officer sees a crime himself and stops to do something. The second category, known among police as an “on-view,” offers a sense of how aggressively officers are doing their job. Car stops are a good example: Few people call 911 to report someone speeding – instead, officers see it and choose to pull someone over. Or choose not to.

Millions of police records show officers in Baltimore respond to calls as quickly as ever. But they now begin far fewer encounters themselves. From 2014 to 2017, dispatch records show the number of suspected narcotics offenses police reported themselves dropped 30 percent; the number of people they reported seeing with outstanding warrants dropped by half. The number of field interviews – instances in which the police approach someone for questioning – dropped 70 percent."

Bad apples spoil the entire bunch. Haven’t you heard the idiom? I think we need to remind ourselves that bad apples are the problem. The union represents the entire force, so if that’s the problem, the officers themselves are certainly culpable.

Sure, if we're talking about a barrel of apples.

Does that apply to groups of people, with diverse viewpoints, experience and world views? I don't think so, any more than other sweeping generalizaton fallacies hold true when people try to paint all Republicans as ___________ or Dems as _________ etc.

Most cops are not out there roughing up people beyond their authority and generating systemic patterns of complaints. That is statistically proven, at least as borne out by the Chicago PD study, so there is no way I'm buying into the blame them all camp, as it just isn't supported. 40% of cops had zero complaints over a 4-5 year period, as in absolutely none, with who knows how many interactions in the city of Chicago, not some sleepy backwoods town.

I do think that the unions need a come to Jesus moment to allow for this type of statistical analysis as a means of identifying and reigning in these bad actors, and have thought that for several years. Posted a thread on it about 5 years ago actually. On that level, we need some change.

We are focusing, however, in the wrong place, IMO, by focusing on these incidents and tagging all cops as bad and, in reality, shooting ourselves right in the ass by doing so. This is a piecemeal approach at best, doesn't actually change anything, and results in actually higher crime, which the cops are then blamed for also.

I think all cops must be bad apples, or else they would be complaining more about the inherent corruption and things that are wrong. For example, parking tickets, the war on drugs, no-knock warrants, etc. As long as police do these blatantly illegal things without complaint, they have to all be guilty.

That's fine. I have no problem with you believing whatever you'd like, however, the primary issue is police brutality, not parking tickets. People aren't marching and burning stuff because of parking tickets. That is the discussion I was having, not a granular discussion of every action taken by police in general and whether or not I agree with this or that, although I don't disagree with you on some things, I think. For instance, the war on drugs was an obvious failure and fed the corporate prison complex and was likely perpetuated by it. No knock warrants are problematic, but I can also see how they are necessary.

In terms of this current issue of police brutality, no, not all cops are out there exceeding their authority to get their rocks off or because they've got a Rambo complex or whatever. The statistics simply don't bear that out so, in that context, we are without question talking about a small percentage of cops.

If we were only talking about a small % of cops, then I would not see police routinely pointing guns at people.
That is illegal.
Pointing a gun at someone is conduct regardless of life, because guns often go off very easily, with a flinch or stumble.
Yet police not only do it routinely, but are illegally trained to do it.
And they all have to know that is illegal, because they would never point a gun at someone at the range.
They have to know they are violating basic gun safety principles.

As for no-knock warrants, I agree they can be necessary, but only in a hostage situation.
A no-knock warrant is NOT legal to just gain evidence, because the evidence should already be there before one should be able to get a warrant at all. Fishing expeditions to gain evidence are totally and completely illegal.

If their pointing guns at people is illegal there should be a statute somewhere that says this. I think it's likely there is a code of conduct or whatever that indicates when it is or is not acceptable to point a loaded weapon at someone while on the job, but I honestly don't know what that is. Likely it's a judgement call of some kind, if they fear for their safety or that of others or something, but I very much doubt it's just illegal.

Cops don't make the laws. It isn't their job to either make them or interpret them, so I can't declare them corrupt for enforcing laws.

I don't disagree that often the rules are bent/twisted all to hell, but if these things are actually legal, then they're legal and that's an issue for legislators to change them, and maybe judges to interpret those laws and declare them unconstitutional or whatever, but that doesn't fall to officers on the street.

It is identical if any one points a gun at other, to if the police do.
It is only legal when there is an imminent threat that would allow you to kill.
And that has to be identical for all private citizens, equally with police.
Police can never have superior authority, because in a democratic republic, WE are the only source of authority, not government.
Unless you have justification to kill, then you do not have justification to point.

Whether or not laws are right or wrong, it IS wrong for police to enforce laws they know are wrong. That is the point of civilization, where each individual is responsible for what they do.
That is why we executed the Nazis who claimed they were just "following orders".
That is not a legal defense.

The whole point of a democratic republic is that you can't have a dictatorship if all individuals act ethically. Police do not get an exception to that inherent responsibility. Law and justice is superior to mere legislation, and a crime by legislators is to be equally resisted as a crime by an individual bank robber, in a democratic republic.

Well, that obviates that someone has to then be pointing a gun at a cop first for them to pull their weapon, and/or if a cop pulls a gun, the other party has a right to. That's going to end up resulting in dead cops or dead civilians.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one....

Huge difference.
I said "pointing" a gun at someone is illegal, (unless you have justification to shoot).
Simply "drawing" a gun is not illegal, as long as you do not point it at anyone.

The time it takes to draw is huge compared to the time it takes to point.

It should be legal to point a legally owned weapon at violent trespassing criminals threatening you, your family, & home on your own property...

 

[toobfreak]

But it is police who are antithetical to the rule of law and order.
Police are inherently corrupt
they are paid mercenaries
The whole point of the rule of law is that we are all equal
Corruption is and comes from ~ claiming more authority than they can legally have, like police.
That is the opposite of law and order

Soo,

• Police are the opposite of law and order though they enforce it.
• Police are illegal.
• The whole point to the rule of law is that we are all equal -- and so should have the same powers as the police to police ourselves and arrest ourselves so we don't need any police?

That must be why crime is soaring everywhere they've done away with cops!

Maybe we need to pass out guns to everyone and make us all a policeman!

 

[Fueri]

And when cops know that they'll be tossed under the bus at a moment's notice as the next sacrifices to the SJW Gods they'll pull back.

Seems like they’re recoiling at the thought of actually being accountable for their actions.

If that makes them not want to do their jobs, then they should find new ones.

That's one way of looking at it, however, the statistical facts from a study of the Chicago PD indicated that roughly 40% of cops had zero complaints over a 4-5 year period and of those that did have recurrent complaints 10% of that 60% that did have complaints, or actually only 6% of the police force accounted for approximately 30% of the complaints, ie, 94% of cops did not show these types of recurrent issues in terms of complaints.

Based on that, I do not think this is cops not wanting to be held accountable for their actions, as most of them have absolutely nothing to worry about, however, when you are in a job where you may be raked over the coals due to today's cause du jour when you are tasked with a sometimes very violent and dangerous job, and that nonsense may result in suspension, a lengthy trial etc., for simply doing your job and in some cases justifiably using force, it is pretty clear why they would want to avoid those things. I can't say I blame them.

Seems to me that good cops have a vested interest in making sure the 6% of them that are unfit are handled, yet time and time again we see them protecting their own. This destroys trust with the community and ultimately endangers them.

So no, accountability is definitely the issue.

This issue with accountability of these bad apples is an issue, and the union routinely attempts to block release of any data, so in terms of accountability on that level, yes.

In terms of personal accountability in terms of general day to day activities by these officers, no. Same thing happened in Baltimore. Cops responded to calls, but officer initiated interventions dropped dramatically, something like 70%, so anyone that remembers that knew what would happen here.

Baltimore police stopped noticing crime after Freddie Gray's death. A wave of killings followed.

Baltimore's murder rate reached an all-time high last year. Before that happened, police there suddenly stopped noticing crime.

www.usatoday.com

Baltimore police stopped noticing crime after Freddie Gray's death. A wave of killings followed.

..."

Police typically learn about crime in one of two ways: either someone calls for help, or an officer sees a crime himself and stops to do something. The second category, known among police as an “on-view,” offers a sense of how aggressively officers are doing their job. Car stops are a good example: Few people call 911 to report someone speeding – instead, officers see it and choose to pull someone over. Or choose not to.

Millions of police records show officers in Baltimore respond to calls as quickly as ever. But they now begin far fewer encounters themselves. From 2014 to 2017, dispatch records show the number of suspected narcotics offenses police reported themselves dropped 30 percent; the number of people they reported seeing with outstanding warrants dropped by half. The number of field interviews – instances in which the police approach someone for questioning – dropped 70 percent."

Bad apples spoil the entire bunch. Haven’t you heard the idiom? I think we need to remind ourselves that bad apples are the problem. The union represents the entire force, so if that’s the problem, the officers themselves are certainly culpable.

Sure, if we're talking about a barrel of apples.

Does that apply to groups of people, with diverse viewpoints, experience and world views? I don't think so, any more than other sweeping generalizaton fallacies hold true when people try to paint all Republicans as ___________ or Dems as _________ etc.

Most cops are not out there roughing up people beyond their authority and generating systemic patterns of complaints. That is statistically proven, at least as borne out by the Chicago PD study, so there is no way I'm buying into the blame them all camp, as it just isn't supported. 40% of cops had zero complaints over a 4-5 year period, as in absolutely none, with who knows how many interactions in the city of Chicago, not some sleepy backwoods town.

I do think that the unions need a come to Jesus moment to allow for this type of statistical analysis as a means of identifying and reigning in these bad actors, and have thought that for several years. Posted a thread on it about 5 years ago actually. On that level, we need some change.

We are focusing, however, in the wrong place, IMO, by focusing on these incidents and tagging all cops as bad and, in reality, shooting ourselves right in the ass by doing so. This is a piecemeal approach at best, doesn't actually change anything, and results in actually higher crime, which the cops are then blamed for also.

I think all cops must be bad apples, or else they would be complaining more about the inherent corruption and things that are wrong. For example, parking tickets, the war on drugs, no-knock warrants, etc. As long as police do these blatantly illegal things without complaint, they have to all be guilty.

That's fine. I have no problem with you believing whatever you'd like, however, the primary issue is police brutality, not parking tickets. People aren't marching and burning stuff because of parking tickets. That is the discussion I was having, not a granular discussion of every action taken by police in general and whether or not I agree with this or that, although I don't disagree with you on some things, I think. For instance, the war on drugs was an obvious failure and fed the corporate prison complex and was likely perpetuated by it. No knock warrants are problematic, but I can also see how they are necessary.

In terms of this current issue of police brutality, no, not all cops are out there exceeding their authority to get their rocks off or because they've got a Rambo complex or whatever. The statistics simply don't bear that out so, in that context, we are without question talking about a small percentage of cops.

If we were only talking about a small % of cops, then I would not see police routinely pointing guns at people.
That is illegal.
Pointing a gun at someone is conduct regardless of life, because guns often go off very easily, with a flinch or stumble.
Yet police not only do it routinely, but are illegally trained to do it.
And they all have to know that is illegal, because they would never point a gun at someone at the range.
They have to know they are violating basic gun safety principles.

As for no-knock warrants, I agree they can be necessary, but only in a hostage situation.
A no-knock warrant is NOT legal to just gain evidence, because the evidence should already be there before one should be able to get a warrant at all. Fishing expeditions to gain evidence are totally and completely illegal.

If their pointing guns at people is illegal there should be a statute somewhere that says this. I think it's likely there is a code of conduct or whatever that indicates when it is or is not acceptable to point a loaded weapon at someone while on the job, but I honestly don't know what that is. Likely it's a judgement call of some kind, if they fear for their safety or that of others or something, but I very much doubt it's just illegal.

Cops don't make the laws. It isn't their job to either make them or interpret them, so I can't declare them corrupt for enforcing laws.

I don't disagree that often the rules are bent/twisted all to hell, but if these things are actually legal, then they're legal and that's an issue for legislators to change them, and maybe judges to interpret those laws and declare them unconstitutional or whatever, but that doesn't fall to officers on the street.

It is identical if any one points a gun at other, to if the police do.
It is only legal when there is an imminent threat that would allow you to kill.
And that has to be identical for all private citizens, equally with police.
Police can never have superior authority, because in a democratic republic, WE are the only source of authority, not government.
Unless you have justification to kill, then you do not have justification to point.

Whether or not laws are right or wrong, it IS wrong for police to enforce laws they know are wrong. That is the point of civilization, where each individual is responsible for what they do.
That is why we executed the Nazis who claimed they were just "following orders".
That is not a legal defense.

The whole point of a democratic republic is that you can't have a dictatorship if all individuals act ethically. Police do not get an exception to that inherent responsibility. Law and justice is superior to mere legislation, and a crime by legislators is to be equally resisted as a crime by an individual bank robber, in a democratic republic.

Well, that obviates that someone has to then be pointing a gun at a cop first for them to pull their weapon, and/or if a cop pulls a gun, the other party has a right to. That's going to end up resulting in dead cops or dead civilians.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one....

Huge difference.
I said "pointing" a gun at someone is illegal, (unless you have justification to shoot).
Simply "drawing" a gun is not illegal, as long as you do not point it at anyone.

The time it takes to draw is huge compared to the time it takes to point.

Fair enough, although I still don't think it's a good idea for a cop to wait until someone draws a weapon to draw his own, nor for a civilian to draw a weapon because the cop has done so.

And I don't know that what you say is illegal is actually illegal in terms of a cop pointing their weapon at someone. Maybe someone can cite a statute or something but I'm not aware of that.

 

[martybegan]

Minneapolis City Council alarmed by surge in crime months after voting to defund the police

Council members pressed police Chief Medaria Arradondo about the uptick in crimes that include daylight carjackings, robberies, assaults, shootings and street racing.

www.foxnews.com

Unfortunately good, law-abiding Americans have to suffer because of STUPIDITY, INCOMPETENCE, & LACK OF COMMON SENSE of Democrats in charge...

.

They haven't actually done anything yet.

Police are sulky and shirking their responsibilities.

Why take risks arresting people and fighting crime if you know the government you work for doesn't have your back?

Police don't take usually or have to take any significant risks.
They are supposed to call for backup and never need to do a thing until they have over whelming control over any situation.
And as long as they are accepting pay, they should do the job they are paid for.
If police would do what WE want, then WE would support them.
But as long as the police incorrectly THINK they are working for "the government", then they remain the enemy to any democratic republic.

Lots of long sentences, no actual content.

Police take plenty of risks above and beyond any civilian does in urban areas. You can point to jobs like logging and crabbing and mining, but those are risks of a natural nature.

Dealing with people brings an unpredictability that leads to officers dying even if they are "supposed to call for backup" or any other excuse you can come up with.

The thing is they are under the impression they have to do their job perfectly or they will be prosecuted and hung out to dry by the government employing them.

Why should they go above and beyond under those conditions?

 

[martybegan]

Minneapolis City Council alarmed by surge in crime months after voting to defund the police

Council members pressed police Chief Medaria Arradondo about the uptick in crimes that include daylight carjackings, robberies, assaults, shootings and street racing.

www.foxnews.com

Unfortunately good, law-abiding Americans have to suffer because of STUPIDITY, INCOMPETENCE, & LACK OF COMMON SENSE of Democrats in charge...

.

They haven't actually done anything yet.

Police are sulky and shirking their responsibilities.

Why take risks arresting people and fighting crime if you know the government you work for doesn't have your back?

Police don't take usually or have to take any significant risks.
They are supposed to call for backup and never need to do a thing until they have over whelming control over any situation.
And as long as they are accepting pay, they should do the job they are paid for.
If police would do what WE want, then WE would support them.
But as long as the police incorrectly THINK they are working for "the government", then they remain the enemy to any democratic republic.

How long have you served or did you serve as a policeman?

2 policemen just sitting in a car were just shot by a would-be assassin.

Ordinary traffic stops could be deadly for police.

Those 2 policemen did not get shot because they thought they worked for the government.

There isn't 1 intelligent thing you said.

That is silly.
About 100 cops are killed by criminals a year, while over 500 die from traffic, and police murder thousands a year.
You have your priorities all screwed up.

If police actually wanted to be safer, all they would have to do is change policies.
For example, at a traffic stop they could just use the loudspeaker to ask the driver to exit the car.
That is what they often did 20 years ago.
If police change policies to something dangerous, that is their own fault.

Please show me data saying the police murder thousands a year.

I'm not sure if you are a hard left idiot, or a hard right idiot, but one thing for sure is you are a fucking idiot.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

WTF is a 'violence INTERRUPTER'?

It's actually a very dangerous soviet style form of coercion...these "interrupters" will not be restrained by our constitution and will have an agenda..."non-friendlies" will be the targets as they are now as these "sexual harassment" claims are the dry run leading up to these "interupterrs" who will be allowed to enter you homes and workplace to confront you with all of the backing of the government [and career apparatchicks] with none of the constraints of the constitution and civil rights law.

 

[easyt65]

The moment the Seattle Mayor CHOSE to allow domestic terrorists to keep and run the section of city they had just seized instead of taking it back she violated her oath, failed her primary duty to protect citizens and businesses, and she CHOSE to stand with criminals, looters, murderers, and terrorists.

The moment she gave them porta-potties, food, medicine, snacks, coffee, heavy cement barriers to fortify their positions she aided and abetted criminals...and she's amazed by the violence perpetrated?!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It is foolish to claim that fewer police means more crime.
I have never heard of police actually EVER stopping a crime in progress.
It probably happened by accident once or twice, but police in no way have any impact on crime, and never can.

Obviously what reduces crime is when people realize that police do almost nothing, and start defending themselves.
Police are an invention of the autocrats who don't want us to be able to defend ourselves, not to protect us. Historically police are associated with dictatorships, not democracies.
The founders of the US did not want police, and police did not exist in any quantity until after around 1900, when this country started becoming more of a dictatorship.

The History of Policing in the United States, Part 1

The first police organization in the South is the "Slave Patrol". The first formal slave patrol was created in the Carolina colonies in 1704.

plsonline.eku.edu

 

[Crepitus]

They haven't actually done anything yet. Police are sulky and shirking their responsibilities.

Like the 2 who just survived an assassination attempt? Or the cop who was hit in the head with a brick and watched his attacker released from jail within an hour of attempting to kill the cop?

You are an idiot.

Not the same department, and so unrelated. Not to mention a deflection from my point.

Nice try though

Like the failed democrat politicians who have allowed thugs, criminals, and domestic terrorists to take over their cities, you seek to villainize the police instead of hold the failed Democrat politicians accountable.

And now you attack me instead of defending your position.

You lose