Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/15/2020 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Me also. I think the way to do it is for people to take on the task of criticizing their political cousins, even the extremists. For the politicians responsible for getting us through this, grandstanding and moralizing has to give way to matter-of-fact, ie. boring, discussions. There are no easy solutions, and moral condemnation of police, their unions, or whites in general is a feel-good-to-feel-bad exercise. There are ways to get through this, but that's more work and less clickbaity.
  2. 1 point
    Exactly. Democrat policy has ensured that mentally ill individuals have to consent to any treatment or confinement. Then they complain when law enforcement has to deal with the ramifications.
  3. 1 point
    You are...in the political context for the 2020 campaign. Never mind that Joe Biden and his party have been heavily invested in the "police state" for decades. Obama didn't do dick all about this issue.
  4. 1 point
    Why is it clear? It also appears he was pulling away from the officer trying to subdue him as he swore at the officer after police penetrating the officer's danger zone. How is swearing reluctant resignation and not a sign of resistance? Was he pulling away or pushed? Officers do not push to arrest or subdue in fact the exact opposite. They have been taught to pull in the assailant body and bend the first limb they can get to use leverage of their own body to use their weight and gravity to pull the suspect down. As well your scapegoating the second officer selectively ignores that officer's training and the behaviour of the assailant as if that officer acted in a vacuum. That officer received an officer needs assistance call and was taught to not assume or remain dettached but upon seeing a fellow officer's danger zone penetrated move as quickly as possible to immobilize the assailant. He had an impaired view. He could not see if the Chief had a weapon but he would have heard the Chief swearing and an impaired view of the Chief turning away from the officer. It would take a split second after turning for the Chief to pull out a knife or gun and kill the officer in his danger zone. That second officer could not assume otherwise. The second officer is not trained to wait because that could be a fatal mistake. He was following his training. If you penetrate an officer's danger space they are taught to subdue, immobilize and handcuff and not stop until the suspect is rendered fully cuffed. With due respect Eye you do not understand what a danger zone is and what happens to if you penetrate it and why police are trained to react as they do when you penetrate it. I myself was forced to take down an elderly person in a crowded market. She pulled out a pair of scissors leaning towards another medic next to me. No I had no time to assume or ask. Uniforms trigger behaviour. The danger zone was penetrated. No I did not as you selectively suggest ignore someone in a danger zone. No the scissors were not meant for a haircut. No I did not ask the lady why she did what she did. She was quickly taken away. The entire incident was like 5 seconds. You do not have time to stand as you suggested. You immobilize then ask questions. When working in a mental insitution as an orderly I was not allowed to have patients penetrate the danger zone either. Its basic training.
  5. 1 point
    This is the problem / challenge...bleeding hearts demanding that police officers take all the risks while interacting with criminals or the mentally ill. What part of shooting at cops do you not understand ?
  6. 1 point
    No, it certainly does not. My message is more funding and better training for police, and for the public as well.
  7. 1 point
    Of course they do, and the second comment is false. Military gear is now used in many non lethal scenarios and in manh US jurisdictions standard uniform .The issue is how weapons are used. Denying they exist us pointless Armoured tank vehicles with water cannons are used in crowd control and every Swat unit today has armoured tank vehicles.
  8. 1 point
    I agree with the first point. And we certainly shouldn’t be tasering cops.
  9. 1 point
    I’m not saying it’s easy to make such decisions in a split moment. Frankly, I’d be more inclined to shoot somebody running towards me, armed or not, with apparent intent to do me harm than somebody going in the opposite direction. I’m also not convinced regular criminal laws should apply in these situations. Quite some years ago, they had a rash of manslaughter convictions of UK doctors who were bad at their jobs until they realized the implications of this for recruitment.
  10. 1 point
    Oh agreed. Moralizing is of limited usefulness in an emergency. Even Nero fiddled while Rome burned.
  11. 1 point
    They were chasing a guy with a taser, not an assault rifle. Was he going to kill loads of people on a tasering rampage in the next ten minutes? Why use deadly force? The dumb answer is because you can.
  12. 1 point
    1. Fair comment. I would still say this content is focused on the 80% that is shocked by such things, ie. mainstream morality. But that's a thought-provoking counter example for sure. 2. Now the relationship between public morality and advertising money is an interesting topic. The first all-African American television show was cancelled ... in 1953 ... due to a threatened boycott of advertiser Blatz beer ... by the NAACP ! So there is something there. News is also an odd one, since there shouldn't be a relationship between pure information and whether you support the messenger and yet there always is. 3. And one can see the effects of that without moralizing. You can also look at history. Partisan news died in the 19th century because it wasn't economically feasible, ultimately.
  13. 1 point
    - Clearly they were doing things to stress him out and confuse him. He was already somewhat confused. - The point of the sobriety test when he waves his hand up down left right, while holding a bright light is to make you dizzy and disoriented. Then ask you to walk a straight line. - The instructions the officer gave were almost intentionally confusing. How many times did he ask him about his shoes, and the man did say he would wear them. He didn't understand the context of the question. Just as he didn't understand the scale from 1-10 being sobriety to "inebriation". He didn't know what that word meant. - After cooperating to the best of his ability, they grabbed him anyway. Didn't inform him of what they wanted to do, just grabbed him and started laying the cuffs on. - The cop may have intentionally removed his camera as soon as the action started. I would not doubt that little trick what so ever Way I see that, they killed the poor bastard. He did the wrong things, but they led him to that point. These are law enforcement professionals, but it wasn't a very professional job, imo.
  14. 1 point
    It's clear the chief was combative at the beginning of the video but it also seems clear that he was resignedly moving in the direction the 1st cop was steering him in. The 2nd cop is who turned this into a shit show.
  15. 1 point
    At some point people need to take responsibility for their actions. This instance isn’t even close to being in the same ball park as George Floyd. But the world continues to have lost its mind, abandoning all logic and reason. I’m hoping this will pass soon.
  16. 1 point
    Who is he, most people probably never heard of him, who cares. You can pull all the rabbits out of a hat you want in this. By the way, those of you whom are "history challenged" would do well to realize that most people in the world were just as racist as he was, back in that day. But the idea and insititution he described is considered reprehensible now, in both thought and deed.
  17. 1 point
    It's important to note that the actual left does not feel itself to be served by MSM either. Mainstream is a homogenizing culture that doesn't have time for points of view outside the middle 80%, which includes valid points outside that middle core, such as: -Valid arguments against immigration -Exaggerations of climate change -Actual examples of military abuses, government support for abhorrent foreign governments, police brutality -Economic arguments in favour of cutting off subsidies for domestic industry Such discussions used to find themselves a home in the op-ed pages, panel discussions on radio and television. The natural place for them to land would be on the web, but web forums such as this one have been invaded by propagandists, deficient arguments, and people who can only see things through their own moral lens. If the current cycle of unrest is simply "people wanting free TVs" then a law-and-order response and arrests should work. Why isn't that happening ? I don't think mainstream news is instigating this as much as reflecting attitudes that exist in society.
  18. 1 point
    I think David Petraeus makes a reasonable point here about military bases in the US. None should still be named after Confederate generals:
  19. 1 point
    Now my thing would be......how does that help Canada get rid of Trudeau and all government corruption ?

Announcements



×
×
  • Create New...