Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

That’s how we end up with public outrage, because too many police keep putting out candles with firehoses.  “Brandishing” the knife becomes the excuse to fire.  It’s shoot to kill and the “threat” isn’t so threatening.    

I don't think I've seen much public outrage with regard to knife wielders.  I don't think most people expect the police to risk their lives too much. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

They could at least have retreated within the house until reinforcements arrived. He was known to the police as a disturbed individual - just sending two cops over there was the wrong thing to do. The

I think David Petraeus makes a reasonable point here about military bases in the US. None should still be named after Confederate generals:   

We need to change ourselves first, to stop being manipulated from left and right. Every single group is trying to use different material in regards to this tragedy to get followers.  The police u

15 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

1. So those who want to serve and are qualified to do so "get in", but those who are more qualified to protest and bitch about police do not ?

2. Seems like a self fulfilling hiring and policy dynamic to me.

 

 

1. I don't know how they weed out people to be police officers.  I'm replying to your question: "How many are willing to serve in law enforcement to "fix the problem" ? " which seems to imply that if they stipulate on the application form "NO BEATING BLACK PEOPLE" there will be nobody interested in the job.  Could be, I suppose.  You would probably know better than me, given your background in military advertures.
2. I think civil servants should be appreciative of their advantages, period.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Argus said:

 

The problem is what you do to your own body often then runs into what your body does to other people.

That to me sounds like thought crime, charging someone in anticipation of a crime that hasn’t happened yet.  That’s where I think the temperance movement has left its mark.  I’m all for helping people deal with substance abuse or addiction issues, and law enforcement can play an important role in providing that help, perhaps even using conditions set by the court.  It’s not all sugar and carrots, but hitting a drunk with a car door looks more like kicking someone when they’re down than any kind of rehabilitation.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Still too vague...what exactly are you proposing ?

Police serve as agents and enforcers of the law established by city, provincial, and federal jurisdiction.   

Police actions are a symptom of larger expectations and demands by society.    Some police officers become hardened and dehumanized by their experiences.

 

I’ve stated what I think the police should no longer enforce.  People can disagree.  I’ve also said that much better training on use of force must be provided.  Force is a go-to for a few too many of the wrong things.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

... I'm replying to your question: "How many are willing to serve in law enforcement to "fix the problem" ? " which seems to imply that if they stipulate on the application form "NO BEATING BLACK PEOPLE" there will be nobody interested in the job.  Could be, I suppose.  You would probably know better than me, given your background in military advertures.

 

 

The police forces at all levels are drawn from the larger society to join a group that depends on peer support and trust.    Social justice warriors could join the blue line, but most don't.    Easier to protest and riot, demanding that police protect their rights.  

Is it still OK to BEAT WHITE PEOPLE ?

I was a navy line officer, not a military police officer...we only got two semesters of JAG training for UCMJ purposes.   Deadly force was always authorized for nuclear weapons security, even if it was Martin Luther King Jr. himself.   Armed Marines took care of any righteous protesters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I’ve stated what I think the police should no longer enforce.  People can disagree.  I’ve also said that much better training on use of force must be provided.  Force is a go-to for a few too many of the wrong things.  

 

Well, one leads to the other.    You can advocate for abolishing enforcement, but the very same groups would soon be bitching about safety and security.

That's why this problem is so hard.....police are the agents of society doing a risky and  often thankless job.

...too easy to just blame the cops...errr...pigs !

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The police forces at all levels are drawn from the larger society to join a group that depends on peer support and trust.    Social justice warriors could join the blue line, but most don't.    Easier to protest and riot, demanding that police protect their rights.  

Is it still OK to BEAT WHITE PEOPLE ?

I was a navy line officer, not a military police officer...we only got two semesters of JAG training for UCMJ purposes.   Deadly force was always authorized for nuclear weapons security, even if it was Martin Luther King Jr. himself.   Armed Marines took care of any righteous protesters.

Colour shouldn’t come into it, except that much of the pulling people over and questioning happens in the “bad areas” that also happen to be the poor areas and the blacker areas.  What is being enforced in these areas?  If it’s stopping violence, theft, etc., I think we can all get behind that, but the mandate goes further.  We see how more blacks are behind bars than in university, how many blacks plead guilty to crimes they didn’t commit because of poor legal representation and fear of harsh sentences.  I wish justice was colourblind.  Perhaps when some blacks have enough money it can be.

Also, I’m sure that police work can be very hard.  We have to be careful not to bring preconceived notions to situations.  Facts/evidence must be considered in every case.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zeitgeist said:

Colour shouldn’t come into it, except that much of the pulling people over and questioning happens in the “bad areas” that also happen to be the poor areas and the blacker areas.  What is being enforced in these areas?  If it’s stopping violence, theft, etc., I think we can all get behind that, but the mandate goes further.  We see how more blacks are behind bars than in university, how many blacks plead guilty to crimes they didn’t commit because of poor legal representation and fear of harsh sentences.  I wish justice was colourblind.  Perhaps if you have enough money it can be.  

 

Different topic...why are so many "aboriginals" imprisoned in Canada as a percentage of the population ?

Law abiding "black people" deserve safety and security just as much as "whites", and that means a larger police presence because of underlying social and economic conditions in their "communities".

You want police to stop enforcement....OK.    Not sure what that looks like, but I am sure that firearms sales would increase dramatically, even in Canada.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Different topic...why are so many "aboriginals" imprisoned in Canada as a percentage of the population ?

Law abiding "black people" deserve safety and security just as much as "whites", and that means a larger police presence because of underlying social and economic conditions in their "communities".

You want police to stop enforcement....OK.    Not sure what that looks like, but I am sure that firearms sales would increase dramatically, even in Canada.

I want to stop enforcing certain things, or rather, change certain laws.

Feel free to start a thread on indigenous justice. I made reference to two questionable police actions against indigenous.  It’s a very fraught topic that I’ve considered a lot.  However, I’m not sure that ignoring gun control on reserves in Trudeau’s new gun control approach is an example of equity we should follow.  Two-tier justice is never good.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

I want to stop enforcing certain things, or rather, changing certain laws.

 

OK...then you are open to the idea that it is not necessarily the cops, but the demands made of them by cities, provinces, and feds.

Cherry picking which laws to enforce is fraught with its own challenges.

Maybe consider asking citizens to not commit so many crimes...pretty please with sugar on top.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yes I don't think that charging or putting drug or alcohol users/abusers in jail is valid.

I'd say that when people have access to opportunities and have the right supports, they tend to do better in life than when they are charged and locked up.  I just don't think the state should be able to charge you for what you do to your own body. 

Could you clarify on what drug and alcohol infractions should not be subject to the law, driving under the influence, drunk and disorderly in public etc ?

But users have already involved the state, when users expect EMS or other agencies to perform vital medical care when they OD, At the states expense. They are making a choice every time they do these deadly drugs...they know very well the odds of dying from these drugs,  and yet they still do it, relying on the state to bring them back from the brink, In the BC documentary that was done the same guy was rescued 3 times in one day... Thats very telling, EMS saved his life 3 times in one day and 8 times in one week...

MY opinion you want the responsibility to pump what every in your own body, then great, but the state should not have to foot the bill for your choices... The bill should be passed to the individual and if they can not pay, then passed on to the next of kin.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

1. The police forces at all levels are drawn from the larger society to join a group that depends on peer support and trust.   
2. Social justice warriors could join the blue line, but most don't.   
3. Easier to protest and riot, demanding that police protect their rights.  
4. Is it still OK to BEAT WHITE PEOPLE ?
5. I was a navy line officer, not a military police officer...we only got two semesters of JAG training for UCMJ purposes.   Deadly force was always authorized for nuclear weapons security, even if it was Martin Luther King Jr. himself.   Armed Marines took care of any righteous protesters.

1. Of course.
2. No argument here.
3. This idea that people choose one or the other (protesting, and therefore rioting versus joining the force) is a fiction you have created.  The people marching against police murders are not automatically, by definition, "social justice warriors" which sounds like a made-up bogeyman term anyway.
4. That was never ok.
5. Well, that's interesting.  I value the posts where you bring experience, wisdom and pragmatism.  But I try not to bite on political baiting.... "Will the police hire SJWs ?" LOL... who cares...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Strongly disagree.  They're very well paid and we're over-policed.

Is your OP in reference to the US, or here? Because there are some significant differences. Police are more militarized in the US, at least in some places. In the really big cities, high population, high density, they need to be militarized.

Your OP picked on a number of specific examples where police made mistakes, and things got out of control. Ok fine, no contest. You forgot to mention the thousands if not millions of police-citizen transactions taking place across NA daily that are not such a problem, all the good things police may do, and the need to remove violent offenders from creating harm.

It is not uncommon on the US for police to provide security to children on their way to school, and to maintain a prescence in the schools themselves. Now these emotionally triggered, reactive fools want to put an end to that as well. Good news for shooters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:


3. This idea that people choose one or the other (protesting, and therefore rioting versus joining the force) is a fiction you have created.  The people marching against police murders are not automatically, by definition, "social justice warriors" which sounds like a made-up bogeyman term anyway.

5. Well, that's interesting.  I value the posts where you bring experience, wisdom and pragmatism.  But I try not to bite on political baiting.... "Will the police hire SJWs ?" LOL... who cares...

 

No, you have admitted as much yourself above.  It is demonstrably more difficult to get hired for law enforcement than to start/join a protest and/or riot.

Why you continue to fight the obvious hiring selection and choices for law enforcement is curious.   The real question is why the SJWs have not joined law enforcement in large numbers to affect change.    Are they better at being victims ?

Raging against the cops is not a new experience, even if the kids with smart phones and social media think so.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

That’s how we end up with public outrage, because too many police keep putting out candles with firehoses.  “Brandishing” the knife becomes the excuse to fire.  It’s shoot to kill and the “threat” isn’t so threatening.    

This is a problem with in police forces , and it comes down to training, RCMP and most other police forces are taught once the situation is escalated to lethal force to keep engaging the target until it is no longer a threat...there are much better ways. and you don't have to empty a 10 round mag to do it...

Any wpn that could kill or cause bodily damage is consider lethal, knife , baseball bat, metal pipe, tire iron, 2 x 4 lumber, even a pocket knife...The idea of having an armed police force is so they control the situation at all times, for everyone safety... if the bad guy disarms the police officer by any means , the police no longer control it the bad guys do...and bad stuff happens...

But I do think police services should have more non lethal means at their disposal, but they would have to be approved to be used on the general population, I know the US army has been developing tones of non lethal wpns, such as directional and concentrated sound waves for controlling large crowds, the protestors would find it very painful on the ears and unable to continue to misbehave, the beam can be made to hone in on one person or a group of people....there is also directional and concentrated heat works the same as the sound, but makes in uncomfortable warm...moral of the story is atleast you would be still alive....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

No, you have admitted as much yourself above.  It is demonstrably more difficult to get hired for law enforcement than to start/join a protest and/or riot.

Why you continue to fight the obvious hiring selection and choices for law enforcement is curious.   The real question is why the SJWs have not joined law enforcement in large numbers to affect change.    Are they better at being victims ?

Raging against the cops is not a new experience, even if the kids with smart phones and social media think so.

 

You make an important point about victim culture wherein we compete to claim our worthiness for sympathy or some form of reparation based on our level of victimhood or quantity of intersectionalities.   However, I’m not pushing for equity, just making sure already disenfranchised people aren’t being mistreated on the basis of their colour or monetary position.

We need to reduce the number of behaviours we enforce, not just because the behaviours themselves are nobody’s damn business, but also because their enforcement is often used as a wedge to go after people for other reasons, such as, “this person (black/down and out) makes me feel uncomfortable”.  Keep it about public safety and clear crimes and we’ll have fewer excuses for police brutality and injustice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You make an important point about victim culture wherein we compete to claim our worthiness for sympathy or some form of reparation based on our level of victimhood or quantity of intersectionalities.   However, I’m not pushing for equity, just making sure already disenfranchised people aren’t being mistreated on the basis of their colour or monetary position.

 

OK, but that still does not address the underlying root causes and conditions.     Pointing the finger at police just kicks the can down the road.

 

Quote

We need to reduce the number of behaviours we enforce, not just because the behaviours themselves are nobody’s damn business, but also because their enforcement is often used as a wedge to go after people for other reasons, such as, “this person (black/down and out) makes me feel uncomfortable”.  Keep it about public safety and clear crimes and we’ll have fewer excuses for police brutality and injustice.

 

Public safety would be further undermined without law enforcement.    Be careful what you wish for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

OK, but that still does not address the underlying root causes and conditions.     Pointing the finger at police just kicks the can down the road.

 

 

Public safety would be further undermined without law enforcement.    Be careful what you wish for.

Enforce the right laws with the appropriate amount of force and everyone wins.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Enforce the right laws with the appropriate amount of force and everyone wins.  

 

Again...the police do not legislate the laws.    Write your MLA, MP, and city council.

Lots more lose if/when law enforcement goes away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Again...the police do not legislate the laws.    Write your MLA, MP, and city council.

Lots more lose if/when law enforcement goes away.

It’s both a legislative problem and an enforcement problem, the former due to intrusive overzealous legislation, the latter due to the misappropriation of force.  No one is advocating the abandonment of law enforcement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s both a legislative problem and an enforcement problem, the former due to intrusive overzealous legislation, the latter due to the misappropriation of force.  No one is advocating the abandonment of law enforcement.

 

Legislation comes from elected representation, so it is back on citizens.

Deadly force is also authorized by legislation, and law enforcement methods are funded by government.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A somewhat different problem is illustrated in the following case. An agitated young black man with a history of schizophrenia called police as he had done on several occasions previously. Two came to the home. He was in the kitchen with a knife. A confrontation ensued (but not at close quarters according to a family member who came up to see what all the commotion was), they tased him and then they shot him dead. 
 

Quote

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/he-was-already-on-the-floor-family-looks-for-answers-after-ontario-man-shot-dead-by-police-1.4886751
 

 The family of a 26-year-old Brampton, Ont. man is calling for more mental health training for police officers, after he was stunned with a conducted energy weapon and shot dead by police.

The victim, who has been identified by family as D'Andre Campbell, was killed inside his home on Sawston Circle, in the area of Edenbrook Hill Drive and Bovaird Drive, after Peel Regional Police were called to the location around 5:30 p.m. on Monday.

We’ll have to see what the investigation shows. What did he say in the call, did the police know his history and why couldn’t they just have left the house and waited for reinforcements? The crisis intervention team should have been there. Bean bags have been used instead of bullets in some parts of the US when mentally ill patients are involved and don’t have a gun:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean_bag_round

The piece below in the Toronto Sun could have been written by the police themselves. There’s no attempt to ask any questions about how the situation could have been managed more safely:

https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/warmington-man-26-shot-dead-by-peel-cops-allegedly-armed-with-knife

 

 

 

 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

A somewhat different problem is illustrated in the following case. An agitated young black man with a history of schizophrenia called police as he had done on several occasions previously. Two came to the home. He was in the kitchen with a knife. A confrontation ensued (but not at close quarters according to a family member who came up to see what all the commotion was), they tased him and then they shot him dead.

 

OK....but when police back off and SWAT or other specialized units are called to the scene, they are accused of being "too militarized".    Also, like many teachers in public schools, police find themselves having to deal with the social and economic ills that society dumps on them in lieu of better options.

Police unions will just claim "suicide by cop".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something you think would already exist in the US is being proposed in a reform bill - a national police misconduct registry to follow officers fired for misconduct and make sure they just don’t join another force. Concealing documented misconduct from prospective employers should be a serious offence. Incredibly, the same problem has existed in medicine for years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

OK....but when police back off and SWAT or other specialized units are called to the scene, they are accused of being "too militarized".    Also, like many teachers in public schools, police find themselves having to deal with the social and economic ills that society dumps on them in lieu of better options.

Police unions will just claim "suicide by cop".

The guy was in his home. They could have taken the other family member with them if she felt in danger and they felt unable to deal with the situation without killing somebody. Allegedly, he was lying on the floor when he was killed and nobody was injured except him. The mistake he made was calling the cops in the first place. The police unions are part of the problem, of course.

On the other hand, we most definitely need the police to preserve order and the job has to be respected enough to attract good applicants. Too often, they are asked to deal with disturbed psychiatric patients because our mental health services in Canada are so inadequate. 


 

 

Edited by SpankyMcFarland
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...