avatar! | 1,861 Posted Wednesday at 03:49 AM Share Posted Wednesday at 03:49 AM On 6/24/2024 at 9:07 PM, Hammerfestus said: I was pointing out the absurdity of your comparison. Like how do you compare some random dude killing his mom to an army of armed enforcers taking the lives of the people they are supposed to be protecting and serving on a whim? These are supposed to be reliable civil servants…to all of society. I don't think you and I are ever going to reach and agreement. I certainly agree with most of @Khromak assertions, but you're implying that ALL police are like death squads, which is far far far from the truth. Again, you're absolutely right that some police officers are vile, reprehensible, and should be in jail. But, studies show that "corrupt" police (those that engage in any misconduct) is shockingly low today, in fact far less than 1% https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/ccj230/chapter/5-7-police-misconduct-and-accountability/ While the media paints a picture that most police officers are corrupt, this could not be further from the truth. The Bureau of Justice confirmed that only 0.02% of the police officers in the U.S. engage in some type of corruption. Don't get me wrong, that's still 0.02% more than it should be, but relatively tiny percentage nonetheless. "These are supposed to be reliable civil servants…to all of society." I agree that there needs to be more training for civil servants to ensure that ALL of society gets the protection and service they deserve, no argument from me on that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammerfestus | 4,000 Posted Wednesday at 11:29 AM Share Posted Wednesday at 11:29 AM 7 hours ago, avatar! said: I don't think you and I are ever going to reach and agreement. I certainly agree with most of @Khromak assertions, but you're implying that ALL police are like death squads, which is far far far from the truth. Again, you're absolutely right that some police officers are vile, reprehensible, and should be in jail. But, studies show that "corrupt" police (those that engage in any misconduct) is shockingly low today, in fact far less than 1% https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/ccj230/chapter/5-7-police-misconduct-and-accountability/ While the media paints a picture that most police officers are corrupt, this could not be further from the truth. The Bureau of Justice confirmed that only 0.02% of the police officers in the U.S. engage in some type of corruption. Don't get me wrong, that's still 0.02% more than it should be, but relatively tiny percentage nonetheless. "These are supposed to be reliable civil servants…to all of society." I agree that there needs to be more training for civil servants to ensure that ALL of society gets the protection and service they deserve, no argument from me on that point. That was definitely not my assertion. I feel like you’re being obtuse about the point I’m making intentionally for the sake of argumentation. I’ve worked alongside enough LEOs to know that they are mostly just dopes. I certainly never implied that all cops are roving death squads. What I implied was that whatever amount of “bad apples” you seem to be ok with is not fucking good enough. This has been dragged away from my original point which was…. On 6/20/2024 at 8:29 PM, Hammerfestus said: totally proportionate and reasonable eh? Thin blue line and 2nd amendment people in general are sniveling cowards. That was what I implied. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatar! | 1,861 Posted Wednesday at 05:52 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 05:52 PM 6 hours ago, Hammerfestus said: Thin blue line and 2nd amendment people in general are sniveling cowards. That was what I implied. I personally think such an attitude is deleterious and does ZERO to help your cause in any way. But, you're certainly entitled to have that opinion and attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammerfestus | 4,000 Posted Wednesday at 06:21 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 06:21 PM 17 minutes ago, avatar! said: I personally think such an attitude is deleterious and does ZERO to help your cause in any way. But, you're certainly entitled to have that opinion and attitude. See it’s hilarious because you guys think it gives the opposite impression. Careful of those boogeyman. The cops can only shoot so many of them for jaywalking. Oh sorry. I meant dudes in lipstick reading Dr Seuss. Oh wait not that one . I meant build that wall! Wait — Are we still scared of Muslims or not any more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatar! | 1,861 Posted Wednesday at 06:34 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 06:34 PM 9 minutes ago, Hammerfestus said: See it’s hilarious because you guys think it gives the opposite impression. Careful of those boogeyman. The cops can only shoot so many of them for jaywalking. Oh sorry. I meant dudes in lipstick reading Dr Seuss. Oh wait not that one . I meant build that wall! Wait — Are we still scared of Muslims or not any more? I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make. You're welcome to go ahead and belittle other people with different opinions than your own, but if you think you're actually changing anyone's mind with such and attitude then you are mistaken. I'm always up for constructive dialogue, but honestly I feel that making fun of people and demeaning them and their beliefs is something that someone like Trump would do, so yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatar! | 1,861 Posted Wednesday at 07:26 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 07:26 PM Here's an instance of police abusing their power, although in the end of course the taxpayers bail them out Under the settlement signed by the parties this month, the state has agreed to pay Bombard $100,000 and $75,000 to the ACLU of Vermont and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression for legal fees. “While our client is pleased with this outcome, this incident should never have happened in the first place," said Hillary Rich, staff attorney for the ACLU of Vermont, in a statement. “Police need to respect everyone’s First Amendment rights — even for things they consider offensive or insulting.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatar! | 1,861 Posted Friday at 05:56 PM Share Posted Friday at 05:56 PM Earlier in the week, I spoke to multiple Biden campaign strategists and former Democratic operatives about how the president was preparing for the debate at Camp David. All of them described a punishing and rigorous process during which Biden would practise hitting back at various criticisms and insults expected from Trump on the night. Their strategy had one major flaw: it relied on memory – not the president’s strong point, at 81 years of age – and on the delivery of facts. Facts are all very well and good during a political campaign and, of course, are paramount for policy. But debates are about who you are. Trump knows that very well. That was a bit surreal. I still easily pick Biden over Trump, but that performance was nothing short of dismal, sadly. Now there is talk about the Democratic establishment ousting Biden... but who would run in his place? And this close to the election? That would be a disaster! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed Rothchild | 9,717 Editorials Team · Posted Friday at 07:27 PM Share Posted Friday at 07:27 PM Americans, after casual followers from other countries are surprised by a convicted felon winning the US presidency in November. Pretty amazing that we somehow prop up two of the absolute worst options as the only 2 options. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulpa | 3,594 Posted Friday at 11:56 PM Share Posted Friday at 11:56 PM 5 hours ago, avatar! said: Now there is talk about the Democratic establishment ousting Biden... but who would run in his place? And this close to the election? That would be a disaster! They're not going to oust Biden. He was abysmal, yes, but it was one bad night. Honestly, it balances out the State of the Union where he was on fire, so he has good days and not so good days. And Trump's sentencing is still looming. Bet that swings opinion the other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-type | 2,680 Posted Saturday at 02:09 AM Share Posted Saturday at 02:09 AM 7 hours ago, avatar! said: but who would run in his place? And this close to the election? That would be a disaster! It's already a disaster. Swapping him out might be the best option. I can't believe how bad he did. Anyone who had doubts about him being too old has had it made painfully clear. As for a possible alternate, the only name I've seen floating around that I think might be viable is Gretchen Whitmer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefaultGen | 5,631 Posted Saturday at 02:20 AM Share Posted Saturday at 02:20 AM 9 minutes ago, G-type said: It's already a disaster. Swapping him out might be the best option. I can't believe how bad he did. Anyone who had doubts about him being too old has had it made painfully clear. As for a possible alternate, the only name I've seen floating around that I think might be viable is Gretchen Whitmer Does my mom in unpolitical America have time to learn who Gretchen Whitmer is? The Democrats have to go straight to the top. It’s time to tap Tom Hanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-type | 2,680 Posted Saturday at 02:31 AM Share Posted Saturday at 02:31 AM 8 minutes ago, DefaultGen said: It’s time to tap Tom Hanks. The problem is he has no experience. Better to go with an actor who's actually been the president before, like Terry Crews. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OptOut | 8,912 Posted Saturday at 04:15 AM Share Posted Saturday at 04:15 AM Dude... This is some serious elder-abuse level shit going on in the democrats. Biden should be in a home with a blanket over his legs, staring out a window into the middle distance, jaw agape... I'm pretty sure he was actually drooling during half of that "debate", it's like something escaped from the crypt. The adrenochrome isn't working anymore guys, it's over, he's more adrenochrome than man at this point. Never been more Joever, we need a humane solution to put an end to his suffering. He made Trump look like a plausible presidential candidate. Even Trump himself can't do that. Biden needs to go, it's not even a question at this point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PII | 1,946 Posted Saturday at 05:20 AM Share Posted Saturday at 05:20 AM MEDIA: Biden to be replaced by Poo-On-A-Stick. DEMOCRATS: At least it's not Trump. RANDOM GUY: I believe I'll nominate a 3rd party. KODOS: GO AHEAD, THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY!!! WAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HA!!!!!! PII: Same old shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatar! | 1,861 Posted Saturday at 05:42 AM Share Posted Saturday at 05:42 AM (edited) 'I know how to do this job': A defiant Biden rejects calls to end his bid for president https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/06/28/biden-north-carolina-defiant-after-disastrous-debate/74247028007/ "I know I'm not a young man − to state the obvious," Biden said near the end of a campaign rally in Raleigh, North Carolina. "Folks, I don't walk as easy as I used to. I don't speak as smoothly as I used to. I don't debate as well as I used to. But I know what I do know: I know how to tell the truth. "I know right from wrong. I know how to do this job. I know how to get things done. And I know, like millions of Americans know, when you get knocked down, you get back," Biden said, prompting loud applause from supporters. Biden set out to dispel any notion that he might terminate his bid for president following Thursday night's rocky debate. In Summary: Edited Saturday at 05:55 AM by avatar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fcgamer | 4,823 Posted Saturday at 09:21 AM Share Posted Saturday at 09:21 AM 9 hours ago, Tulpa said: And Trump's sentencing is still looming. Bet that swings opinion the other way. I reckon literally half the Taiwanese presidents have been in jail, and a few years back there was even a candidate who killed a person due to vehicular homicide. If Trump was convicted of fiddling boys or something, I think the charges would be a much bigger deal than they are. From where I stand, I don't want either of the two candidates to be running for president. No idea why they insisted on running Biden again though, run somebody new immediately! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Morbis | 2,105 Posted yesterday at 06:15 AM Share Posted yesterday at 06:15 AM (edited) On 6/28/2024 at 5:56 PM, Tulpa said: Honestly, it balances out the State of the Union where he was on fire, so he has good days and not so good days. It would be a gargantuan fallacy to compare Biden trying to react, respond, and debate on the fly as he was forced to "attempt" to do on Thursday night to Biden reading a scripted speech from a teleprompter (with pause marks et al), no? Come on, bro... EDIT - And as a Canadian, I've gotta ask all you American dudes: who's running your country right now? Do you guys even know...? Edited yesterday at 06:39 AM by Dr. Morbis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefaultGen | 5,631 Posted yesterday at 09:39 AM Share Posted yesterday at 09:39 AM 3 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said: EDIT - And as a Canadian, I've gotta ask all you American dudes: who's running your country right now? Do you guys even know...? Walmart, ExxonMobil, UnitedHealthcare, Google, Ford, Lockheed Martin Who's running your country, Tim Hortons? Pssht. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OptOut | 8,912 Posted yesterday at 10:16 AM Share Posted yesterday at 10:16 AM 3 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said: EDIT - And as a Canadian, I've gotta ask all you American dudes: who's running your country right now? Do you guys even know...? ***Don't say it Opty, you sarcastic bitch, DON'T you fucking say it...*** Juice. ***God fucking DAMNIT Opty, fucking cunt! Not funny, not funny, not funny!!!*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Hill | 276 Posted 2 hours ago Share Posted 2 hours ago On 6/26/2024 at 7:29 AM, Hammerfestus said: totally proportionate and reasonable eh? You know at face value these prove your point but once you adjust the bottom chart for truly unarmed, non-violent people, I bet those numbers are way closer, maybe even to where police deaths are higher. The rate of which police unjustifiably kill people is crazy low when you consider the total interactions per year. There's always room for improvement but there will never be perfection. Police serve a critical purpose and do the right thing in a vast majority of situations. I bet a lot of the "thin blue lives sniveling cowards" understand this. Shit like this is so out of touch - "There is a significant American subculture rooting for these dudes out there playing Rambo shooting black kids" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khromak | 802 Posted 2 hours ago Share Posted 2 hours ago (edited) 23 minutes ago, Silent Hill said: You know at face value these prove your point but once you adjust the bottom chart for truly unarmed, non-violent people, I bet those numbers are way closer, maybe even to where police deaths are higher. I think the other problem here (and it's a big one IMO) is that those 118 police officers "killed in the line of duty" weren't shot either. From my links earlier in the thread, more officers die from traffic deaths than being shot/stabbed, by a pretty significant margin. Out of curiosity while we've been discussing this, I looked up the fallen heroes page of my local PD. There were ~20 deaths listed there with a story for each. I went through the first ~5 and not a single one of them was violently killed on the job. Most of them were injured on the job then died 8~20 years later, often after retirement. These are counted (according to my PD) as officers dying in the line of duty. https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/about/honor-roll/index.html Edited 2 hours ago by Khromak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khromak | 802 Posted 1 hour ago Share Posted 1 hour ago (edited) I went back to read all the stories and categorize them based on the descriptions they gave. These go back to 1928 so this is pretty exhaustive (for my county). They're in chronological order. Shot 2003, retired 2007, died 2019 Traffic accident Dec 3, Died Dec 10 Traffic accident 1983, retired 1984, died 2012 Traffic accident (single vehicle), died at hospital Traffic accident (on foot), died at hospital Traffic accident (off duty) Traffic accident (single vehicle), died in accident Traffic accident (off duty), died at hospital Shot 1981, died on scene Shot 1976, died on scene Shot 1976, died on scene Shot 1973, died on scene Shot 1972, died on scene Traffic accident (in pursuit), died in hospital Shot 1952, died on scene Traffic accident, died on hospital Fist fight (on duty), died of a heart attack Traffic accident (off duty), died in hospital Traffic accident, died in hospital This may not represent all counties, but for my county the last time an officer was shot and then died from that injury (IMO) was 1981. Edited 1 hour ago by Khromak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Hill | 276 Posted 1 hour ago Share Posted 1 hour ago 35 minutes ago, Khromak said: I think the other problem here (and it's a big one IMO) is that those 118 police officers "killed in the line of duty" weren't shot either. From my links earlier in the thread, more officers die from traffic deaths than being shot/stabbed, by a pretty significant margin. Out of curiosity while we've been discussing this, I looked up the fallen heroes page of my local PD. There were ~20 deaths listed there with a story for each. I went through the first ~5 and not a single one of them was violently killed on the job. Most of them were injured on the job then died 8~20 years later, often after retirement. These are counted (according to my PD) as officers dying in the line of duty. https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/pol/about/honor-roll/index.html Sure, that's fair. But my overall point still stands - the percentage of unjustified police killings is extremely low compared to the overall deaths by police, especially so when compared to overall interactions and the gap between those and police deaths is much smaller than what Hammerfestus represented. https://fop.net/2024/01/line-of-duty-deaths-2023-usa-today/ FWIW, looks like ~35% of police deaths in 2023 were from gunfire and there was a record number of police shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT | 112 Posted 48 minutes ago Share Posted 48 minutes ago There's no reasonable way to support the law enforcement system in the U.S. It is broken. Cops risk their jobs when they report collegaues misconduct I’m a Former Cop. This is Not Just a Few Bad Apples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Hill | 276 Posted 1 minute ago Share Posted 1 minute ago 36 minutes ago, CT said: There's no reasonable way to support the law enforcement system in the U.S. It is broken. Cops risk their jobs when they report collegaues misconduct I’m a Former Cop. This is Not Just a Few Bad Apples. I personally support the "system" when it works, which is a vast majority of the time. I'll never understand the extreme position of those who want to abolish the police, or ACAB folks, or views like Hammerfestus shared. https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/minneapolis-police-officers-honored-for-rescuing-child-who-fell-through-ice/ BTW, that second link you provided is full of misleading propaganda, eye-roll inducing memes, and opinions. What a wonderful idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts