Post: #26

(02-10-2019 12:59 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 05:51 AM)Mage Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 04:13 AM)stugatz Wrote:  Police are necessary, obviously,

Who told you that? Why do you believe that? From where does this belief comes? Have you seriously gave any thought to a world model without police? How fast have you self censored to stop even entertaining that thought?

The first professional police force wasn't introduced until the mid 1800s by Prime Minister Robert Peel - ergo the nickname "Bobbies". We seemed to get along perfectly fine before that without cops.

Come on that isnt accurate at all, it took 1 minute of googling to disprove that.

I know wikipedia isnt always perfect, so feel free to dispute what's listed under the "history" tab

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police

Post: #27

(02-10-2019 02:15 AM)Kona Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 12:34 AM)Delta Wrote:  The victim is the wrong color for this to make a splash as a major national story,

But he's the right color to keep the cops from just shooting him.

Aloha!

(02-10-2019 10:54 AM)lex the impaler Wrote:  As much as I disagree with BLM, they got something right. Blacks are just targeting practice for the rest of the country. These same cops are coming back to suburbia, at shifts end...

Let's divide the population into two groups, we'll call them group A and group B. What if I told you a member of group A is 18 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a member of group B? Pretty crazy right? But groups A and B are not blacks and whites as you might think; they're men and women. Blacks are about 2 times as likely as whites to be killed by police.

What's the reason for these discrepancies? Well the first one's easy; anyone, leftist or rightist, would recognize that men commit far more crime, have more police interactions, and are more likely to be a threat. So that massive discrepancy is a non-issue. But we're to believe that the much smaller racial discrepancy is due to cops being on a deliberate campaign to terrorize black individuals, even when those same caveats apply (that is, blacks commit far more crime, have more police interactions, and generally have a more hostile attitude toward police)? Statistically, the evidence is incredibly weak that cops go around targeting black dudes... not saying they don't profile, but I am saying they don't set out to harm black people. There just isn't any compelling reason to believe they do.

If you find yourself believing things like the posts I quoted, you're buying into a myth cooked up by the leftist media that not only is based on a few anecdotes rather than hard data, but is based on misleading reporting of those anecdotes.

There is a problem that needs to be addressed, but it isn't that cops love to go around shooting black people, or that they love to go around shooting anyone... that's absurd. The problem is that when cops do commit abuses, they're rarely held accountable, because they're being investigated by other cops who are strongly inclined to take their side (this case being a perfect example of that phenomenon).
THAT is the one legitimate issue BLM has raised. Their other nonsense has no strong evidence to back it up and people need to stop being misled by it.

Post: #28

(02-10-2019 05:51 AM)Mage Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 04:13 AM)stugatz Wrote:  Police are necessary, obviously,

Who told you that? Why do you believe that? From where does this belief comes? Have you seriously gave any thought to a world model without police? How fast have you self censored to stop even entertaining that thought?

Don't misunderstand me - I have friends that are cops and family on the force, and still don't subscribe to automatic cop worship. (We had one get killed in my city the other day, which is unfortunate and all, but the news wouldn't shut up about it and kept covering his funeral procession like he was a major politician.) I also for a time lived outside of the United States in North Africa, and saw just how corrupt the police can be once you leave the first world.

I admit to believing we need cops because it's all I know. However, violent criminals usually take great care to avoid committing crimes in front of professional cops. That black-and-white car and blue suit is pretty weaved into the American psyche. If laws are enforced by a rotating staff of volunteer non-professionals - or, god forbid, vigilantes - aren't the same criminals going to see the same laws as guidelines now, and victimize people even more often? Well outside of their usual areas, too...I wonder how quickly the "safe" neighborhoods in a city and entire suburbs would have regular gunshots. (I also take regular note that it's legally far worse to kill a cop than a regular civilian, and a lot of states are tossing around an automatic death penalty for cop killers. How many people does this hold back?)

I've certainly given a lot of thought to the fact that the cops aren't always going to be on my side. Since I don't fit the profile of a criminal right now, I'm fine around them - but that will probably change quickly if we get progressive nuts in power. I've volunteered with enough right-wing orgs and go to the most subversive church in my area.

Post: #29

I also think about a Gavin McInnes video I watched recently, where he grouped cops into percentages. He said he believed about 80% of them were just trying to do their jobs well and get their pension, so they were neither too aggressive nor too lenient. The remaining 20% were divided into three groups - 10% were the incredible superhero cops you read about who love to fight crime, 5% were incompetent jackasses who barely hold down the job, and 5% were the power-hungry dickheads you hear the most about.

This video makes me wonder just how accurate these estimations are. If the "power-hungry cop" percentages are as high as 20% I wouldn't be surprised.

Post: #30

(02-10-2019 02:53 PM)stugatz Wrote:  I also think about a Gavin McInnes video I watched recently, where he grouped cops into percentages. He said he believed about 80% of them were just trying to do their jobs well and get their pension, so they were neither too aggressive nor too lenient. The remaining 20% were divided into three groups - 10% were the incredible superhero cops you read about who love to fight crime, 5% were incompetent jackasses who barely hold down the job, and 5% were the power-hungry dickheads you hear the most about.

This video makes me wonder just how accurate these estimations are. If the "power-hungry cop" percentages are as high as 20% I wouldn't be surprised.

Not just that, but humans nature is mob mentality, so it only takes one bad ringleader to incite the whole bunch in a given situation.

Post: #31

(02-10-2019 05:51 AM)Mage Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 04:13 AM)stugatz Wrote:  Police are necessary, obviously,

Who told you that? Why do you believe that? From where does this belief comes? Have you seriously gave any thought to a world model without police? How fast have you self censored to stop even entertaining that thought?

At this point I'm anticop. I'm biased because I never have and never will call or talk to police.

As such, I would prefer to be able to handle things in house without fear of going to jail.


For example, say someone stole my wallet. I would prefer to go to his house and kick the door down and grab my wallet. However I would then be a "home invader" facing 20 to life simply for getting justice on my own.

Post: #32

(02-10-2019 01:43 PM)Repo Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 12:59 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 05:51 AM)Mage Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 04:13 AM)stugatz Wrote:  Police are necessary, obviously,

Who told you that? Why do you believe that? From where does this belief comes? Have you seriously gave any thought to a world model without police? How fast have you self censored to stop even entertaining that thought?

The first professional police force wasn't introduced until the mid 1800s by Prime Minister Robert Peel - ergo the nickname "Bobbies". We seemed to get along perfectly fine before that without cops.

Come on that isnt accurate at all, it took 1 minute of googling to disprove that.

I know wikipedia isnt always perfect, so feel free to dispute what's listed under the "history" tab

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police

A higher resolution image doesn't disprove a lower resolution image.

The article you linked supports my pithy thesis: that modern policing is modern, and we survived for most of history without armed thugs who were tasked with invading everybody's private business.

The only 'disproof' you offer is that I over simplified; of course I did, it was a two-sentence post. Nonetheless the thrust of my argument is bolstered by that article.

Post: #33

^^^ How about I zap my tazer on your Canadian balls? That'll change your mind.

Aloha!

Post: #34

(02-10-2019 04:08 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 01:43 PM)Repo Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 12:59 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 05:51 AM)Mage Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 04:13 AM)stugatz Wrote:  Police are necessary, obviously,

Who told you that? Why do you believe that? From where does this belief comes? Have you seriously gave any thought to a world model without police? How fast have you self censored to stop even entertaining that thought?

The first professional police force wasn't introduced until the mid 1800s by Prime Minister Robert Peel - ergo the nickname "Bobbies". We seemed to get along perfectly fine before that without cops.

Come on that isnt accurate at all, it took 1 minute of googling to disprove that.

I know wikipedia isnt always perfect, so feel free to dispute what's listed under the "history" tab

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police

A higher resolution image doesn't disprove a lower resolution image.

The article you linked supports my pithy thesis: that modern policing is modern, and we survived for most of history without armed thugs who were tasked with invading everybody's private business.

The only 'disproof' you offer is that I over simplified; of course I did, it was a two-sentence post. Nonetheless the thrust of my argument is bolstered by that article.

Except you didnt say that at all in your original post so that wasnt the point of discussion. You said , and I'll quote again:

"The first professional police force wasn't introduced until the mid 1800s"

Which I disproved as there have been professional police forces for centuries before that. Maybe you think you said something you didnt in your original post.

Post: #35

^^^ You want a zap too pal???

Aloha!

Post: #36

(02-10-2019 03:43 AM)Kona Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 03:00 AM)Rorogue Wrote:  Yes, but did the victim have a criminal record?
You don't know both sides of the story

I have a criminal record. Does that mean the cops should taze my balls when I'm speeding?

Aloha!

At least not until youve been stopped

Post: #37

The police officer should be fired and potentially charged with battery. I don't care about the guy who got tazed... he was an asshole too. However police officers are expected to maintain a level of temperance and professionalism. Even using the word "fuck" while dealing with the public is unacceptable. This situation was escalated by an asshole cop.

With that said I am a huge supporter of police and realize they have a hard job. I have multiple police officer friends and I know for a fact they could of handled this situation objectively and professionally without anyone getting hurt. This cop is a fucking shithead.

Post: #38

This cop makes cops look bad. He's the definition of risk and liability with what he did in this situation.

How comfortable would you feel if he pulled you over? If hes in a bad mood or accidentally set off by you somehow, you could be seriously physically injured.

Of course we see way worse things in 3rd and 2nd world countries, this is the US. We need to be able to have some basic trust in our police. This guy undermines that on a deep level.

Post: #39

Situations like this make me wonder where the legal and moral boundaries exist for resisting a police officer who's clearly acting outside the lawful bounds of their occupation.

Putting aside all that hurr durr libertarian crap, let's say you're walking along minding your own business when a cop sees you and happens to mistake you for the guy on top of his ex wife in the photo she sent him an hour ago on snapchat.

He whips out his baton and says "you're a fucking dead man", then bro, he comes at you.

All you know about is that last sentence. The dude looks like he's out to make good on his threat.

Obviously on a moral level you have a right to defend yourself, though there are some cucks that would argue otherwise, but legally what are your rights in most Western style jurisdictions?

I can understand why this question is roundly avoided by the authorities. Cops are usually the one standing over a dead body getting to tell their version of the story and they're not at all interested in flipping the outcome there, but I routinely wonder to what extent a judge would be forced to side with a non-cop if it was clear the officer was acting outside the lawful bounds of their mandate in applying excessive force and ended up getting their ass beat.

Oddly with more women joining PD's this may become a more relevant question as time goes by.

Post: #40

After he was handcuffed on the ground with a knee on his back-in front of his children- The officer pulled his shorts down and tazed is testicles. That is not defensible behavior by the officer, I do not see how anyone feels otherwise.

Post: #41

A CIA insider has revealed that Police departments across the US are encouraged to seek out prospective applicants who display signs of being a psychopath.

Former CIA contractor Steven Kelley says that the US now has a policy to not hire potential police officers if they show signs of empathy or logic.

Filmingcops.com reports:
Ads by Revcontent

“There is a policy here in the United States that people of a relatively high IQ are not allowed to become police officers,” said former CIA contractor Steven Kelley in an interview with Press TV.

Evidently if an applicant shows signs of relatively high IQ — with excellent logical analytic abilities and a sense of compassion — that applicant will be weeded out of the hiring process.

The way that the applicants are weeded out is apparently by means of initial testing.

“There is actually a test given to applicants and if they score too high they are not eligible to join law enforcement,” Kelley said.

“They require people that are incapable of logical compassionate thinking.”

The confirmation was provided amidst cases of police brutality and incompetence that have recently received national attention.

The most recent case involving an officer who slammed a 14-yr-old girl’s head into the ground and pulled a gun on teenagers in bathing suits would be a good example.

It is not only police themselves but also their supporters who show a flagrant disregard for elementary logic and a profound lack of attention to detail.

For instance, police supporters came out in droves and tried to defend Officer Casebolt’s decision to pull out his gun on the teenagers, calling it “self-defense.”

But if you watch the video carefully, you can see that the teenagers had already been backing up when Casebolt advanced toward them.

It was not until seconds later that he pulled out his gun, angrily, after they were already trying to avoid him.

The video shows every indication that the officer pulled out his gun for irrational emotional reasons and not because he logically concluded that there was any “threat to his life.”

It’s a perfect illustration of low-IQ police being defended by low-IQ supporters — and neither group, we suspect, has much compassion.

It also came to light that Officer Casebolt has a reported history of sexual misconduct and racism, after a black man sued him alleging that Casebolt made him pull down his pants all the way, and touched his private area while making racially disparaging remarks.

Kelley went on to add that police brutality cases like the ones we’ve been witnessing recently are “certainly becoming a major problem here in the United States with the law enforcement seemingly choosing to persecute the minorities, the black people.”

“The militarization of the police here in the United States is also a big problem but ultimately I think what this really illustrates is the fact that this country has become the fascist,” he added.

Post: #42

(02-10-2019 04:08 AM)CaptainChardonnay Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 03:00 AM)Rorogue Wrote:  Yes, but did the victim have a criminal record?
You don't know both sides of the story

What I think happened here was the cop profiled him and assumed he was a criminal so he decided to give him a hard time.

ACALT

All Criminals Are Like That.

Post: #43

^^Come on dude, that article sounds like it was made up and written by a 13-year-old. Do a little googling as I did and you'll find that Newspunch is universally regarded as a bogus site. Stop spreading misinformation.

Post: #44

As my limited understanding of the situation stands, sheriffs are elected and appoint deputies while police departments are run in line with recent western traditional norms.

Is there a case study on how they stack up side by side on misconduct?

Post: #45

@Repo, Kona etc

I was being sarcastic. This is what many NPC conservatives say when a black man has been unfairly treated.

Any cop who behaves like this towards anyone, should burn in hell

Post: #46

(02-11-2019 12:44 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Situations like this make me wonder where the legal and moral boundaries exist for resisting a police officer who's clearly acting outside the lawful bounds of their occupation.

Putting aside all that hurr durr libertarian crap, let's say you're walking along minding your own business when a cop sees you and happens to mistake you for the guy on top of his ex wife in the photo she sent him an hour ago on snapchat.

He whips out his baton and says "you're a fucking dead man", then bro, he comes at you.

All you know about is that last sentence. The dude looks like he's out to make good on his threat.

Obviously on a moral level you have a right to defend yourself, though there are some cucks that would argue otherwise, but legally what are your rights in most Western style jurisdictions?

I can understand why this question is roundly avoided by the authorities. Cops are usually the one standing over a dead body getting to tell their version of the story and they're not at all interested in flipping the outcome there, but I routinely wonder to what extent a judge would be forced to side with a non-cop if it was clear the officer was acting outside the lawful bounds of their mandate in applying excessive force and ended up getting their ass beat.

Oddly with more women joining PD's this may become a more relevant question as time goes by.

Is it really relevant whether the guy is a cop or not in this situation ?

Someone comes at you with intent to kill, fight for your life.
Or shoot to kill if you're carrying.
Then run and hide, and that's the most important part.

Here you'll go to jail if you're caught, self defense or not, cop or not, whatever else or not.
And you can't afford that.
Neither can you afford to die because you didn't want to fight back.

Post: #47

(02-10-2019 05:00 PM)Kona Wrote:  ^^^ How about I zap my tazer on your Canadian balls? That'll change your mind.

Aloha!

Only if we cuddle afterwards. After Care is important.

Hayo!

Post: #48

(02-11-2019 09:40 AM)Aurini Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 05:00 PM)Kona Wrote:  ^^^ How about I zap my tazer on your Canadian balls? That'll change your mind.

Aloha!

Only if we cuddle afterwards. After Care is important.

Hayo!

Post: #49

(02-11-2019 01:39 AM)Delta Wrote:  ^^Come on dude, that article sounds like it was made up and written by a 13-year-old. Do a little googling as I did and you'll find that Newspunch is universally regarded as a bogus site. Stop spreading misinformation.

Right then, the normie "fake news" canard.

Here are 5 other stories right off that site's current front page that you would never see printed in the NYT, CNN, WaPo, HuffPo or your "universally regarded" great MSM.

https://newspunch.com


British Police Arrest Mother at Home for Using Wrong Pronoun on Twitter

Putin Calls Out George Soros For Meddling In US Elections

Snopes Now Have Power To ‘Shadowban’ Conservative Facebook Users

French Gov’t Roll out ‘Anti-Riot’ Law to Ban ‘Troublemakers’ from Protesting

Serial Pedophile Set Free After Claiming His Condition Is a ‘Cultural Thing’

Post: #50

Starts at 0:24