Police abuse

Halifax2TheMax

Don’t forget that fearing elimination of the white race factors in as well.

mace1229

Bentleyspop said:

oftenreading said:

unsung said:

ByBentleyspop said:

unsung said:

UBI?  LOL.

Not until we stop importing the 3rd world, and rid ourselves of all other forms of welfare.

The left won't be happy until the country is bankrupt and the citizens going through refuse containers for dinner.

Ooh ooh I'll  take this one.....

"Stop importing the 3rd world"??!!
Seriously? 
Who's  going to mow your lawn?
Who's going to put on your new roof?
Who's  going to clean your dishes next time you're  out for dinner?
Who's  going to process  your meat at the slaughterhouse?
Who's  going to remove the asbestos?
Who's  going to harvest your vegetables?
Etc etc

How about those dipshit republicans on Capitol Hill looking to add 1.5 trillion dollars to the deficit?
Seems like they are doing their best to bankrupt this country.

Gee, could this be any more racist?

Yes, it could be your post, which was more racist. 
 

Not meant to be racist at all.
Just points out some of the jobs that Americans won't  do anymore.
So then immigrants have to do them or they don't  get done.
Just had my roof replaced.  Every single roofer was hispanic.
Just had my old asbestos shingles removed prior t installation of the new roof. Every guy on that crew was hispanic.
Friend of mine works in construction management in the Chicago area. He says  that most, if not all, of the guys on the asbestos removal crews are either Polish or hispanic.
No Americans.

Eventually, in a few generations, everyone  will be tan. Get over it.

Definitely depends on where you live. Southern California where I grew up probably true.
Where I live now not so much. ALmost everyone I know mows their own lawn, and the few landscapers I see are all white (yes, we have an average population of hispanics). 
I dont think any of those jobs described, except maybe produce related, are heavy on immigration here.
Bigger cities like Chicago and LA those stereotypes are probably more true.

CM189191

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

rgambs said:

JC29856 said:

rgambs said:

JC29856 said:

jnimhaoileoin said:

What you consider radical left in America, we Europeans would probably call centrist. Ye have such warped views on socialism 

we have a warped view on most issues. anything and everything is Dem vs Republican, blue vs red, left vs right. we got so good at it, that even genders are a political issue.
all as intended.

I think the only logical reaction to this state of affairs is to vote for the biggest divider available, right?

where did blindly voting Democrat get me?

A POTUS capable of properly speaking English?

If you actually cared about progressive values and weren't just using that as your trolling theme, the extremely long list of regressions taking place would have stopped those words from passing your lips.

I don't care about progressive values.  I want most of them stopped.  Why?  Because that isn't the role of government as it was intended.   If that system was so good and people really wanted it then they wouldn't need government to enforce it through the threat of force and imprisonment.

do you even constitution?  it's literally the first sentence
Libertarians are just people who consider every issue logically and thoroughly; until they can rationalize supporting the Republican position

That doesn't mean to give you everything that you want.  What they are authorized to do is covered under Art 1 Sec VIII.  

I just can't imagine what it is like to expect things be provided for you.  You have the opportunity, so earn the result.

I really just don't understand this "fuck everyone else, I got mine" mentatility.

Do you not have grandparents that benefit from Medicare?

Haven't you ever had a cousin who was down on their luck and needed food stamps or Medicaid?

Weren't you born and needed pre-natal and neo-natal services?

Do you not drive on public roads?  Use public utilities?

Use technology that was developed by public universities?

What is wrong with society evolving and deciding it wants to provide and construct a better future for itself?

unsung

Most are paid by the piece, not by the hour.  The boss gets paid for the job and decides who gets what.  When I was in that line of work they were all paid cash and since they were subs the builder claimed ignorance.  

Not doing the jobs Americans won't do, just driving down the wages.

BTW, who here doesn't cut their own grass?  Must be nice.

unsung

But again, create another thread, this is for the abuse by police.  I'll be happy to continue the conversation there.

Bentleyspop

unsung said:

But again, create another thread, this is for the abuse by police.  I'll be happy to continue the conversation there.

Deal
Not all police are bad
If you think all the police are bad then you got bigger problems

dignin

Bentleyspop said:

unsung said:

But again, create another thread, this is for the abuse by police.  I'll be happy to continue the conversation there.

Deal
Not all police are bad
If you think all the police are bad then you got bigger problems

I personally don't think all police are bad, the majority are good. But I do think there are major systemic problems within the police and justice systems. There are some improvements happening in police departments across North America, but we need to hold their feet to the fire to continue to make positive changes.....because I sure as hell know it's not going to happen on its own.

Thankfully everyone has a phone with a camera these days to bring these problems to light.

JC29856

is there an institution that is not corrupt? 
you need blood evidence well head over to taco bell and dab some fire sauce on your shirt.

Inside a secret 2014 list of hundreds of L.A. deputies with histories of misconduct

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-sheriff-brady-list-20171208-htmlstory.html

Thirty Bills Unpaid

The more I think of the Shaver incident... the more pissed off I get.

Can someone answer this question for me: was this cop using his personal weapon in the line of duty?

I'm going to play armchair psychiatrist:
Clearly the cop was a gun loving, pseudo tuff guy that wanted to be a 'bad man'. Tired of paper targets... he seemed to be just itching to shoot someone. He likely thought of military action so he could mow people down, but then he would place himself at risk and he was probably a little frightened about that endeavour. He settled on police work that carried considerably less risk. He wanted to kill, but he didn't want to be killed. He grew impatient at the lack of people to shoot while performing police duties. Sensing the Shaver incident might be his only opportunity... he pounced- escalating things to the point where he managed to place Shaver in a compromised, no-win situation.

And he shot him while Shaver was on the ground, legs intertwined, hands up, and pants down around his ankles (coming off in the ridiculous crawling command that was given to him).

Is this about right? 

rgambs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

The more I think of the Shaver incident... the more pissed off I get.

Can someone answer this question for me: was this cop using his personal weapon in the line of duty?

I'm going to play armchair psychiatrist:
Clearly the cop was a gun loving, pseudo tuff guy that wanted to be a 'bad man'. Tired of paper targets... he seemed to be just itching to shoot someone. He likely thought of military action so he could mow people down, but then he would place himself at risk and he was probably a little frightened about that endeavour. He settled on police work that carried considerably less risk. He wanted to kill, but he didn't want to be killed. He grew impatient at the lack of people to shoot while performing police duties. Sensing the Shaver incident might be his only opportunity... he pounced- escalating things to the point where he managed to place Shaver in a compromised, no-win situation.

And he shot him while Shaver was on the ground, legs intertwined, hands up, and pants down around his ankles (coming off in the ridiculous crawling command that was given to him).

Is this about right? 

I don't think it was a personal weapon, I think it was department issued and his modification cost him his job immediately, long before the investigation got going.

mace1229

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

The more I think of the Shaver incident... the more pissed off I get.

Can someone answer this question for me: was this cop using his personal weapon in the line of duty?

I'm going to play armchair psychiatrist:
Clearly the cop was a gun loving, pseudo tuff guy that wanted to be a 'bad man'. Tired of paper targets... he seemed to be just itching to shoot someone. He likely thought of military action so he could mow people down, but then he would place himself at risk and he was probably a little frightened about that endeavour. He settled on police work that carried considerably less risk. He wanted to kill, but he didn't want to be killed. He grew impatient at the lack of people to shoot while performing police duties. Sensing the Shaver incident might be his only opportunity... he pounced- escalating things to the point where he managed to place Shaver in a compromised, no-win situation.

And he shot him while Shaver was on the ground, legs intertwined, hands up, and pants down around his ankles (coming off in the ridiculous crawling command that was given to him).

Is this about right? 

I'm not defending the cop, he should not have shot Shaver.
But what does if it was a personal weapon have anything to do with it? Most cops I know (and I know a lot) use their own personal firearm. Either they purchase the one given to them so it becomes their own, or they buy one from an approved list to carry. Since they train with it, use it every day and many carry it with them off duty they want it to be their own.
Just wondering why you brought that up?

rgambs

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

The more I think of the Shaver incident... the more pissed off I get.

Can someone answer this question for me: was this cop using his personal weapon in the line of duty?

I'm going to play armchair psychiatrist:
Clearly the cop was a gun loving, pseudo tuff guy that wanted to be a 'bad man'. Tired of paper targets... he seemed to be just itching to shoot someone. He likely thought of military action so he could mow people down, but then he would place himself at risk and he was probably a little frightened about that endeavour. He settled on police work that carried considerably less risk. He wanted to kill, but he didn't want to be killed. He grew impatient at the lack of people to shoot while performing police duties. Sensing the Shaver incident might be his only opportunity... he pounced- escalating things to the point where he managed to place Shaver in a compromised, no-win situation.

And he shot him while Shaver was on the ground, legs intertwined, hands up, and pants down around his ankles (coming off in the ridiculous crawling command that was given to him).

Is this about right? 

I'm not defending the cop, he should not have shot Shaver.
But what does if it was a personal weapon have anything to do with it? Most cops I know (and I know a lot) use their own personal firearm. Either they purchase the one given to them so it becomes their own, or they buy one from an approved list to carry. Since they train with it, use it every day and many carry it with them off duty they want it to be their own.
Just wondering why you brought that up?

It's pretty relevant since his inscription on it shows he has fantasies about using it to kill people.

mace1229

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

The more I think of the Shaver incident... the more pissed off I get.

Can someone answer this question for me: was this cop using his personal weapon in the line of duty?

I'm going to play armchair psychiatrist:
Clearly the cop was a gun loving, pseudo tuff guy that wanted to be a 'bad man'. Tired of paper targets... he seemed to be just itching to shoot someone. He likely thought of military action so he could mow people down, but then he would place himself at risk and he was probably a little frightened about that endeavour. He settled on police work that carried considerably less risk. He wanted to kill, but he didn't want to be killed. He grew impatient at the lack of people to shoot while performing police duties. Sensing the Shaver incident might be his only opportunity... he pounced- escalating things to the point where he managed to place Shaver in a compromised, no-win situation.

And he shot him while Shaver was on the ground, legs intertwined, hands up, and pants down around his ankles (coming off in the ridiculous crawling command that was given to him).

Is this about right? 

I'm not defending the cop, he should not have shot Shaver.
But what does if it was a personal weapon have anything to do with it? Most cops I know (and I know a lot) use their own personal firearm. Either they purchase the one given to them so it becomes their own, or they buy one from an approved list to carry. Since they train with it, use it every day and many carry it with them off duty they want it to be their own.
Just wondering why you brought that up?

It's pretty relevant since his inscription on it shows he has fantasies about using it to kill people.

I agree with that.
I didnt think anyone was under the impression that anyone other than the cop had the inscription done. The department wouldn't do that. Even a department issued gun you take home and treat as your own, so it could have easily been done even if it wasn't his personal firearm. I doubt anyone would, but it could be done.
I just didnt see how this being a department or personal gun made any difference. Unless someone thinks this is normal for the department in inscribe things like that or if simply using a personal gun on duty was bothersome.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

The more I think of the Shaver incident... the more pissed off I get.

Can someone answer this question for me: was this cop using his personal weapon in the line of duty?

I'm going to play armchair psychiatrist:
Clearly the cop was a gun loving, pseudo tuff guy that wanted to be a 'bad man'. Tired of paper targets... he seemed to be just itching to shoot someone. He likely thought of military action so he could mow people down, but then he would place himself at risk and he was probably a little frightened about that endeavour. He settled on police work that carried considerably less risk. He wanted to kill, but he didn't want to be killed. He grew impatient at the lack of people to shoot while performing police duties. Sensing the Shaver incident might be his only opportunity... he pounced- escalating things to the point where he managed to place Shaver in a compromised, no-win situation.

And he shot him while Shaver was on the ground, legs intertwined, hands up, and pants down around his ankles (coming off in the ridiculous crawling command that was given to him).

Is this about right? 

I'm not defending the cop, he should not have shot Shaver.
But what does if it was a personal weapon have anything to do with it? Most cops I know (and I know a lot) use their own personal firearm. Either they purchase the one given to them so it becomes their own, or they buy one from an approved list to carry. Since they train with it, use it every day and many carry it with them off duty they want it to be their own.
Just wondering why you brought that up?

It's pretty relevant since his inscription on it shows he has fantasies about using it to kill people.

This

mace1229

So I guess I misunderstood the point of the question. Its more did he have the inscription or was it on there when he got the gone, rather than did he own the gun or not?
I for some reason thought you were against police bringing personal firearms on duty the way it was phrased. But that makes sense.

rgambs

mace1229 said:

So I guess I misunderstood the point of the question. Its more did he have the inscription or was it on there when he got the gone, rather than did he own the gun or not?
I for some reason thought you were against police bringing personal firearms on duty the way it was phrased. But that makes sense.

I think it's more just an issue of why and how he got away with that, which he didn't after he killed a man.  It was "discovered" and he was fired.
Of course, everyone knew it was there all along.

mace1229

I don't think it would be that obvious. Its not like he had to surrender his weapon for inspection and the beginning of every shift, who would really notice and read the inscription? 
He probably did have 1 or 2 close friends on the department he showed it to, but I doubt any supervisors knew about it, or anyone other than who he wanted to read it.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I feel police should have police issued weapons. I don't feel that police should take it upon themselves to choose what type of weaponry they want from the Wal-Mart.

Cops should have the weaponry that best suits the characteristics of their job for both sides of the equation- theirs and the citizens they serve.

mace1229

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I feel police should have police issued weapons. I don't feel that police should take it upon themselves to choose what type of weaponry they want from the Wal-Mart.

Cops should have the weaponry that best suits the characteristics of their job for both sides of the equation- theirs and the citizens they serve.

I know when my brother and dad were in the LA sheriff dept, you could have a department issued weapon, or if you chose your own there was a short list of approved models and calibers. I don't know that list has grown a lot or not,, but it was really just a small handful they could use if they wanted their own. It wasn;t like they could go get some Desert Eagle and carry it or something.

mace1229

Why do you think cops should not carry their own guns? Shouldn't they be allowed to use what they are most comfortable with? I mean, within reason. Departments that allow that typically put restrictions on what types of guns/calibers can be carried. 
I don;t see a difference between that and a mechanic bringing in his own tool set to work. 
Of course I know tool sets don't kill people. But I don;t see what is wrong with proving cops a list of 9mm and .45 cal guns to chose from, and let them decide what is best for them from an approved list.