|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 24 2014 08:18 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2014 08:00 oneofthem wrote:
the police siege mentality is not without reason. they are increasingly being asked to be the shield or pressure valve against increased social strife, especially at the marginalized community level.
the basic point i tried to make was that the big problem with this situation is the clear lack of communication between those wanting reform and the police. there's just no effort whatsoever. the police will see this as arrogance, as an attempt to treat them as servants of an aloof 'civil liberal society' that is out of touch with the actual violence that goes on daily outside of their nice neighborhoods.
i really question how many of the police bashers here have actually visited some of the bad neighborhoods in the big cities. I feel like one big problem about institutions in the US, no matter if intelligence or the police is that it seems like they're just businesses that are up for hire and decide how they chose to be run themselves. I don't think it should actually matter what the police thinks about reforms, they're the people that are supposed to execute the law, not make it. I feel like a lot of people simply distrust the police because it seems like politics has simply lost control over them.
You really think it's only in the US ? It's the same in most of europe, the only difference is we don't have any firearm so all interactions do not result in a shooting. Cops in Germany or in France are dangerous, racists and agressives as soon as they enter specific areas or interact with specific types of people - even in Switzerland !
|
On December 24 2014 18:31 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2014 08:18 Nyxisto wrote:On December 24 2014 08:00 oneofthem wrote:
the police siege mentality is not without reason. they are increasingly being asked to be the shield or pressure valve against increased social strife, especially at the marginalized community level.
the basic point i tried to make was that the big problem with this situation is the clear lack of communication between those wanting reform and the police. there's just no effort whatsoever. the police will see this as arrogance, as an attempt to treat them as servants of an aloof 'civil liberal society' that is out of touch with the actual violence that goes on daily outside of their nice neighborhoods.
i really question how many of the police bashers here have actually visited some of the bad neighborhoods in the big cities. I feel like one big problem about institutions in the US, no matter if intelligence or the police is that it seems like they're just businesses that are up for hire and decide how they chose to be run themselves. I don't think it should actually matter what the police thinks about reforms, they're the people that are supposed to execute the law, not make it. I feel like a lot of people simply distrust the police because it seems like politics has simply lost control over them. You really think it's only in the US ? It's the same in most of europe, the only difference is we don't have any firearm so all interactions do not result in a shooting. Cops in Germany or in France are dangerous, racist and agressive as soon as they enter specific area or interact with specific type of people - even in Switzerland !
Same in the Netherlands, unarmed 17 year old kid was shot by the police, probably cos he was dark skinned. Only people here are totally oblivious to this fact (fact: police are trigger-happy racists).
|
If we have to give bloated public bearaucracies a monopoly on force, we better be damn sure they have citizen oversight. The police abuses, NSA, EPA and CIA torture are all symptoms of government that has gotten to big, too insulated and too opaque.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
thinking the police has no institutional independence is just unrealistic. regardless of what they 'should' do, external procedure is negotiated and a lot of the current objection is about the improper execution of procedure.
more oversight is needed and some departments probably need to be completely reset, but given the unavoidable independence of the police there is still a need to change culture, moreso than simply shouting and thinking you can just pass a few laws and make things ok.
the police union is impossibly strong especially in the places where polite society relies on the police to keep out the riffraff.
On December 24 2014 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2014 10:10 oneofthem wrote:
what about experience in the threats cops face They face the same threats as anyone else in those neighborhoods except they have a badge, legal gun, and the justice system on their side.
i'm not saying the police are rational or reasonable in their behavior, but there is some basis for them feeling insecure and trigger happy in a perceived dangerous zone. the rookie cops 'patrolling' a project condo with drawn guns is illustrative enough.
yes, largely paranoia, but when you communicate with the police their perceived insecurity has to be addressed. it is an unavoidable issue on how to deal with policing in 'rough' neighborhoods,' and if you do not even address the issue the police will never even bother with the idea that they are out of line.
|
I don't really know what you think would qualify as "addressing the issue." It's not like we are discussing detailed resolutions here on this board. No competent overseer would completely ignore the concerns of those being overseen.
|
Men who haven't had sexual contact with other men in a year will be allowed to donate blood under a policy change the Food and Drug Administration said Tuesday it will recommend.
In a statement, the agency said it had "carefully examined and considered the available scientific evidence" and will "take the necessary steps to recommend a change to the blood donor deferral period for men who have sex with men from indefinite deferral to one year since the last sexual contact."
A draft guidance recommending the proposed change will be issued in 2015, the agency said. There will also be a period of public comment.
A ban on gay and bisexual blood donors has been in effect since the early 1980s when fears about HIV/AIDS were widespread.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On December 25 2014 01:57 IgnE wrote:
I don't really know what you think would qualify as "addressing the issue." It's not like we are discussing detailed resolutions here on this board. No competent overseer would completely ignore the concerns of those being overseen.
acknowledging the dangers faced by police. there's a balance here.
|
So a guy robbed a store and pointed a gun at a cop, and then protesters decided to try to make him a martyr. And attacked cops. Brilliant. Hes actually a worse choice than Brown to protest over. And then the "protestors" decided to let off explosives and throw bricks at cops for a actual thug, complete with assault theft and weapons charges. I really don't like that word, but its perfectly accurate in this case. No wonder police departments are feeling like they have to become a war time department.
Lol this is the internet, theres no such thing as balanced narrative. Either cops are trigger happy racists or cops did nothing wrong, there is no option in between.
|
On December 25 2014 05:10 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 01:57 IgnE wrote:
I don't really know what you think would qualify as "addressing the issue." It's not like we are discussing detailed resolutions here on this board. No competent overseer would completely ignore the concerns of those being overseen. acknowledging the dangers faced by police. there's a balance here.
What don't you get about the "rookie cop with gun drawn" actually faces less dangers than the people who walk that hallway every day. One in particular the cop didn't have to worry about is some scared shitless guy who should of been a shoe salesman or something shooting him for no reason and then not even spending a night in jail.
People have long passed acknowledged the dangers cops face, what people aren't going to do is buy into the d-rated horror movie narrative of cops being helpless children facing 'Hulk Hogan" sized monsters and demons or the "open season". The cops face less danger than the people they are so scared of they shoot "on accident" or in 'self defense'. People like Eric Garner or the guy shot in his own hallway are far more likely to get killed or abused than the cops who killed them. But we are supposed to think about the cops irrational fears?
If you want balance, it's not going to come from feeding the "cops should be scared" narrative. If the guy leaving his house had a gun drawn because he was scared of the neighborhood and shot a strange dark shadow in a hallway 'on accident' would you be defending the guy who shot and killed a cop? Does anyone think he wouldn't have spent that night in jail?
|
On December 25 2014 06:16 Jaaaaasper wrote:So a guy robbed a store and pointed a gun at a cop, and then protesters decided to try to make him a martyr. And attacked cops. Brilliant. Hes actually a worse choice than Brown to protest over. And then the "protestors" decided to let off explosives and throw bricks at cops for a actual thug, complete with assault theft and weapons charges. I really don't like that word, but its perfectly accurate in this case. No wonder police departments are feeling like they have to become a war time department. Lol this is the internet, theres no such thing as balanced narrative. Either cops are trigger happy racists or cops did nothing wrong, there is no option in between.
![[image loading]](http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/matrixcops.jpg)
User was warned for this post
|
Balanced narrative is a stupid idea because the doxa, the mainstream narrative is that cops are angel facing dangerous citizens - always black of course, because the dangerous citizens cannot be white. "Acknowledging" that they face danger is just acknowledging that they are somewhat doing what they are supposed to do. I'm impressed at this idea that cops face danger and thus that we should accept the unacceptable (murdering citizens).
It's like saying we should understand a teacher insulting his students because some students have bad notes. Don't become a cops if you think you'll never face danger (or if you are racist) and don't become a teacher if you hate bad students.
|
On December 25 2014 08:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Balanced narrative is a stupid idea because the doxa, the mainstream narrative is that cops are angel facing dangerous citizens - always black of course, because the dangerous citizens cannot be white. "Acknowledging" that they face danger is just acknowledging that they are somewhat doing what they are supposed to do. I'm impressed at this idea that cops face danger and thus that we should accept the unacceptable (murdering citizens).
It's like saying we should understand a teacher insulting his students because some students have bad notes. Don't become a cops if you think you'll never face danger (or if you are racist) and don't become a teacher if you hate bad students.
What the hell are you talking about? People don't see cops as angels or only blacks as a danger. You're analogy sucks too, no one is condoning cops killing people for minor crimes.
|
On December 25 2014 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 08:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Balanced narrative is a stupid idea because the doxa, the mainstream narrative is that cops are angel facing dangerous citizens - always black of course, because the dangerous citizens cannot be white. "Acknowledging" that they face danger is just acknowledging that they are somewhat doing what they are supposed to do. I'm impressed at this idea that cops face danger and thus that we should accept the unacceptable (murdering citizens).
It's like saying we should understand a teacher insulting his students because some students have bad notes. Don't become a cops if you think you'll never face danger (or if you are racist) and don't become a teacher if you hate bad students. What the hell are you talking about? People don't see cops as angels or only blacks as a danger. You're analogy sucks too, no one is condoning cops killing people for minor crimes.
Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings of unarmed citizens in this thread ?
|
On December 25 2014 09:08 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 08:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Balanced narrative is a stupid idea because the doxa, the mainstream narrative is that cops are angel facing dangerous citizens - always black of course, because the dangerous citizens cannot be white. "Acknowledging" that they face danger is just acknowledging that they are somewhat doing what they are supposed to do. I'm impressed at this idea that cops face danger and thus that we should accept the unacceptable (murdering citizens).
It's like saying we should understand a teacher insulting his students because some students have bad notes. Don't become a cops if you think you'll never face danger (or if you are racist) and don't become a teacher if you hate bad students. What the hell are you talking about? People don't see cops as angels or only blacks as a danger. You're analogy sucks too, no one is condoning cops killing people for minor crimes. Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings in this thread ?
Saying that the police officer who choked Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work. EDIT: corrected for detail. Eric Garner was the choking victim, not shooting. Sorry.
|
On December 25 2014 09:16 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 09:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 08:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Balanced narrative is a stupid idea because the doxa, the mainstream narrative is that cops are angel facing dangerous citizens - always black of course, because the dangerous citizens cannot be white. "Acknowledging" that they face danger is just acknowledging that they are somewhat doing what they are supposed to do. I'm impressed at this idea that cops face danger and thus that we should accept the unacceptable (murdering citizens).
It's like saying we should understand a teacher insulting his students because some students have bad notes. Don't become a cops if you think you'll never face danger (or if you are racist) and don't become a teacher if you hate bad students. What the hell are you talking about? People don't see cops as angels or only blacks as a danger. You're analogy sucks too, no one is condoning cops killing people for minor crimes. Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings in this thread ? Saying that the police officer who shot Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work.
He is innocent, he can go to paradise.
The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ?
Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative".
In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude.
|
On December 25 2014 09:08 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 08:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Balanced narrative is a stupid idea because the doxa, the mainstream narrative is that cops are angel facing dangerous citizens - always black of course, because the dangerous citizens cannot be white. "Acknowledging" that they face danger is just acknowledging that they are somewhat doing what they are supposed to do. I'm impressed at this idea that cops face danger and thus that we should accept the unacceptable (murdering citizens).
It's like saying we should understand a teacher insulting his students because some students have bad notes. Don't become a cops if you think you'll never face danger (or if you are racist) and don't become a teacher if you hate bad students. What the hell are you talking about? People don't see cops as angels or only blacks as a danger. You're analogy sucks too, no one is condoning cops killing people for minor crimes. Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings of unarmed citizens in this thread ?
Ahh, you're having basic literacy problems again. It's ok, it happens ^_^
|
On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 09:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 25 2014 09:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 08:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Balanced narrative is a stupid idea because the doxa, the mainstream narrative is that cops are angel facing dangerous citizens - always black of course, because the dangerous citizens cannot be white. "Acknowledging" that they face danger is just acknowledging that they are somewhat doing what they are supposed to do. I'm impressed at this idea that cops face danger and thus that we should accept the unacceptable (murdering citizens).
It's like saying we should understand a teacher insulting his students because some students have bad notes. Don't become a cops if you think you'll never face danger (or if you are racist) and don't become a teacher if you hate bad students. What the hell are you talking about? People don't see cops as angels or only blacks as a danger. You're analogy sucks too, no one is condoning cops killing people for minor crimes. Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings in this thread ? Saying that the police officer who shot Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work. He is innocent, he can go to paradise. The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative". In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude.
You're an idiot. Happy holidays.
|
On December 25 2014 10:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 25 2014 09:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 08:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Balanced narrative is a stupid idea because the doxa, the mainstream narrative is that cops are angel facing dangerous citizens - always black of course, because the dangerous citizens cannot be white. "Acknowledging" that they face danger is just acknowledging that they are somewhat doing what they are supposed to do. I'm impressed at this idea that cops face danger and thus that we should accept the unacceptable (murdering citizens).
It's like saying we should understand a teacher insulting his students because some students have bad notes. Don't become a cops if you think you'll never face danger (or if you are racist) and don't become a teacher if you hate bad students. What the hell are you talking about? People don't see cops as angels or only blacks as a danger. You're analogy sucks too, no one is condoning cops killing people for minor crimes. Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings in this thread ? Saying that the police officer who shot Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work. He is innocent, he can go to paradise. The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative". In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude. You're an idiot. Happy holidays.
Thank you my child.
|
On December 25 2014 10:21 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 10:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 25 2014 09:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 08:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Balanced narrative is a stupid idea because the doxa, the mainstream narrative is that cops are angel facing dangerous citizens - always black of course, because the dangerous citizens cannot be white. "Acknowledging" that they face danger is just acknowledging that they are somewhat doing what they are supposed to do. I'm impressed at this idea that cops face danger and thus that we should accept the unacceptable (murdering citizens).
It's like saying we should understand a teacher insulting his students because some students have bad notes. Don't become a cops if you think you'll never face danger (or if you are racist) and don't become a teacher if you hate bad students. What the hell are you talking about? People don't see cops as angels or only blacks as a danger. You're analogy sucks too, no one is condoning cops killing people for minor crimes. Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings in this thread ? Saying that the police officer who shot Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work. He is innocent, he can go to paradise. The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative". In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude. You're an idiot. Happy holidays. Thank you my child.
Welcome. Sorry if it was harsh, but everything you wrote was bottom of the barrel stupid. For someone who claims to be educated, the crap you often vomit on these forums should be shameful.
|
On December 25 2014 10:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2014 10:21 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 10:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 09:20 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:16 coverpunch wrote:On December 25 2014 09:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 25 2014 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On December 25 2014 08:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Balanced narrative is a stupid idea because the doxa, the mainstream narrative is that cops are angel facing dangerous citizens - always black of course, because the dangerous citizens cannot be white. "Acknowledging" that they face danger is just acknowledging that they are somewhat doing what they are supposed to do. I'm impressed at this idea that cops face danger and thus that we should accept the unacceptable (murdering citizens).
It's like saying we should understand a teacher insulting his students because some students have bad notes. Don't become a cops if you think you'll never face danger (or if you are racist) and don't become a teacher if you hate bad students. What the hell are you talking about? People don't see cops as angels or only blacks as a danger. You're analogy sucks too, no one is condoning cops killing people for minor crimes. Ho yeah ? You sure ? No one is/has been giving excuse or justifying shootings in this thread ? Saying that the police officer who shot Eric Garner shouldn't be convicted of murder is not the same as saying he was an angel and did God's work. He is innocent, he can go to paradise. The angel part was just a metaphore... My point is the media and a lot of people in this thread give excuse, and contextualize only because by doing so they know it will pass on prejudgment on the victim and the situation that will inevitably "excuse" the act. Somehow we don't contextualize in some other cases - like in banking scandals, where it's always white people from rich neighborhood ! Why ? Somehow, a kid killing another kid in the same difficult neighborhood, or a guy selling drugs has no excuse, despite (most of time) some really really troubling biography. But a cops, representing the state, and thus normally held to a higher standard, has all the excuse of the world and we should have a "balanced narrative". In a country where a 13 years old got life sentence for killing another kid while practicing wrestling move, in that kind of harsh country that has the habit to send to jail black people who do "bad things" no matter their personnal history, we should have a "balanced narrative", but please only when it's a police officer killing a black dude. You're an idiot. Happy holidays. Thank you my child. Welcome. Sorry if it was harsh, but everything you wrote was bottom of the barrel stupid. For someone who claims to be educated, the crap you often vomit on these forums should be shameful.
Then maybe give me an argument as to why it's stupid. Or maybe you have none.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
