• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Police Brutality Thread

empeebee said:
Let me phase this differently then. A cop is given the keys to a cruiser to drive around the 'hood. Cop has a few drinks to the extent they are legally intoxicated. Cop gets involved in a car chase in which cop runs down and kills pedestrian. Should cop be allowed to continue the chase? Should cop be given keys again in the future without some sort of monitoring or ongoing psyche evaluation program?
Click to expand...

Uhh, how is the cop gonna be allowed or not allowed within that moment.

I don't think cops should be getting involved in car chases to start with. They're good dangerous for too little benefit.

Regardless, any cop that goes around drunk needs to be fired.
 
JessFR said:
Uhh, how is the cop gonna be allowed or not allowed within that moment.
Click to expand...
Isn't the cop obliged to stop where the accident happened? The hypothesis being that, once the paramedics have attended and loaded the deceased into the ambulance and the cops statement has been taken, said cop be allowed to get back in the cruiser to continue duties.

JessFR said:
I don't think cops should be getting involved in car chases to start with. They're good dangerous for too little benefit.
Click to expand...
One day where all chases can be done via drones, sure. But for now car chases are a fact of life.

JessFR said:
Regardless, any cop that goes around drunk needs to be fired.
Click to expand...
Even if this a one-time thing? What about a cop that is high while on duty?
 
empeebee said:
Those people feeling strongly about a particular cause should be permitted to attend a protest (not I say 'should be permitted to' not 'have the right to').
Click to expand...
People feel strongly about keeping the economy afloat so that they can feed families and not have our society descend into chaos.
Those people are not allowed to protest (or simply go to work). BLM are allowed to protest. BLM are a political movement.
It's very straightforward and obvious (for people who think).

If someone supports BLM protests yet they don't support anti-lockdown protests or people going back to work - then they are a mindless drone.

empeebee said:
We need to accept that we live in diverse cultures of race, religion, wealth, sexual preference, etc. How we, as individuals, adapt to this diversity is up to us as individuals and/or as a society.
Click to expand...
I agree. But adapting based on experience, facts and reality shouldn't be looked down upon.

mal3volent said:
It's posts like this that remind everyone what your priorities really are. Instead of taking a moment to condemn clear and obvious racism, you use it as an opportunity to push your same tired political agenda. You don't care that a woman got attacked and traumatized...you don't care that a terrible event has poisoned her mind...all you care about is owning the libs on the Internet. Sad.
Click to expand...
Whatever happened, happened. I'm just pointing out the reality. Internet is not reality. The perfect world that some liberals have in their mind also is not reality.

Some people would call me racist just for linking this. Those people are known as idiots:
 
empeebee said:
Isn't the cop obliged to stop where the accident happened? The hypothesis being that, once the paramedics have attended and loaded the deceased into the ambulance and the cops statement has been taken, said cop be allowed to get back in the cruiser to continue duties.


One day where all chases can be done via drones, sure. But for now car chases are a fact of life.


Even if this a one-time thing? What about a cop that is high while on duty?
Click to expand...

Cops should not be high or drunk on duty.

As for "should they stop in the accident". Well yes, but they should be sober too, I'm not expecting much.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. Other than that you think that it's fine for cops to be drinking and running people over.
 
I don't see how protesting about being locked down helps feed families. Ignoring the lockdown and opening your shop for business would be constructive, protesting about not being allowed to open your shop is not constructive. If on the other hand you work in someone else's shop, where that someone else will not be opening up, then go ahead and protest but it still won't put bread on the table will it?

I think you may want to stop comparing the current 'Murder of ...' topic with the Covid-19 topic. They are different things, with different levels of impact, and are mutually exclusive.

JGrimez said:
It's very straightforward and obvious (for people who think)
Click to expand...
I think you mean straightforward and simple for people who think like you. I am not you therefore do not think like you. Could we perhaps leave future references toward subjective simplicity et al out of the conversation and focus on the topic at hand?
 
empeebee said:
I think you mean straightforward and simple for people who think like you. I am not you therefore do not think like you. Could we perhaps leave future references toward subjective simplicity et al out of the conversation and focus on the topic at hand?
Click to expand...
Normally I would do that, but things have gotten so ridiculous that I feel extra-confident in pointing out obvious insanity.
I understand that many people do not think like me, I merely aim to point out the flaws in their thinking (and the agenda at play).
 
JessFR said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. Other than that you think that it's fine for cops to be drinking and running people over.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I was a little vague, no I did not mean its OK for cops or anyone else to be in the drivers seat while intoxicated. I must confess to being intentionally vague though as it would allow me to offer this analogy...

Q: Does a cop, though past occurrences or through predisposition, demonstrate a tendency to intoxication during working hours?
A1: No. All good, carry on. Re-evaluate as per usual.
A2: Yes. Disallow control of a cruiser and put said cop in cruiser but only as passenger, on a bicycle, Segway, roller-blades, foot patrol. Re-evaluate bi-annually, annually, whatever.

Q: Does a cop, through past occurrences or through predisposition, demonstrate a tenancy to aggression or use of excessive force?
A1: No. All good, carry on. Re-evaluate as per usual.
A2: Yes. Confiscate gun and issue said cop with Taser, baton, tear gas, pepper spray or such non-lethal tools as required.

Does that answer the question of what I am arguing?

./empeebee
 
JGrimez said:
Normally I would do that, but things have gotten so ridiculous that I feel extra-confident in pointing out obvious insanity.
I understand that many people do not think like me, I merely aim to point out the flaws in their thinking (and the agenda at play).
Click to expand...
Insanity is in the eye of the beholder :)
The flaws in their thinking as being judged as flaws by you, certainly not by them and perhaps not according to 3rd parties. Maybe they think you're the one with flaws. This then becomes a zero-sum game as, opposed to constructive dialog around the issue, we are too busy pointing out each other's flawed reasoning/agendas.

We're never going to be able to work towards a solution when we're too busy pointing out how wrong we think each other is.
 
empeebee said:
Sorry if I was a little vague, no I did not mean its OK for cops or anyone else to be in the drivers seat while intoxicated. I must confess to being intentionally vague though as it would allow me to offer this analogy...

Q: Does a cop, though past occurrences or through predisposition, demonstrate a tendency to intoxication during working hours?
A1: No. All good, carry on. Re-evaluate as per usual.
A2: Yes. Disallow control of a cruiser and put said cop in cruiser but only as passenger, on a bicycle, Segway, roller-blades, foot patrol. Re-evaluate bi-annually, annually, whatever.

Q: Does a cop, through past occurrences or through predisposition, demonstrate a tenancy to aggression or use of excessive force?
A1: No. All good, carry on. Re-evaluate as per usual.
A2: Yes. Confiscate gun and issue said cop with Taser, baton, tear gas, pepper spray or such non-lethal tools as required.

Does that answer the question of what I am arguing?

./empeebee
Click to expand...

Sort of. But I'd argue that we should improve police standards to the point where we can just outright fire cops who are drunks or violent.
 
JessFR said:
But I'd argue that we should improve police standards to the point where we can just outright fire cops who are drunks or violent.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Preferably identify them, through ongoing evaluation, before they get drunk or violent in the wrong place at the wrong time so that they can be re-assigned/suspended/fired before someone gets hurt.
 
empeebee said:
Agreed. Preferably identify them, through ongoing evaluation, before they get drunk or violent in the wrong place at the wrong time so that they can be re-assigned/suspended/fired before someone gets hurt.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the existing recruitment system is supposed to do this, but it's clearly failing.
 
JessFR said:
I'm pretty sure the existing recruitment system is supposed to do this, but it's clearly failing.
Click to expand...
Sure, but the evaluation needs to be ongoing. Its not a one-time thing that only happens during recruitment. People change over time, the Mr. Nice-Guy who was recruited may become Mr. Aggressive during the course of their career. I tend to think that "most" cops are OK when they get hired, they become not-so-OK as time passes.
 
empeebee said:
Hi Mal, may I ask what caused the temporary suspension of that post?
Click to expand...

it was in response to a problematic post by another user which is currently under review. Since part of that post was quoted in yours I temporarily unapproved it. All we be set right in time.
 
Perhaps some slightly inciteful use of language there Wizard. We should take care not to use 'execution' and 'murder' where we should perhaps use 'negligence' and 'manslaughter'. Perhaps Floyd was no saint, but at the time of the apprehension the offices could not have known of his previous convictions.
 
The Wizard of the Creek said:
They knew who he was, it takes two seconds to find out about his priors. Cops have fancy computers in their cruisers.
Click to expand...
We can speculate all we want but the fact is that incident may have been negligence/manslaughter and could have nothing at all to do with race. We simply don't know. And if it's true that the suspect and killer knew each other then that opens up many more questions.

The Wizard of the Creek said:
They murdered him and my children got to see his execution over and over again for weeks.
Click to expand...
That's a shame and we should be blaming the media for sensationalizing this and stirring everyone up into a frenzy which caused tens of thousands of people to ignore global health directives (and led to a lot of property damage not to mention multiple more people losing their lives).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top