Cops are not soldiers ...

What about the OP tainting my thread stating about how many blacks get killed by cops?

Why did you make this thread defending cops 5 minutes later? Do you even know where the fuck you stand on issues?
 
I support raising the age to buy a rifle to 21 under one condition:

We raise the minimum age we expect these kids to fight and die for our country using a version of the exact same rifle to 21 as well.

If he can't use it in civilian life, he can't use it in the military.

The voting, drinking, and driving ages should also be taken under review ... all of which cause many more casualties than firearms.
 
Most cops like easy targets and for years unarmed black men have been that trigger. Every single time a cop is killed, its usually by white's that SHOOT BACK!!.... For some reason, they can't handle that shit!!
 
I support raising the age to buy a rifle to 21 under one condition:

We raise the minimum age we expect these kids to fight and die for our country using a version of the exact same rifle to 21 as well.

If he can't use it in civilian life, he can't use it in the military.

NOPE------I do not agree. We need a BS response in order to avoid an extra post. Children in the military use weapons UNDER SUPERVISION. Nuts get
a general discharge------one false move with a weapon and they are OUT
 
And the second they smoke it in public you should arrest them for reckless endangerment.

Sitting on a crik bank smoking a dube is not reckless endangerment... Some folks live an entirely different lifestyle than what you are making your laws for...

weed is smelly. I is a naïve kid------long ago----when I was in college----I thought
that somehow the dorm was really DIRTY-----because it STUNK. I was in mid 20s
------in a little café and said "gee---this place must be filthy-----it smells like my
college dorm used to smell"-------my companions said "THAT'S MARIJUANA"
 
And the second they smoke it in public you should arrest them for reckless endangerment.

Sitting on a crik bank smoking a dube is not reckless endangerment... Some folks live an entirely different lifestyle than what you are making your laws for...
You're ignorant. Pot lobby wants you to be.
Pot is a debilitating, crippling substance for some people.
Smoking it in public and thereby injecting it into other people's systems is reckless endangerment.
You are now no longer ignorant.
 
Listen peckerbreath I have been smoking pot off and on for 45 years... I smoke it when and where I feel like it... You have no clue what the crik bank I would be sitting on looks like and if you were ever there you would be trembling in fear because there is no streetlights or no one else around with the exception of like minded free thinkers like myself... Go off and find someone else to try to run their life...
 
Pot is a debilitating, crippling substance for some people.

Lots of things are debilitating and crippling ... alcohol, porn, television, and liberal politics...

... we can't ban them all.
Who said anything about banning? I'm talking about not allowing people to assault others with them. Do you get to pour alcohol down other people's throats?
 
Do you get to pour alcohol down other people's throats?

On a good weekend, yeah!

rtr610o.jpg
 
Soldiers don't arrest you for weed either...

Speak to your legislator. The second it becomes legal, we stop making arrests.

Trust me, we do NOT need the extra paperwork.
There shouldn't be anyone in prison on charges having to do with grass, using or distributing. It's ridiculous. Hard drugs yes, grass no. And no addicts should be in prison for using hard drugs: they should be in rehab facilities.
 
There shouldn't be anyone in prison on charges having to do with grass, using or distributing. It's ridiculous. Hard drugs yes, grass no. And no addicts should be in prison for using hard drugs: they should be in rehab facilities.

I can't argue with that. But, it has nothing to do with police. Your elected legislators write the laws.
 
Law enforcement is trained to negotiate if an armed gunman has hostages, however, they are also trained to go in, once the gunfire erupts, so as to attempt to stop the shooter from harming more people.

That's the movies ... actual procedure is very different.

So the Sheriff of Broward County didn’t know what procedure his officers were supposed to follow?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ss-killing-took-place/?utm_term=.10acadd05152

Well someone should school him don’t you think?
 
So the Sheriff of Broward County didn’t know what procedure his officers were supposed to follow

There are nearly 5,000 police departments in the US. All of them have different procedures and policies. I don't know what the Sheriff knew or didn't know and no one else does for sure except him. I do know that most departments have adopted the Active Armed Offender procedures currently recommended by DHS. It represents a big change to the age old procedure of having first line officers establish a perimeter and wait for SWAT to get set up for breech ... a process of many hours.

Hopefully it will all come out in the investigation.
 
So the Sheriff of Broward County didn’t know what procedure his officers were supposed to follow

There are nearly 5,000 police departments in the US. All of them have different procedures and policies. I don't know what the Sheriff knew or didn't know and no one else does for sure except him. I do know that most departments have adopted the Active Armed Offender procedures currently recommended by DHS. It represents a big change to the age old procedure of having first line officers establish a perimeter and wait for SWAT to get set up for breech ... a process of many hours.

Hopefully it will all come out in the investigation.

:iyfyus.jpg:

Yeah. Right.
 
A lot of people are making comparisons between cops and soldiers when it comes to life-threatening situations and while there are some similarities, in a deadly force scenario, they are totally different things.

1. Soldiers fight to destroy an enemy ... cops enforce laws in a civilian population.

2. Soldiers protect themselves by using overwhelming firepower ... cops must use the minimum amount of force proportionate to the objective. (If anything, cops are frequently at a firepower disadvantage in deadly force situations). Cops protect themselves with superior numbers and tactics.

3. If a soldier kills an enemy soldier, he's doing his job ... if a cop kills an offender, even an armed offender, he's subjected to a homicide investigation and a stigma that follows him for his entire career.

4. The Army cannot be sued or prosecuted for civilian casualties in the legitimate exercise of warfare ... police departments are open to civil litigation every time they do their job. This leads to very conflicting priorities for officers who are told to both protect themselves at all costs but also to prevent civilian casualties.

You don't want cops to be like soldiers. You don't want them rolling into neighborhoods with overwhelming firepower and inflicting acceptable rates of civilian casualties to suppress crime. You don't want cops calling in airstrikes or arty rounds to suppress a crack house.

Cops and soldiers are trained to deal with deadly force situations in very different ways and that's the way it should be.


Just imagine how much fun it will be when the lunch lady is packing. Eat all those damn beans or else!!!!
 

Forum List

Back
Top