Cops ignoring crime to avoid the hassle; Arrests plummet; Violent crime soars.

[bucs90]

What "that job entails" these days are an impossible standard of micromanaging unstable, often violent, fast and unpredictable situations into perfect outcomes that please everyone.

It's impossible. We won't have any cops left your way. We'll have to activate the Army to police America.

Either that, or stop preventing (disarming) and discouraging competent, law-abiding citizens from defending themselves and their neighbors.

Cops aren't doing that. Democrats are.

 

[bucs90]

Let me add to the above message:

If Jim Jones, a decent, law-abiding, productive Black man who lives in a ghetto area obtains an illegal gun and uses it to kill or maim a known scumbag gang banger who has threatened or invaded Mr. Jones' living space and harmed his family -- then don't arrest Jones! Turn your head. Ignore the evidence.

Be a good cop.

Hey Sherlock....under that scenario...Mr. Jones didn't commit a crime.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

To me, if they can't deal with what the job entails, they shouldn't even be in the uniform.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

What "that job entails" these days are an impossible standard of micromanaging unstable, often violent, fast and unpredictable situations into perfect outcomes that please everyone.

It's impossible. We won't have any cops left your way. We'll have to activate the Army to police America.

Yes, its a handful of a job, but it has to be done by somebody and if an Army group is what it takes to keep in line those who need to be kept in line, well then so be it.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[MikeK]

Let me add to the above message:

If Jim Jones, a decent, law-abiding, productive Black man who lives in a ghetto area obtains an illegal gun and uses it to kill or maim a known scumbag gang banger who has threatened or invaded Mr. Jones' living space and harmed his family -- then don't arrest Jones! Turn your head. Ignore the evidence.

Be a good cop.

Hey Sherlock....under that scenario...Mr. Jones didn't commit a crime.

Gee! And all this time I've been thinking it's a crime to shoot somebody with an illegal gun. I'm glad I ran into a sharp cop like you to set me straight on that.

Jim Jones will be glad to know this.

 

[bucs90]

Let me add to the above message:

If Jim Jones, a decent, law-abiding, productive Black man who lives in a ghetto area obtains an illegal gun and uses it to kill or maim a known scumbag gang banger who has threatened or invaded Mr. Jones' living space and harmed his family -- then don't arrest Jones! Turn your head. Ignore the evidence.

Be a good cop.

Hey Sherlock....under that scenario...Mr. Jones didn't commit a crime.

Gee! And all this time I've been thinking it's a crime to shoot somebody with an illegal gun. I'm glad I ran into a sharp cop like you to set me straight on that.

Jim Jones will be glad to know this.

"Sharp cop" comment huh? Hey retard....look at your scenario. You said Jim Jones is a "law abiding citizen" who "aquires an illegal gun". You are spewing stupidity already.

But...if your idea is he bought a gun he didn't know was illegal....then used it in lawful self defense...YES...no crime. Because you must have intent. If the seller portrayed it as legal...he wouldn't have intent to purchase an illegal gun...so no crime. If he DID purposely buy an illegal gun...then he's not "law abiding" is he??

So which is he? A man who violated the gun laws....thus not "law abiding"? (You being wrong)
Or...did he unknowingly buy a gun portrayed as legal...and thus had no criminal intent of any crime (me being right and you wrong again)?

Stop trying to debate men's topics boy.

 

[bucs90]

To me, if they can't deal with what the job entails, they shouldn't even be in the uniform.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

What "that job entails" these days are an impossible standard of micromanaging unstable, often violent, fast and unpredictable situations into perfect outcomes that please everyone.

It's impossible. We won't have any cops left your way. We'll have to activate the Army to police America.

Yes, its a handful of a job, but it has to be done by somebody and if an Army group is what it takes to keep in line those who need to be kept in line, well then so be it.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

We tried that. The whole reason police exist is how brutal the English military treated citizens when they policed England. We went to war in 1776 due the same treatment the English Army used against citizens of the colonies. Military policing the civilian world is a terrible choice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Cops ignoring crime to avoid the hassle; Arrests plummet; Violent crime soars.

...conservatives continue to lie.

 

[bucs90]

Cops ignoring crime to avoid the hassle; Arrests plummet; Violent crime soars.

...conservatives continue to lie.

Ok.....disprove those three things.

Cops are standing down.
Arrests are down.
Murder is up.

Which can you disprove????

 

[fbj]

The cops are focused more on men who go to massage palors and get a happy ending

 

[Katzndogz]

The police should avoid every area that protests police presence.

 

[bucs90]

The police should avoid every area that protests police presence.

They mostly are.

 

[fbj]

The police should avoid every area that protests police presence.

They avoid real crime anyway

 

[Hutch Starskey]

To me, if they can't deal with what the job entails, they shouldn't even be in the uniform.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

What "that job entails" these days are an impossible standard of micromanaging unstable, often violent, fast and unpredictable situations into perfect outcomes that please everyone.

It's impossible. We won't have any cops left your way. We'll have to activate the Army to police America.

What "that job entails" these days are an impossible standard of micromanaging unstable, often violent, fast and unpredictable situations officers into perfect outcomes that please everyone.

I'm sure that's what you meant.

It's impossible. We won't have any cops left your way. We'll have to activate the Army to police America.

You're probably right.

 

[bucs90]

To me, if they can't deal with what the job entails, they shouldn't even be in the uniform.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

What "that job entails" these days are an impossible standard of micromanaging unstable, often violent, fast and unpredictable situations into perfect outcomes that please everyone.

It's impossible. We won't have any cops left your way. We'll have to activate the Army to police America.

What "that job entails" these days are an impossible standard of micromanaging unstable, often violent, fast and unpredictable situations officers into perfect outcomes that please everyone.

I'm sure that's what you meant.

It's impossible. We won't have any cops left your way. We'll have to activate the Army to police America.

You're probably right.

Go fuck yourself faggot.

Meanwhile.....you faggot liberals are getting more cops killed

Virginia officer killed on her first day on job, 2 other officers injured in shooting | Fox News

 

[IsaacNewton]

To me, if they can't deal with what the job entails, they shouldn't even be in the uniform.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

What "that job entails" these days are an impossible standard of micromanaging unstable, often violent, fast and unpredictable situations into perfect outcomes that please everyone.

It's impossible. We won't have any cops left your way. We'll have to activate the Army to police America.

What "that job entails" these days are an impossible standard of micromanaging unstable, often violent, fast and unpredictable situations officers into perfect outcomes that please everyone.

I'm sure that's what you meant.

It's impossible. We won't have any cops left your way. We'll have to activate the Army to police America.

You're probably right.

Go fuck yourself faggot.

Meanwhile.....you faggot liberals are getting more cops killed

Virginia officer killed on her first day on job, 2 other officers injured in shooting | Fox News

Right, criminals keep close track of politics to figure out what to do next. They don't make a move without watching Faux News. Whenever Gallup wants to get the pulse of national politics they contact a list of criminals to get their views. Criminals are known to be THE authority on political parties.

Get ready, there will be some right-wing testicle that responds back 'yer darn right they do'.

And then we'll all laaaauuugh.

 

[bucs90]

To me, if they can't deal with what the job entails, they shouldn't even be in the uniform.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

What "that job entails" these days are an impossible standard of micromanaging unstable, often violent, fast and unpredictable situations into perfect outcomes that please everyone.

It's impossible. We won't have any cops left your way. We'll have to activate the Army to police America.

What "that job entails" these days are an impossible standard of micromanaging unstable, often violent, fast and unpredictable situations officers into perfect outcomes that please everyone.

I'm sure that's what you meant.

It's impossible. We won't have any cops left your way. We'll have to activate the Army to police America.

You're probably right.

Go fuck yourself faggot.

Meanwhile.....you faggot liberals are getting more cops killed

Virginia officer killed on her first day on job, 2 other officers injured in shooting | Fox News

Right, criminals keep close track of politics to figure out what to do next. They don't make a move without watching Faux News. Whenever Gallup wants to get the pulse of national politics they contact a list of criminals to get their views. Criminals are known to be THE authority on political parties.

Get ready, there will be some right-wing testicle that responds back 'yer darn right they do'.

And then we'll all laaaauuugh.

#BlackLivesMatter listens to Obama and the Dems.

 

[turzovka]

So funny to watch liberals crying out laws to enforced!

you mean those same liberals who cried out against child labor, slavery, and industrial pollution?
Those same liberals "cried out about those things and were responsible for the promulgation of JUST laws to correct those societal ills.

You sure had to reach back a few generations to find something honorable by your liberals. And if you want to talk civil rights in the 60’s that was at least as much republican led as democrats.

So to answer your first question --- No, not those liberals. Those liberals went to church and would be aghast to find how anti-family, anti-life and immoral their nation has become under the name liberal. And how much everyone blamed everyone else for their conditions.

In a historical context I don't associate the term "liberal " with any political party. That helps to keep things in perspective. The same paradigm applies to conservatives.

The term "liberal" is often misused by pseudo-conseratives and pigeon-holed for every thing they hate or disagree with. Erroneously, such "conservatives believe ALL democrats are immoral liberals and that republicans are all moral candidates for sainthood. I find the latter rather hypocritical since the KKK, American Nazis and other RW extremists proclaim themselves to be "conservatives." They have NEVER been liberals. Yet, THAT prime example of conservative immortality doesn't seem to faze you!

>>In a historical context I don't associate the term "liberal " with any political party. That helps to keep things in perspective. The same paradigm applies to conservatives.<<

So what was the point of you telling us what liberals did 100 or 200 years ago? You obviously wanted to defend democrat liberals of today by bringing up those heroic acts of so long ago.


>>The term "liberal" is often misused by pseudo-conservatives and pigeon-holed for every thing they hate or disagree with. Erroneously, such "conservatives believe ALL democrats are immoral liberals and that republicans are all moral candidates for sainthood.<<

You like to specialize in B.S. and straw man arguments I see. Where do you live by the way, Mars? Political and social discussions and debates have used general terms to make one’s points for eons. That is because no one has time to read an essay to clarify. First off, I am not sure what a pseudo-conservative is vs. a conservative. Secondly, now you accuse us of saying it is a “liberal” to blame for “everything we hate.” Then you accuse of us of saying “ALL” democrats are immoral liberals. Yeah, you are looking real good right now.

Question: If it is a large majority of those who would call themselves democrats or liberals who have been championing the positions of legal abortion, late term abortions, gay marriage, legalizing drugs, handing out condoms to school kids, taking God out of the classrooms and public square, open borders, allowing M.E. so-called refugees into our nation, etc., etc., --- then is it Ok for us to say “liberals defend this” without being accused of meaning All liberals?, every single one of you liberals? Would that be Ok, or is that going to send you on another tangential phony argument which diverts one from the real problems at hand?

Just because you think you are clever does not necessarily mean we think you are clever.

I was initially responding to Henrybough's comment : "

"So funny to watch liberals crying out laws to enforced" ( He left out the word "be", I think.)

I simply reminded him that liberals "crying out laws to be enforced" has historical precedence. with positive results. I thought the matter was settled until YOU jumped in. Out of nowhere you restructured the term liberal by differentiating between today's liberals and those who were instrumental in abolishing slavery and who legally addressed many of the subsequent societal ills brought on by industrial exploitation and racial inequality. Thanks for acknowledging those heroic acts.

You've heaped a lot of negatives on Liberalism. Without saying so directly, you are insinuating some neoliberalism has emerged. Your "question" is reflective of views that decry freedom and reeks of Draconian principles that would thrust us back in to the dark ages of intolerance towards a precipitous loss of individual freedom.


A fiscal conservative might be pro-choice. Does that make him or her a liberal? Blacks vote overwhelmingly for democratic politicians but are not generally pro gay marriage; Most adult Blacks go to church regularly and go to work every day just like any so-called "conservative." Yet, the general Black population is labeled , as being liberal.

Conversely, cops are generally portrayed as the conservative defenders of freedom but many are affiliated with the FOP ( Fraternal Order of Police) which is a union. Do those union members get to keep their conservative identities.?


As you can see, when laymen use political definitions to define someone, it is usually just a knee jerk categorization with only some nebulous association with reality.

If everyone was as hard core "conservative" as you THINK you are or as "liberal" as you make "others" to be, political power would remain in the hands of one party indefinitely.

[I was initially responding to Henrybough's comment : "So funny to watch liberals crying out laws to be enforced" I simply reminded him that liberals "crying out laws to be enforced" has historical precedence. with positive results. I thought the matter was settled until YOU jumped in.]

Well do allow me to explain myself then. You also said this in your response to Henrybough: “That is why those brave Black men and women put their lives on the line every day to protest and speak out against brutal police tactics.” I took that as some kind of mockery of my comment, from post #34, where I said à “Too bad we cannot fire thoughtless BLM protesters who say the most abhorrent, hateful things about those brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day for our safety and the safety of the community.” So do pardon me for “jumping in” ---- or remind me of some unwritten rules.


[Out of nowhere you restructured the term liberal by differentiating between today's liberals and those who were instrumental in abolishing slavery and who legally addressed many of the subsequent societal ills brought on by industrial exploitation and racial inequality… You've heaped a lot of negatives on Liberalism.]

“Out of nowhere,” right. You were the one heaping all these accolades on today’s liberals because somewhere 100 years ago or more some people raised up righteousness and attempted to do away with slavery, and child labor, and other unfair labor practices. They had no more in common with today’s liberals and their beliefs than any other political, social or religious group back in those days. So forget it, you do not get to take any credit.

Just because liberalism represents change more than conservatism does not mean much of anything unto itself. It certainly does not represent virtue because to insinuate all change is good is absurd.


[Your "question" is reflective of views that decry freedom and reeks of Draconian principles that would thrust us back in to the dark ages of intolerance towards a precipitous loss of individual freedom.]

Oh, brother, this is inane. Your “liberal” government is far more to blame for “individual loss of freedom” than any conservative policy. And if you are going to use abortion as an example where conservatism restricts the freedom of a mother to destroy her child, then we will use abortion to point out the loss of individual freedom you inflict on that life inside the womb.


[A fiscal conservative might be pro-choice. Does that make him or her a liberal? Blacks vote overwhelmingly for democratic politicians but are not generally pro gay marriage; Most adult Blacks go to church regularly and go to work every day just like any so-called "conservative." Yet, the general Black population is labeled , as being liberal.

Conversely, cops are generally portrayed as the conservative defenders of freedom but many are affiliated with the FOP ( Fraternal Order of Police) which is a union. Do those union members get to keep their conservative identities.? As you can see, when laymen use political definitions to define someone, it is usually just a knee jerk categorization with only some nebulous association with reality.]

Ok, I am a laymen and beholden to your higher intellectual understanding of wisdom and justice. Be that as it may you still are doing nothing more than attempting to look the victor in some small time argument and will gladly ignore truths by burying them.

As it is, I fully understand the examples you provided but they really do not mean much to me or what we are talking about here, IMO. I do not care if some “neo-liberals” go to church or if they are pro-life. Nor do I care if cops belong to a union or if blacks are not necessarily “pro-gay.” What I am talking about is not people but platforms and ideologies. And that is where I can generalize for the sake of argument!

Correct me if I am wrong, but I associate liberal policies of the past 30+ years with pro-choice positions, including being in favor of late term abortions. Also in favor of gay marriage. So just because most blacks may be against gay marriage does not negate the fact liberalism is still in favor of it. Liberalism also is far more anti-military, anti-cop because they are hell bent on finding their sins and ignoring their sacrifices, softer on crime, in favor of more govt spending to help the poor despite us going into great debt, big time environmentalists, in favor of letting in all kinds of illegal foreigners and giving them licenses, schooling, etc., and against God being any part of our schools or any mention of it in any government affairs. Ok? You getting my point? And conservatism is the opposite on all those issues.

And by and large can we not also say those who vote democrat are by a large margin also liberals in the majority of the values or beliefs they hold to, and those who vote republican are by a large margin conservative in their values and beliefs?

 

[Jarlaxle]

If they're not doing their jobs let them go. Save the taxpayers a little money.

Cant. Unions, yay!! Free money!

Cops get fired all the time.

Yes for acts of commission but rarely omission (not working). Cops rarely get fired for a slow down.

Which needs to change.

 

[Jarlaxle]

[...]

The link describes a Chicago gang officer who stops a car...smells weed from inside the gang members car...driver aggressively talking shit. And the cop says fuck it...ignores it...let's him go.

[...]

I see no reason or justification for the driver "aggressively talking shit." But I suspect the reason it is happening is the backlash effect of so many police brutality complaints. Ordinarily this offensive punk would be hauled out of the car and arrested for something (anything) and have his ass justifiably kicked. But the heat is on and he knows it and is taking full advantage of it.

Technically, so long as the driver is cooperating with the requirements of the stop there is little to nothing the cop can do about the driver's offensive language (there is no law against using offensive language in the presence of police). This driver stopped and is producing his documents which is all that is required of him, and while his language and demeanor are not to the officer's liking he is not being sufficiently abusive to justify arrest.

But the cop in this example is demonstrating good sense in ignoring the smell of weed, which ordinarily would result in an arrest but would serve no productive purpose. In fact there is far too much time and money wasted on such petty, time-wasting nonsense, which ultimately results in resentment of police.

The TV documentary series, COPS, reveals that the majority of police activity involves petty drug offenses, the ultimate effect of which is an enormous waste of resources and too often results in excessive use-of-force complaints. But the writer of this article clearly has gone well out of his/her way to convey the impression that all or most examples of petty drug activity is accompanied by some level of provocative conduct, which simply is not the case.

If the driver of a stopped vehicle is clearly under the influence then he or she should be arrested. No question about that. But when the cops go out of their way to justify a search that turns up a small amount of a recreational drug, or a paraphernalia item, in the car or on the person of a sober individual, the vast majority of whom are totally passive and respectful, and an arrest is effected, this is the kind of thing which incites profound resentment from ordinary, law-abiding citizens -- like me!

And if you watch COPS you will see a lot of exactly that sort of thing. A lot.

I'll disagree. Foul language is uncalled for PERIOD. You're no better than that dude if you think it's acceptable on a person doing their job. See you seem to forget that dude has family, feelings and commands respect for his/ her duty. I'd arrest the entire fkn car full if someone used foul language at me. That is abuse. go look it up. A husband and a wife can't even legally do it. If a wife is abused by language and calls the cops, the dude will end up arrested. I have seen it with neighbors. So, no, you're wrong.

That post is the best possible evidence why you should never be a cop, and should probably not be permitted to own anything more dangerous than a spork..

 

[JQPublic1]

“Out of nowhere,” right. You were the one heaping all these accolades on today’s liberals because somewhere 100 years ago or more some people raised up righteousness and attempted to do away with slavery, and child labor, and other unfair labor practices. They had no more in common with today’s liberals and their beliefs than any other political, social or religious group back in those days. So forget it, you do not get to take any credit.

100 years ago, SOME PEOPLE raised up righteousness and ATTEMPTED to do away with slavery, child labor and other unfair labor practices? Somewhere along the way, lessons learned from your elementary, middle and high school history lessons have been corrupted by the dark forces of neo conservatism. Liberals have become so much an anathema to you that you cannot even bring yourself to say anything positive about them; those living today and even those living 100 years ago.
Your "some people" euphemism for liberals tells it all. But you didn't stop there. You further marginalized their accomplishments by saying they ATTEMPTED to do away with slavery, child labor and unfair labor practices.. Please ask your children to help you understand how successful Liberals were in ACCOMPLISHING those heroic deeds. They probably have not yet been corrupted by purveyors of dank present day conservatism and still have their history lessons at hand....prepare yourself better for the real world.

Just because liberalism represents change more than conservatism does not mean much of anything unto itself. It certainly does not represent virtue because to insinuate all change is good is absurd.

I don't see virtue as a quality that belongs exclusively to either liberals OR conservatives. Some of the most virtuous people I know are atheists. Does that make them liberal or conservative regardless of their political orientation?

CHANGE: If change is a crucial tenet of liberalism scientific innovation and technology falls within that purview. The conservative lifestyle you tout so proudly wouldn't exit if some liberal minded alchemist hadn't broken the mental bonds of religiosity and dared to explore the unknown. Europe may never have emerged from the dark ages of conservatism if the Moors had not invaded Spain and brought "enlightenment " with them. Considering how "conservative" Muslims are, the middle ages of Europe must have been even more depressingly conservative than I can imagine.

Liberalism as we know it, sprang from the fruits of the Renaissance.

Note: regression is change too... but that road leads to conservatism and the impedance of individual liberty.

Oh, brother, this is inane. Your “liberal” government is far more to blame for “individual loss of freedom” than any conservative policy. And if you are going to use abortion as an example where conservatism restricts the freedom of a mother to destroy her child, then we will use abortion to point out the loss of individual freedom you inflict on that life inside the womb.

What "liberal" government are you squawking about? Congress isn't "liberal" right now. The Supreme Court isn't "liberal right now. Using your generalization of the term, I suppose you could say Obama's moderate administration is liberal.

ABORTION: The USSC has ruled that abortion is legal Roe Vs Wade!

Ok, I am a laymen and beholden to your higher intellectual understanding of wisdom and justice. Be that as it may you still are doing nothing more than attempting to look the victor in some small time argument and will gladly ignore truths by burying them.

As it is, I fully understand the examples you provided but they really do not mean much to me or what we are talking about here, IMO. I do not care if some “neo-liberals” go to church or if they are pro-life. Nor do I care if cops belong to a union or if blacks are not necessarily “pro-gay.” What I am talking about is not people but platforms and ideologies. And that is where I can generalize for the sake of argument!

I too, am a layman. But the examples I provided are axioms that won't disappear because you don't care about them. These truths are self evident and actually their existence confirms the ignorance that prevails amongst those spouting what passes as conservatism.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I associate liberal policies of the past 30+ years with pro-choice positions, including being in favor of late term abortions. Also in favor of gay marriage.

I think most of the list of issues you posited have been associated with liberals to some degree but I don't believe all liberals, or even MOST, endorse every single item as a group. And I am positive that late term abortion is NOT a general liberal aspiration.

So just because most blacks may be against gay marriage does not negate the fact liberalism is still in favor of it.

In the Black community, gay people are pariahs. Gay marriage is never even a consideration within the Christian milieu that defines the social fabric of Black Americana. Conservatism reigns in that regard. So who decided to place the struggle for equality by Blacks under the same umbrella as the struggle for equality by LGBT factions? First of all, I don't think fighting for rights already conferred by the Constitution is Liberalism. You and your fellow "conservatives" find it useful to make that false connection because both groups hare forced to find sanctuary and representation within one of two major political parties. Conservative "gays" and conservative Blacks with any sense of survival and self preservation know that even though they aren't truly liberals, it is in their best interests to join with 'liberals" in keeping you evil RW bahs-turds from turning back the hands of time or making the USA more of a police state than it already is. We reject your political trajectory that looks so much like that of any of the repressive Muslim regimes you say you deplore.

Liberalism also is far more anti-military, anti-cop because they are hell bent on finding their sins and ignoring their sacrifices, softer on crime, in favor of more govt spending to help the poor despite us going into great debt, big time environmentalists, in favor of letting in all kinds of illegal foreigners and giving them licenses, schooling, etc., and against God being any part of our schools or any mention of it in any government affairs. Ok?

I don't agree that Liberalism is anti-establishment. Liberals are serving American interests in every capacity to include the military, and as cops. Good cops are held in high esteem by everyone, but those who kill unarmed people with impunity are excoriated. I plead guilty to that even though I don't self identity as a liberal.

Ok? You getting my point? And conservatism is the opposite on all those issues.

Yes, I got your point with the first sentence you wrote. I don't agree with your point..do you get mine?

nd by and large can we not also say those who vote democrat are by a large margin also liberals in the majority of the values or beliefs they hold to, and those who vote republican are by a large margin conservative in their values and beliefs?

You can say whatever you please. That doesn't mean your saying it makes it gospel or even accurate.