How much should a Police officer be paid?

[bucs90]

: But none of them are both important, dangerous AND causes each citizens safety to be dependent on them performing that job.

.

And yet, ironically, I've never heard a conservative condemn Ronald Reagan for breaking the air traffic controllers' union.

In fact, wasn't that one of the actions that made Ronald Reagan the conservative HERO that he is?

How soon we forget...

...hypocrisy is often merely an exercise in absentmindedness.

"Absentmindedness" would be a person who thinks it is smart to allow the people we entrust with our physical safety to be able to, as a whole group, start a halt or slowdown of that protective service until their collective demands are met. Thats dangerous.

 

[bucs90]

Nothnig I said supprts this statement.

This is, of course, is a outright lie.

Do you want to go through that again? Do you want to see your quote again about background checks being unconstitutional?

Yes - I would very much like to see you again embarass yourself by trying to show that from the argument that background checks are a form of prior restraint and therefore unconstitutional necessarily follows the position that the prohibition agaiinst felons owning firearms is unconstitutional.

Show us, oh grand master of the non-sequitur, how this is.

You can easily win this argument by pointing to incredible liberal hypocrisy on something.

Liberals are fighting with all their might to stop Voter ID bills. They say it's unconstitutional, oppressive, racist, etc, etc, etc, to require a person to show an ID in order to exercise their right.

Yet, one must show an ID to buy a gun. And libs never say a word about it being unconstitutional to require one to show an ID to exercise THAT right.

Thus, you are right. Requiring ID to buy a gun is, in fact, unconstitutional as it places a barrier on exercising that right. But it's never been fought in court.

That is seperate from saying a felon can't own a firearm though. Apples and oranges. He can't grasp that, but you are right on that issue. The ID is part of the background check, and if I understand correctly, you are referring to the restraint of requiring one to go through the ID/background that is unlawful. People who don't understand the constitution (aka liberals) wont understand that either.

So, until liberals oppose BOTH Voter ID AND Gun Buyer ID, then they cannot be consistent. It's either wrong to require an ID to exercise a right, or it's not. We don't pick and choose. And I'm sure I'll have to explain the difference between "right" and "priveledge" here in a moment.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you want to go through that again? Do you want to see your quote again about background checks being unconstitutional?

Yes - I would very much like to see you again embarass yourself by trying to show that from the argument that background checks are a form of prior restraint and therefore unconstitutional necessarily follows the position that the prohibition agaiinst felons owning firearms is unconstitutional.

Show us, oh grand master of the non-sequitur, how this is.

You can easily win this argument by pointing to incredible liberal hypocrisy on something.

I've already won this argument several times.
NYC thinks he can show that I believe the prohibition against felons owning firearms is unconstitutional - even though I have flatly said exactly the opposite innumerable times - because I argue that the federal requirement for background checks is unconstitutional.

He either doesn't understand what "it does not follow' means, or does, and simply enjoys making himself look stupid.

Liberals are fighting with all their might to stop Voter ID bills. They say it's unconstitutional, oppressive, racist, etc, etc, etc, to require a person to show an ID in order to exercise their right.

Yes - been there, done that.
If you argue that you can be made to show a valid ID to buy a gun, there's no way to argue that you cannot be made to show a valid ID to vote.

 

[NYcarbineer]

:
"Yeah, we'd all like to make $80,000 a year. But if we did, how many people would become cops for the money? And if your daughter is in a school shooting like Columbine, who do you want coming to save her ? A cop who is in it for the money? Or a cop is in it despite the money?"

So who here agrees with this? That cop pay should be kept low so only people who really really really want to be cops apply for the job?

ANYONE??

btw, a TEACHER was killed at Columbine, not a cop.

 

[Jackson]

Not everyone can be a police officer. It takes a certain type of person. One who is brave, committed and patient. The same as teachers. A teacher is on who is committed, patient and thorough. Both of these categories cannot be done by just anyone and and should be rewarded by higher salaries that keep them in their at their jobs. But the bad employees should not be shielded by unions .

For successful employees, $60,00-$100,000.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nothnig I said supprts this statement.

This is, of course, is a outright lie.

Do you want to go through that again? Do you want to see your quote again about background checks being unconstitutional?

Yes - I would very much like to see you again embarass yourself by trying to show that from the argument that background checks are a form of prior restraint and therefore unconstitutional necessarily follows the position that the prohibition agaiinst felons owning firearms is unconstitutional.

Show us, oh grand master of the non-sequitur, how this is.

First of all 'prior restraint' has nothing to do with background checks.

Second of all,

if you support denying the government the right to screen guy buyers for felony convictions, then you are in fact supporting the right of felons to conceal their felony convictions, and you are thus in fact supporting the right of felons to purchase and own guns.

 

[NYcarbineer]

: But none of them are both important, dangerous AND causes each citizens safety to be dependent on them performing that job.

.

And yet, ironically, I've never heard a conservative condemn Ronald Reagan for breaking the air traffic controllers' union.

In fact, wasn't that one of the actions that made Ronald Reagan the conservative HERO that he is?

How soon we forget...

...hypocrisy is often merely an exercise in absentmindedness.

Huh? Why would we? Where did I say police or fire should have a union???? Neither should.

For one, how can an organization be founded on a chain of command in which one must follow orders.....but also be in a union that can strike or "slow down"?

I absolutely believe police and fire and military should not be unionized (military can't anyway) because they are basically holding the citizen's physical safety hostage until their demands are met. Thats wrong.

I 100% do not think police or fire should be unionized. If my daughter was being stalked by an insane ex, I do not want a union officer handling her case, who might take part in a "work slowdown" if his police union says to.

So not sure where you saw I said police should be union. They shouldn't. Our safety depends on cops, firemen, soldiers, air traffic control. They shouldn't be union, as that takes our safety hostage. And if a city treats cops like crap, they'll quit, because PD's are ALWAYS hiring due to job turnover, and a city will thus have poor performance, higher crime, etc, until they make the move to attract and retain better officers. Police work values experience above all else in that job, and a non-union dept still must treat it's people good or they'll lose experienced officers to a dept that will treat them right. No need for a union.

And if a state treats teachers like crap???

 

[bucs90]

:
"Yeah, we'd all like to make $80,000 a year. But if we did, how many people would become cops for the money? And if your daughter is in a school shooting like Columbine, who do you want coming to save her ? A cop who is in it for the money? Or a cop is in it despite the money?"

So who here agrees with this? That cop pay should be kept low so only people who really really really want to be cops apply for the job?

ANYONE??

btw, a TEACHER was killed at Columbine, not a cop.

Ask just about any honest cop and he'll say the same. Because we not only protect you, we protect each other. When we are in a standoff, a chase, a fight, etc, our backup is what is gonna save our life. I want a guy who loves being a cop despite the pay, not some 25 year old college grad whose never been in a fight or shot a gun....but took the job because the pay is great. Believe it or not, there are plenty of 22 yr old cops who took the job because they think 35K is rich.

And yes a teacher was killed at Columbine. That was before the days of the School Resource Officer (SRO) was brought about, mostly in result of Columbine, where several officers are assigned full time to a school. ALSO....that was before modern police tactics, especially SWAT tactics.

SWAT teams were pre-1998 mostly setting a perimeter and negotiating out gunmen. Because up to then, it was mostly a hostate/demand situation. Not a murder rampage like Columbine. I have the offical video and audio from the Littleton PD, lots of ex or current cops do from training. First officers were on-scene way before most of the fatalities. But their training up to then was for hostages, not "active shooters" (current term for that type of incident).

But since then, it's evolved. SWAT cops are trained more like a military infantry tactic, with it being offensive, or the "hunter" rather than the defender. They seek out the gunman with the intent to kill him, and attract fire to themselves and not the innocents. This is a drastic change in tactics. While still not as intense or in-depth as military infantry and specops schools, police active shooter/swat schools are heading in that direction as far as tactics and mindset. They can't set a perimeter and wait anymore, they must immediately go in. Thats why the Va Tech shooter chained the doors, because he knew the SWAT team would go in, and they did. He killed himself when he heard the cops bust the doors to make entry. The Salt Lake mall shooter was actively engaged and killed by a swat team that didn't wait, but hunted him down instead, while also taking fire. The two major incidents that changed this was Columbine and the North Hollywood shootout/bank robbery. Police Dept's realized old tactics and weapons didn't work in the new reality and changed. I was certified and took many courses and trained many in these tactics. And I can say 100% that no one who is doing the job for the great pay (in theory) should be trusted to be on that entry team. Problem is, we never know when or where it'll happen, and ANY officer can be the 1st on scene to go in and save our kids or you.

In other words, you don't have a clue what you are talking about with police tactics and mindset. Stick to teacher union talk.

 

[bucs90]

And yet, ironically, I've never heard a conservative condemn Ronald Reagan for breaking the air traffic controllers' union.

In fact, wasn't that one of the actions that made Ronald Reagan the conservative HERO that he is?

How soon we forget...

...hypocrisy is often merely an exercise in absentmindedness.

Huh? Why would we? Where did I say police or fire should have a union???? Neither should.

For one, how can an organization be founded on a chain of command in which one must follow orders.....but also be in a union that can strike or "slow down"?

I absolutely believe police and fire and military should not be unionized (military can't anyway) because they are basically holding the citizen's physical safety hostage until their demands are met. Thats wrong.

I 100% do not think police or fire should be unionized. If my daughter was being stalked by an insane ex, I do not want a union officer handling her case, who might take part in a "work slowdown" if his police union says to.

So not sure where you saw I said police should be union. They shouldn't. Our safety depends on cops, firemen, soldiers, air traffic control. They shouldn't be union, as that takes our safety hostage. And if a city treats cops like crap, they'll quit, because PD's are ALWAYS hiring due to job turnover, and a city will thus have poor performance, higher crime, etc, until they make the move to attract and retain better officers. Police work values experience above all else in that job, and a non-union dept still must treat it's people good or they'll lose experienced officers to a dept that will treat them right. No need for a union.

And if a state treats teachers like crap???

In theory, those teachers could leave to go elsewhere.

But a compensation package averaging $89,500 isn't being treated like crap. So don't know what their problem is. Thats DOUBLE what South Carolina cops make. Or NC cops. Or Georgia cops. Or really, cops just about anywher. New York City cops start in the 25-30K range.

Oh, and teachers aren't being asked to possibly die while on duty on behalf of a stranger. A bit different man.

 

[NYcarbineer]

: But none of them are both important, dangerous AND causes each citizens safety to be dependent on them performing that job.

.

And yet, ironically, I've never heard a conservative condemn Ronald Reagan for breaking the air traffic controllers' union.

In fact, wasn't that one of the actions that made Ronald Reagan the conservative HERO that he is?

How soon we forget...

...hypocrisy is often merely an exercise in absentmindedness.

"Absentmindedness" would be a person who thinks it is smart to allow the people we entrust with our physical safety to be able to, as a whole group, start a halt or slowdown of that protective service until their collective demands are met. Thats dangerous.

The right to unionize and to bargain collectively does not necessarily include the right to strike, in fact police rarely can strike legally.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Huh? Why would we? Where did I say police or fire should have a union???? Neither should.

For one, how can an organization be founded on a chain of command in which one must follow orders.....but also be in a union that can strike or "slow down"?

I absolutely believe police and fire and military should not be unionized (military can't anyway) because they are basically holding the citizen's physical safety hostage until their demands are met. Thats wrong.

I 100% do not think police or fire should be unionized. If my daughter was being stalked by an insane ex, I do not want a union officer handling her case, who might take part in a "work slowdown" if his police union says to.

So not sure where you saw I said police should be union. They shouldn't. Our safety depends on cops, firemen, soldiers, air traffic control. They shouldn't be union, as that takes our safety hostage. And if a city treats cops like crap, they'll quit, because PD's are ALWAYS hiring due to job turnover, and a city will thus have poor performance, higher crime, etc, until they make the move to attract and retain better officers. Police work values experience above all else in that job, and a non-union dept still must treat it's people good or they'll lose experienced officers to a dept that will treat them right. No need for a union.

And if a state treats teachers like crap???

In theory, those teachers could leave to go elsewhere.

But a compensation package averaging $89,500 isn't being treated like crap. So don't know what their problem is. Thats DOUBLE what South Carolina cops make. Or NC cops. Or Georgia cops. Or really, cops just about anywher. New York City cops start in the 25-30K range.

Oh, and teachers aren't being asked to possibly die while on duty on behalf of a stranger. A bit different man.

Teachers don't make that number you quoted. Stop believing what you hear from the rightwing propaganda machine.

First you say it's bad if cops make good money, then you say it's good.

Which is it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you want to go through that again? Do you want to see your quote again about background checks being unconstitutional?

Yes - I would very much like to see you again embarass yourself by trying to show that from the argument that background checks are a form of prior restraint and therefore unconstitutional necessarily follows the position that the prohibition agaiinst felons owning firearms is unconstitutional.
Show us, oh grand master of the non-sequitur, how this is.

First of all 'prior restraint' has nothing to do with background checks.

You obviously don't remember what I argued.
Lack of capacity, or lack of desire - either way, you don't remember.
Or, you dont understand the issue.
Or both.

Second of all,

Yes... Aside form the fact that this isnt what you originally claimed I said...

if you support denying the government the right to screen guy buyers for felony convictions, then you are in fact supporting the right of felons to conceal their felony convictions, and you are thus in fact supporting the right of felons to purchase and own guns.

Thank you, grand master of the non-sequitur.
I'd ask you how the latter necesarily folows from the former, but you would not undertsand the request.

 

[bucs90]

And yet, ironically, I've never heard a conservative condemn Ronald Reagan for breaking the air traffic controllers' union.

In fact, wasn't that one of the actions that made Ronald Reagan the conservative HERO that he is?

How soon we forget...

...hypocrisy is often merely an exercise in absentmindedness.

"Absentmindedness" would be a person who thinks it is smart to allow the people we entrust with our physical safety to be able to, as a whole group, start a halt or slowdown of that protective service until their collective demands are met. Thats dangerous.

The right to unionize and to bargain collectively does not necessarily include the right to strike, in fact police rarely can strike legally.

They do work slowdowns.

Or maybe you've never heard of the "Blue Flu"???? It's a police strike. They call in sick all at once (like teachers). But it's organized through the union. Mostly in big Northern cities.

Or maybe you've never heard of "FIDO", it was started by the San Francisco Police Union. What is FIDO? Its what SF cops do when the union is pissed at the city. It means when they see a crime, they "**** It Drive Off". "F" "I" "D" "O".

Or "Speeders Holiday" (No tickets for a month) or "Amsterdam April"? No drug arrest for all of April.

You do not know this subject, you shouldn't act like you do.

 

[bucs90]

And if a state treats teachers like crap???

In theory, those teachers could leave to go elsewhere.

But a compensation package averaging $89,500 isn't being treated like crap. So don't know what their problem is. Thats DOUBLE what South Carolina cops make. Or NC cops. Or Georgia cops. Or really, cops just about anywher. New York City cops start in the 25-30K range.

Oh, and teachers aren't being asked to possibly die while on duty on behalf of a stranger. A bit different man.

Teachers don't make that number you quoted. Stop believing what you hear from the rightwing propaganda machine.

First you say it's bad if cops make good money, then you say it's good.

Which is it?

I'm quoting the government data in Wisconsin. Avg WI teacher pay is $50,000, plus a $39,500 benefit package: total comp $89,500. It's fact. Sorry.


I never said it's good or bad. I said it is what it is. Cops make liveable money. Should they make more? Maybe. Would it create problems? Yep. Some things just are the way they are, it doesn't have to be good, bad, fair, oppressive, mean, evil, happy. It just "is".

 

[bucs90]

Hmm. Guess he gave up.

 

[percysunshine]

How much should a Police officer by paid?

I think we've worn out the teacher thread, so how's about we move on to a comparison to Police officers.

How much should they be paid?

Are we in Mexico, or the US? The point of sale is different.

 

[bucs90]

How much should a Police officer by paid?

I think we've worn out the teacher thread, so how's about we move on to a comparison to Police officers.

How much should they be paid?

Are we in Mexico, or the US? The point of sale is different.

Great point.

We'll get what we pay for.

But there is no private police option. A crappy police dept means crappy safety. They can't hire a different private PD to replace them.

But a crappy school can be replaced with a private school.

I can't choose who polices me and my home. But I can decide who educates my kids.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

By the body count.

 

[percysunshine]

Normally, in Mexico, two twenties will get you out of just about any speeding ticket.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In theory, those teachers could leave to go elsewhere.

But a compensation package averaging $89,500 isn't being treated like crap. So don't know what their problem is. Thats DOUBLE what South Carolina cops make. Or NC cops. Or Georgia cops. Or really, cops just about anywher. New York City cops start in the 25-30K range.

Oh, and teachers aren't being asked to possibly die while on duty on behalf of a stranger. A bit different man.

Teachers don't make that number you quoted. Stop believing what you hear from the rightwing propaganda machine.

First you say it's bad if cops make good money, then you say it's good.

Which is it?

I'm quoting the government data in Wisconsin. Avg WI teacher pay is $50,000, plus a $39,500 benefit package: total comp $89,500. It's fact. Sorry.


I never said it's good or bad. I said it is what it is. Cops make liveable money. Should they make more? Maybe. Would it create problems? Yep. Some things just are the way they are, it doesn't have to be good, bad, fair, oppressive, mean, evil, happy. It just "is".

Quotes have links if you want them to be taken seriously.

You did say cops making good money was bad. You quoted the cop you AGREED with saying that if the pay was too high people would become cops for the money, which you agreed was bad.

Anyone else agree with that? That paying cops good money is a bad thing because it attracts the wrong element?

Anyone want to declare that Bucs is NOT full of shit for saying that?