Police videos thread
74,092 Views |
883 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by okaydo
De-escalate the situation, right police?going4roses said:
Can we de-escalate the country? From the president's inflammatory language to the proliferation of weapons. Cops fear the people are packing, people fear the police who are packing. But with fewer guns. And no hostile language and policy and this stuff gets better. The sad irony of all the 2nd Amendment cowards is they are actually escalating and creating the very society they are afraid of--it's all self-fulfilling.
Wait a minute, wait a minute. You scour the internet for police violence videos and this is the best you can come up with? A guy on his bike who gets caught in the crossfire because another guy is playing stupid games to win stupid prizes, and some video from where is that, Brasil? Greece? Haha ok.
This is what's referred to colloquially as "scraping the bottom of the barrel." lol
This is what's referred to colloquially as "scraping the bottom of the barrel." lol
"2nd Amendment cowards"? Men and women who would defend themselves are cowards? You may want to look up the meaning of that word, Mr. Guy Who Probably Couldn't Fight Himself Out of a Wet Paper Bag. I'm sure you're the opposite, though, since everything about you screams masculinity. lolblungld said:De-escalate the situation, right police?going4roses said:
Can we de-escalate the country? From the president's inflammatory language to the proliferation of weapons. Cops fear the people are packing, people fear the police who are packing. But with fewer guns. And no hostile language and policy and this stuff gets better. The sad irony of all the 2nd Amendment cowards is they are actually escalating and creating the very society they are afraid of--it's all self-fulfilling.
All they have to do is comply but they resist.
BancroftBear93 said:"2nd Amendment cowards"? Men and women who would defend themselves are cowards? You may want to look up the meaning of that word, Mr. Guy Who Probably Couldn't Fight Himself Out of a Wet Paper Bag. I'm sure you're the opposite, though, since everything about you screams masculinity.blungld said:De-escalate the situation, right police?going4roses said:
Can we de-escalate the country? From the president's inflammatory language to the proliferation of weapons. Cops fear the people are packing, people fear the police who are packing. But with fewer guns. And no hostile language and policy and this stuff gets better. The sad irony of all the 2nd Amendment cowards is they are actually escalating and creating the very society they are afraid of--it's all self-fulfilling.
My definition of masculinity is not as narrow and brutish as yours, and yes the fragile fearful men clinging to their guns are often quite cowardly.
I guess this is you not talking down to people againblungld said:
Look at these brave brave gun owners protecting themselves heroically:
Gun cowards
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.going4roses said:
The Police are really out of control ... what is next
Good thing Congress can't do this, but our president and police sure can! Whoopee! This is what democracy and freedom looks like.
My guess is this is you looking up at people with high values again.Matthew Patel said:I guess this is you not talking down to people againblungld said:
Look at these brave brave gun owners protecting themselves heroically:
Gun cowards
The act of policing dehumanizes. They see the protesters as "disobedient" to their authority and they must be punished. They have ceased to see these as people who have a just cause and who are their bosses and who pay their salary and whose job it is for them to protect, NOT control. There is little to no effort to de-escalate and to find a solution that keeps the protest peaceful. They are making everything worse.going4roses said:
And before anyone tries to flip this around on the protesters, this is the police's job. They are there to help create peace and protect the first amendment AND personal safety and personal property, NOT to silence dissent.
This thread stresses the excesses of police dealing with the public. The police are in the streets and are subject to many varied negative situations. Yes, they have made poor decisions, but, when you consider the many times they deal with 'episodes', there are going to be bad decisions. Only the negative results are allowed in this thread.
In the last 30 days thousands of peaceful protests have occurred on the streets; with most of the protests marches consisting of several thousand 'peaceful' participants. The large numbers of protesters could easily overwhelm the police if a 'flash-mob' attack had occurred. There were a few protesters that attempted to cause a more 'aggressive, physical' protest, but, couldn't cause a 'flash-mob'. I feel that the police presence kept the
'peaceful' protesters, peaceful.
Without the police presence, there are examples of how protesters can feel to react.
Idiots, all those people who think they can get in someone's face without anything happening to them, cop, software engineer, or any other person.
Priceless. Criminal behavior is dehumanizing.blungld said:
The act of policing dehumanizes.
Now you got it slow wits! All criminal behavior is dehumanizing by police or protesters. And one of those two is paid and trained to not be criminal.BearForce2 said:Criminal behavior is dehumanizing.blungld said:
The act of policing dehumanizes.
Not all policing is dehumanizing, all criminal behavior is.blungld said:Now you got it slow wits! All criminal behavior is dehumanizing by police or protesters. And one of those two is paid and trained to not be criminal.BearForce2 said:Criminal behavior is dehumanizing.blungld said:
The act of policing dehumanizes.
Who is giving the orders and looking the other way at police shooting at the face (barbaric) and attacking the press (illegal)? I do not understand the sadism on display and why the courts are not issuing orders on limits to police action. Why haven't major media players started emergency cases on first Amendment violations?
BearForce2 said:Not all policing is dehumanizing, all criminal behavior is.blungld said:Now you got it slow wits! All criminal behavior is dehumanizing by police or protesters. And one of those two is paid and trained to not be criminal.BearForce2 said:Criminal behavior is dehumanizing.blungld said:
The act of policing dehumanizes.
We should promote rules and laws applying evenly. Not excusing criminal behavior based on color or profession seems to be a basic concept that should be acceptable to all. Targeting all police seems destructive to any progress. Maybe targeting police unions that protect and enable bad police behavior?
edg64 said:
This thread stresses the excesses of police dealing with the public. The police are in the streets and are subject to many varied negative situations. Yes, they have made poor decisions, but, when you consider the many times they deal with 'episodes', there are going to be bad decisions. Only the negative results are allowed in this thread.
Do you also point out that no one ever talks about all of the women that Harvey Weinstein didn't rape? Or perhaps all of the American soldiers not killed by Putin's bounties?
Very few, if anyone, disagrees that the vast majority of cops are upstanding people trying their best to carry out their duties, but it's disingenuous to pretend like it's "just a few bad apples" or that somehow the actions of a few private citizens somehow justify all of the illegal police brutality we have witnessed thanks to body cameras and cell phones.
We have to face facts - far too many police are abusing their power and assaulting civilians. Given that they have power through the state, it's up to our governments to do something about it. Pretending that the problem doesn't exist is just going to lead to more protests and further deteriorate the relationship between law enforcement and the public.
Conservatives regularly demand that everyone denounce violent protesters and others resisting lawful arrest. I denounce all unlawful violence, whether from a civilian or an agent of the state. Police committing an act unlawful violence is worse than a civilian doing the same because they are an agent of the state and those actions damage the trust that we need to have with law enforcement. Until now, the mechanisms to deal with unlawful police action have been woefully inadequate and it's got to change.
It's fine that you don't agree - I don't expect you to - but making a disingenuous argument about all of the times police don't make a "bad decision" is entirely unpersuasive. Being a law enforcement officer isn't easy. If you can't do it without committing unnecessary violence against the public, there are plenty of other jobs out there.
Unit2Sucks said:edg64 said:
This thread stresses the excesses of police dealing with the public. The police are in the streets and are subject to many varied negative situations. Yes, they have made poor decisions, but, when you consider the many times they deal with 'episodes', there are going to be bad decisions. Only the negative results are allowed in this thread.
Do you also point out that no one ever talks about all of the women that Harvey Weinstein didn't rape? Or perhaps all of the American soldiers not killed by Putin's bounties?
Very few, if anyone, disagrees that the vast majority of cops are upstanding people trying their best to carry out their duties, but it's disingenuous to pretend like it's "just a few bad apples" or that somehow the actions of a few private citizens somehow justify all of the illegal police brutality we have witnessed thanks to body cameras and cell phones.
We have to face facts - far too many police are abusing their power and assaulting civilians. Given that they have power through the state, it's up to our governments to do something about it. Pretending that the problem doesn't exist is just going to lead to more protests and further deteriorate the relationship between law enforcement and the public.
Conservatives regularly demand that everyone denounce violent protesters and others resisting lawful arrest. I denounce all unlawful violence, whether from a civilian or an agent of the state. Police committing an act unlawful violence is worse than a civilian doing the same because they are an agent of the state and those actions damage the trust that we need to have with law enforcement. Until now, the mechanisms to deal with unlawful police action have been woefully inadequate and it's got to change.
It's fine that you don't agree - I don't expect you to - but making a disingenuous argument about all of the times police don't make a "bad decision" is entirely unpersuasive. Being a law enforcement officer isn't easy. If you can't do it without committing unnecessary violence against the public, there are plenty of other jobs out there.
I think we all agree that there are too many instances of police unnecessarily escalating violence. And I am glad you are rational enough and have enough integrity to be against unlawful violence from civilians, no matter what social injustice they are calling out.
However, I don't think people who have been physically antagonizing the police have any valid standing to complain. Also, I think when they promote something silly like disbanding or defunding the police, there cannot be any real bipartisan progress. If we keep it at weakening the police union, protecting whistle blowers, and holding those whose police report deviate from body cam accountable, then there can be some real progress.
calbear93 said:Unit2Sucks said:edg64 said:
This thread stresses the excesses of police dealing with the public. The police are in the streets and are subject to many varied negative situations. Yes, they have made poor decisions, but, when you consider the many times they deal with 'episodes', there are going to be bad decisions. Only the negative results are allowed in this thread.
Do you also point out that no one ever talks about all of the women that Harvey Weinstein didn't rape? Or perhaps all of the American soldiers not killed by Putin's bounties?
Very few, if anyone, disagrees that the vast majority of cops are upstanding people trying their best to carry out their duties, but it's disingenuous to pretend like it's "just a few bad apples" or that somehow the actions of a few private citizens somehow justify all of the illegal police brutality we have witnessed thanks to body cameras and cell phones.
We have to face facts - far too many police are abusing their power and assaulting civilians. Given that they have power through the state, it's up to our governments to do something about it. Pretending that the problem doesn't exist is just going to lead to more protests and further deteriorate the relationship between law enforcement and the public.
Conservatives regularly demand that everyone denounce violent protesters and others resisting lawful arrest. I denounce all unlawful violence, whether from a civilian or an agent of the state. Police committing an act unlawful violence is worse than a civilian doing the same because they are an agent of the state and those actions damage the trust that we need to have with law enforcement. Until now, the mechanisms to deal with unlawful police action have been woefully inadequate and it's got to change.
It's fine that you don't agree - I don't expect you to - but making a disingenuous argument about all of the times police don't make a "bad decision" is entirely unpersuasive. Being a law enforcement officer isn't easy. If you can't do it without committing unnecessary violence against the public, there are plenty of other jobs out there.
I think we all agree that there are too many instances of police unnecessarily escalating violence. And I am glad you are rational enough and have enough integrity to be against unlawful violence from civilians, no matter what social injustice they are calling out.
However, I don't think people who have been physically antagonizing the police have any valid standing to complain. Also, I think when they promote something silly like disbanding or defunding the police, there cannot be any real bipartisan progress. If we keep it at weakening the police union, protecting whistle blowers, and holding those whose police report deviate from body cam accountable, then there can be some real progress.
I don't think that is what is preventing bipartisan progress. The fact that republicans don't want to make any changes is the problem, and they are using the people who favor extreme measures as an excuse to do nothing. How would you respond if I said "as long as the tea party is out there, we cannot make real bipartisan progress in eliminating waste in our government?" Or "as long as there are people bombing abortion clinics, we cannot make any real bipartisan progress in establishing reasonable limits on abortion?"
Defunding the police is a terrible choice of words but people mostly are talking about right-sizing the police presence. Police shouldn't be asked to do all of the different things they currently do and it would be cheaper and more effective to use different kinds of professionals, especially in large urban areas where there is sufficient scale to have these alternatives well staffed and trained.
Extremists can be great agents for change and they can be incredibly damaging to a movement. As a society we shouldn't be beholden to extremists and allow them to prohibit us from doing what we need to do in order to improve this nation.
Unit2Sucks said:calbear93 said:Unit2Sucks said:edg64 said:
This thread stresses the excesses of police dealing with the public. The police are in the streets and are subject to many varied negative situations. Yes, they have made poor decisions, but, when you consider the many times they deal with 'episodes', there are going to be bad decisions. Only the negative results are allowed in this thread.
Do you also point out that no one ever talks about all of the women that Harvey Weinstein didn't rape? Or perhaps all of the American soldiers not killed by Putin's bounties?
Very few, if anyone, disagrees that the vast majority of cops are upstanding people trying their best to carry out their duties, but it's disingenuous to pretend like it's "just a few bad apples" or that somehow the actions of a few private citizens somehow justify all of the illegal police brutality we have witnessed thanks to body cameras and cell phones.
We have to face facts - far too many police are abusing their power and assaulting civilians. Given that they have power through the state, it's up to our governments to do something about it. Pretending that the problem doesn't exist is just going to lead to more protests and further deteriorate the relationship between law enforcement and the public.
Conservatives regularly demand that everyone denounce violent protesters and others resisting lawful arrest. I denounce all unlawful violence, whether from a civilian or an agent of the state. Police committing an act unlawful violence is worse than a civilian doing the same because they are an agent of the state and those actions damage the trust that we need to have with law enforcement. Until now, the mechanisms to deal with unlawful police action have been woefully inadequate and it's got to change.
It's fine that you don't agree - I don't expect you to - but making a disingenuous argument about all of the times police don't make a "bad decision" is entirely unpersuasive. Being a law enforcement officer isn't easy. If you can't do it without committing unnecessary violence against the public, there are plenty of other jobs out there.
I think we all agree that there are too many instances of police unnecessarily escalating violence. And I am glad you are rational enough and have enough integrity to be against unlawful violence from civilians, no matter what social injustice they are calling out.
However, I don't think people who have been physically antagonizing the police have any valid standing to complain. Also, I think when they promote something silly like disbanding or defunding the police, there cannot be any real bipartisan progress. If we keep it at weakening the police union, protecting whistle blowers, and holding those whose police report deviate from body cam accountable, then there can be some real progress.
I don't think that is what is preventing bipartisan progress. The fact that republicans don't want to make any changes is the problem, and they are using the people who favor extreme measures as an excuse to do nothing. How would you respond if I said "as long as the tea party is out there, we cannot make real bipartisan progress in eliminating waste in our government?" Or "as long as there are people bombing abortion clinics, we cannot make any real bipartisan progress in establishing reasonable limits on abortion?"
Defunding the police is a terrible choice of words but people mostly are talking about right-sizing the police presence. Police shouldn't be asked to do all of the different things they currently do and it would be cheaper and more effective to use different kinds of professionals, especially in large urban areas where there is sufficient scale to have these alternatives well staffed and trained.
Extremists can be great agents for change and they can be incredibly damaging to a movement. As a society we shouldn't be beholden to extremists and allow them to prohibit us from doing what we need to do in order to improve this nation.
Exactly. Extremists are sucking all of the oxygen out of the discussion (including the extreme defund the police movement and the police union) but I think we have a good opportunity to make real progress on police reform as long as we don't get sidetrack by tribalism.
calbear93 said:BearForce2 said:Not all policing is dehumanizing, all criminal behavior is.blungld said:Now you got it slow wits! All criminal behavior is dehumanizing by police or protesters. And one of those two is paid and trained to not be criminal.BearForce2 said:Criminal behavior is dehumanizing.blungld said:
The act of policing dehumanizes.
We should promote rules and laws applying evenly. Not excusing criminal behavior based on color or profession seems to be a basic concept that should be acceptable to all. Targeting all police seems destructive to any progress. Maybe targeting police unions that protect and enable bad police behavior?
But blungld said policing itself is dehumanizing, see above.
The other is raised to believe law and order is not that importantblungld said:Now you got it slow wits! All criminal behavior is dehumanizing by police or protesters. And one of those two is paid and trained to not be criminal.BearForce2 said:Criminal behavior is dehumanizing.blungld said:
The act of policing dehumanizes.
calbear93 said:Unit2Sucks said:calbear93 said:Unit2Sucks said:edg64 said:
This thread stresses the excesses of police dealing with the public. The police are in the streets and are subject to many varied negative situations. Yes, they have made poor decisions, but, when you consider the many times they deal with 'episodes', there are going to be bad decisions. Only the negative results are allowed in this thread.
Do you also point out that no one ever talks about all of the women that Harvey Weinstein didn't rape? Or perhaps all of the American soldiers not killed by Putin's bounties?
Very few, if anyone, disagrees that the vast majority of cops are upstanding people trying their best to carry out their duties, but it's disingenuous to pretend like it's "just a few bad apples" or that somehow the actions of a few private citizens somehow justify all of the illegal police brutality we have witnessed thanks to body cameras and cell phones.
We have to face facts - far too many police are abusing their power and assaulting civilians. Given that they have power through the state, it's up to our governments to do something about it. Pretending that the problem doesn't exist is just going to lead to more protests and further deteriorate the relationship between law enforcement and the public.
Conservatives regularly demand that everyone denounce violent protesters and others resisting lawful arrest. I denounce all unlawful violence, whether from a civilian or an agent of the state. Police committing an act unlawful violence is worse than a civilian doing the same because they are an agent of the state and those actions damage the trust that we need to have with law enforcement. Until now, the mechanisms to deal with unlawful police action have been woefully inadequate and it's got to change.
It's fine that you don't agree - I don't expect you to - but making a disingenuous argument about all of the times police don't make a "bad decision" is entirely unpersuasive. Being a law enforcement officer isn't easy. If you can't do it without committing unnecessary violence against the public, there are plenty of other jobs out there.
I think we all agree that there are too many instances of police unnecessarily escalating violence. And I am glad you are rational enough and have enough integrity to be against unlawful violence from civilians, no matter what social injustice they are calling out.
However, I don't think people who have been physically antagonizing the police have any valid standing to complain. Also, I think when they promote something silly like disbanding or defunding the police, there cannot be any real bipartisan progress. If we keep it at weakening the police union, protecting whistle blowers, and holding those whose police report deviate from body cam accountable, then there can be some real progress.
I don't think that is what is preventing bipartisan progress. The fact that republicans don't want to make any changes is the problem, and they are using the people who favor extreme measures as an excuse to do nothing. How would you respond if I said "as long as the tea party is out there, we cannot make real bipartisan progress in eliminating waste in our government?" Or "as long as there are people bombing abortion clinics, we cannot make any real bipartisan progress in establishing reasonable limits on abortion?"
Defunding the police is a terrible choice of words but people mostly are talking about right-sizing the police presence. Police shouldn't be asked to do all of the different things they currently do and it would be cheaper and more effective to use different kinds of professionals, especially in large urban areas where there is sufficient scale to have these alternatives well staffed and trained.
Extremists can be great agents for change and they can be incredibly damaging to a movement. As a society we shouldn't be beholden to extremists and allow them to prohibit us from doing what we need to do in order to improve this nation.
Exactly. Extremists are sucking all of the oxygen out of the discussion (including the extreme defund the police movement and the police union) but I think we have a good opportunity to make real progress on police reform as long as we don't get sidetrack by tribalism.
That's exactly the opposite of what I said. People use extremists as an excuse to do what they already wanted to do.
They are the new political version of the dog ate my homework. Trump is the only extremist that I am aware of who is capable of killing a policy. As a current example, he is the only one preventing the renaming US military bases (which has broad bipartisan support in Congress).
Featured Stories
See All