okaydo said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

After seeing multiple cases of people being hit in the face (and eyes) by rubber bullets, I'd say the police are not using them as the non lethal alternatives they were meant to be. If they can't aim for lower parts of the body as I've always heard they were supposed to (or even bouncing them off the ground first), then maybe they shouldn't have them.

I think we're seeing the consequences of the government passing out surplus military gear to police departments. It's militarized police work and made them act more like paramilitary squads than community peacekeepers. I'm not saying that cops are bad. The vast majority are good, but there's an unacceptably high percentage of bad apples that seem to have lost their humanity and there doesn't seem to be much effort to weed them out.

---

Let's take a step back. Why, in the first place, aren't officers screened better before coming to the force? Take the flashpoint, Minneapolis. They've had Democrat leadership for 54 of the last 59 years. Why haven't they been successful in carefully screening and hiring officers who are sensitive to the community and have pledged--or have a history of abiding by--soft touch police tactics? What's their excuse? We can ask the same question in regards to Baltimore, Chicago, Atlanta, DC, etc.

---

The problem is that police unions are powerful. They're opposed to any kind of reform, even screening.

Cops could easily ruin a mayor's life by making him look bad or threatening his personal safety.

That's why Bill de Blasio, who's passionately hated by the NYPD, has been sticking up for them the past few days. He even initially defended the NYPD's right to run over protesters.

Case in point: The NYPD union boss posted de Blasio's daughter's address on Twitter 2 days ago.

When de Blasio's Democratic New York City Mayor successor David Dinkins proposed police reforms in 1992, including an independent panel looking into police abuse, off-duty NYPD officers rioted -- led by Rudy Giuliani -- and on-duty NYPD officers didn't really try to stop them.

Yes, police riot.



https://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/17/nyregion/officers-rally-and-dinkins-is-their-target.html



The same thing happened in Minneapolis. A reform-minded police chief came in and was met with resistance.




But he has to contend with a powerful Minneapolis police union boss who has been called racist.

Remember cops are powerful: Remember what happened in San Francisco when public defender Jeff Adachi died.

Also remember: It's hard to fire cops. They could do absolutely sh*tty things. It took 5 years to fire the NYPD who killed Eric Garner. And if they lose their jobs or quit under controversy, they'll easily find a job at another police department.

Like this guy:

---

Cave Bear said:

---

Waiting for one of our resident right-wing trolls to say it was just an innocent gesture...

---

BancroftBear93 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

After seeing multiple cases of people being hit in the face (and eyes) by rubber bullets, I'd say the police are not using them as the non lethal alternatives they were meant to be. If they can't aim for lower parts of the body as I've always heard they were supposed to (or even bouncing them off the ground first), then maybe they shouldn't have them.

I think we're seeing the consequences of the government passing out surplus military gear to police departments. It's militarized police work and made them act more like paramilitary squads than community peacekeepers. I'm not saying that cops are bad. The vast majority are good, but there's an unacceptably high percentage of bad apples that seem to have lost their humanity and there doesn't seem to be much effort to weed them out.

---

Let's take a step back. Why, in the first place, aren't officers screened better before coming to the force? Take the flashpoint, Minneapolis. They've had Democrat leadership for 54 of the last 59 years. Why haven't they been successful in carefully screening and hiring officers who are sensitive to the community and have pledged--or have a history of abiding by--soft touch police tactics? What's their excuse? We can ask the same question in regards to Baltimore, Chicago, Atlanta, DC, etc.

---

I'm in full agreement with your first point. Screening during the initial training is even better than afterward. However, you seem to want use your partisan lenses to couch this as a Democrat versus Republican issue. I see it more as a national issue. It should be addressed everywhere. The protests are a big city problem mainly, not a red state vs blue state thing. The big protests are in the big cities and that's where the trouble is. Have you heard of any big protests in Mayberry?

---

But wait, they are screened! If an applicant is too intelligent, the applicant is rejected. You heard that correctly, police are screened to make sure nobody intelligent (and hence more independent and likely to question unconstitutional orders, for example) makes it through. Cops are idiots, by design. A little microcosm of idiocracy.

This is our government in action! Let's have more and bigger government, that should help! Yayyyy.

---

SRBear said:

---

Hmm...maybe we actually need some protection....except a little late for this guy...

---

going4roses said:

---

Does either one of you have the effects chattel slavery in your DNA ?

Yes or no?

---