Alaska Darin Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 It's a organization designed to "protect the rights of police officers". Their membership includes active officers (government agents). The officers membership in this organization is as a function of their role as government agents, not private citizens. When a group of government agents band together to form a "private organization" in order to further their agenda as government agents, as stated in the organization's own charter; it doesn't serve to blur the line, and make that advocacy OK. It's simply a disgusting attempt to mask the intentions of government agents, especially when the demands of the organization are to muffle free speech directed at the member government agents. It exists because police officers are subject to the whims of politicians who pander to the mob rule of their constituents. And frankly this is a whole lot of noise over nothing. Welcome to molehill mountain.
boyst Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 It seems what you are saying is cops don't have the same freedom of expression that the football players do. The SLPOA isn't dictating anything; they are expressing an opinion just like the Rams did. I still don't see the problem. They are citizens too. The NFL made the obviously correct decision to ignore the complaint and not turn the spotlight on themselves. The only issue I take with this is that the the NFL will bring the St Louis area police officers and servicemen on the field next year for honors and grandstanding. I hope they decline. hAHAHA, they are getting tons of 1 stars on yelp now. Soon you will need to do paid services like Angie's List to get anything close to accurate in reviews. It already is that way. Anyone who goes to Yelp is an idiot.
IDBillzFan Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 It already is that way. Anyone who goes to Yelp is an idiot. Actually, Yelp is a pretty damn good site if you're not the idiot.
GG Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 The only issue I take with this is that the the NFL will bring the St Louis area police officers and servicemen on the field next year for honors and grandstanding. I hope they decline. Actually, your first inclination was spot on. Good luck to the next Rams player who's stopped for a traffic infraction or anything else where the police may be involved. I doubt that "do you know who I am" defense will help.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 They are citizens too. The NFL made the obviously correct decision to ignore the complaint and not turn the spotlight on themselves. Yes they are citizens. The police are citizens w/more priviledge and entitlement. Since they are entrusted by the taxpayer to enforce the law, they are given the benefit of doubt in disputes between normal citizens. Example, see the USSC decisions on why cops are given the benefit of doubt when using force. Given this, they have to act like better citizens and not come off as whiny... Like they did with the NFL. Bottom line, the police are held to a higher standard as citizens. With that higher standard comes priviledge and entitlement. Doing what they did petitioning/requesting the NFL to do something against its players abuses that priviledge granted to them. Somebody should have been smarter before making this request to the NFL. Yes. The NFL made the correct decision.
KD in CA Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 But let a Republican aide post a Facebook comment about the way the president's daughters dress for a public appearance, and progressives don't stop bitching and moaning until the aide is out of work. Not to nitpick, but they continued bitching and moaning for another two days after the aide was out of work.
Alaska Darin Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Not to nitpick, but they continued bitching and moaning for another two days after the aide was out of work. I don't get the incessant need to go after the children of politicians. Like there aren't bigger issues in the world?
KD in CA Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Yes they are citizens. The police are citizens w/more priviledge and entitlement. Since they are entrusted by the taxpayer to enforce the law, they are given the benefit of doubt in disputes between normal citizens. Example, see the USSC decisions on why cops are given the benefit of doubt when using force. Given this, they have to act like better citizens and not come off as whiny... Like they did with the NFL. Bottom line, the police are held to a higher standard as citizens. With that higher standard comes priviledge and entitlement. Doing what they did petitioning/requesting the NFL to do something against its players abuses that priviledge granted to them. Somebody should have been smarter before making this request to the NFL. Yes. The NFL made the correct decision. Really?? Could have fooled me! Perhaps if the police had been given the benefit of the doubt they deserve, instead of vilified at every turn from the President on down, they might not be so touchy.
boyst Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Actually, Yelp is a pretty damn good site if you're not the idiot. Not in this part. Here in small town BFE you don't get any reasonable reviews. You get maybe 15 at the most and 5 of them are giving it high regards, 5 of them say it is horrible and 5 of them say nothing at all or complete jibberish.
KD in CA Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 I don't get the incessant need to go after the children of politicians. Like there aren't bigger issues in the world? Oh I agree, and certainly shed no tears for the idiot who made the comments, but Mock has a point about the double standard.
Alaska Darin Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Oh I agree, and certainly shed no tears for the idiot who made the comments, but Mock has a point about the double standard. Can't argue that. Most liberals are completely hypocritical on almost everything.
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 I don't get the incessant need to go after the children of politicians. Like there aren't bigger issues in the world? But...family values!!! Can't argue that. Most liberals are completely hypocritical on almost everything. Let's be fair - conservatives are just as bad.
boyst Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 I don't get the incessant need to go after the children of politicians. Like there aren't bigger issues in the world? The lowest hanging fruit is always in grasp to those only able to reach so far.
IDBillzFan Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Let's be fair - conservatives are just as bad. I would argue Republicans are just as bad. Conservatives -- never to be confused with Republicans -- tend to be much less hypocritical, which is what gets them in hot water with establishment Republicans.
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 It exists because police officers are subject to the whims pf politicians who pander to the mob rule of their constituents. And frankly this is a whole lot of noise over nothing. Welcome to molehill mountain. Police officers are agents of the government, and are subject to the laws which define their role as agents of the government. These are not "whims". Nor are their any actual "whims" to which they are subject. Further, as government agents, they are our servants; and if new laws are passed to which they must report, so be it. They are at the disposal of the people, not the other way around. That's how representitive government works. Really?? Could have fooled me! Perhaps if the police had been given the benefit of the doubt they deserve, instead of vilified at every turn from the President on down, they might not be so touchy. Government agents, especially those of the executive whom are empowered to act upon the population with force, should never be "given the benefit of the doubt". They should always be expected to prove that the force used was justified when called into question, as they did in this case. The fact that race baiters have chosen to immorally seize upon specific incidents to encite politically and monetarilly beneficial uprisings should never change that standard.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Actually, your first inclination was spot on. Good luck to the next Rams player who's stopped for a traffic infraction or anything else where the police may be involved. I doubt that "do you know who I am" defense will help. And rightly so. Nobody should EVER ask for "professional courtesy" especially being a football player IN THIS SITUATION. I absolutely hate this thinking. Gee officer, "I was speeding to practice." :-/ Take the ticket and man-up unless you have a valid case. My uncle and Godfather was a cop in town when we were growing up... I wouldn't dare use his name for any reason! Now, my older sister... In a heartbeat! We had an incident @ the lock years ago. Off-duty Chicago Police in a pleasure boat came in with a tanker barge. Pleasure boats aren't allowed to lock through with tankers/HazMat shipping. The pleasure boats have to wait, sometimes it may take hours, usually only the time for one lockage in that direction and then back again on the turnback... About 45 minutes @ most... Usually. Anyway, the off-duty cops (drunk out of their minds) came in anyway. To make a long story short, it took us 4 hours to get these above the law douchebags out... How would that have looked to the other 100's of boaters if I would have just let them go through? Locking procedure is already a mystery to many even know it is all written down word for word in law (USC 33 CFR 207.300). How ethical would that be? Just because they are cops that are loud, drunk & obnoxious, threatening to abuse their power and weapons? Perception is almost everything. Well after 4 hours, I take they were slowly sobering up... And I get paid by the hour. Eventually, their CO had to come in a calm the situation (them) and get them to comply. The funny thing is they would have been through in around 45 minutes if they just complied... Boy were they loaded, they threatened to stake out our road and give tickets, etc... LMAO. This incident was 20 years ago... I got zero tickets outside our access road in 20 years. What douchebags. Making it tough on ever other law abiding citizen/taxpayer that had to wait while their antics of priviledge and entitlement played out in the hot summer sun. Just do your job the right way and ETHICALLY, follow the SOP and there is no problem. No need to go "tit-for-tat." No need to abuse your power. And there should be no need for a football player to ask for "professional courtesy"... It's not like they get it anyway nowadays. I think mother's of cops are even having a hard time get cut some courtesy nowadays. ;-) "Sorry Mom, you gotta wait for the oil tow... Dock it on the other side of the river and chill! We will be back in 45!" ;-P ;-P Really?? Could have fooled me! Perhaps if the police had been given the benefit of the doubt they deserve, instead of vilified at every turn from the President on down, they might not be so touchy. You do have a point. But Officer Wilson was given the benny of doubt by the Grand Jury. Justice played out. He was treated as more credible and rightly so. Not in this part. Here in small town BFE you don't get any reasonable reviews. You get maybe 15 at the most and 5 of them are giving it high regards, 5 of them say it is horrible and 5 of them say nothing at all or complete jibberish. Excuse me, I speak jibberish. Please explain this post. I am not too much up on the lingo. What does BFE mean? Sorry for being lazy. ;-) I don't get the incessant need to go after the children of politicians. Like there aren't bigger issues in the world? Unless it is Chelsea Clinton of course... Then Katy bar the door! ;-P EDIT: Jboyst... I figured it out. But what does "BFE" mean?
boyst Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 And rightly so. Nobody should EVER ask for "professional courtesy" especially being a football player IN THIS SITUATION. I absolutely hate this thinking. Gee officer, "I was speeding to practice." :-/ Take the ticket and man-up unless you have a valid case. My uncle and Godfather was a cop in town when we were growing up... I wouldn't dare use his name for any reason! Now, my older sister... In a heartbeat! We had an incident @ the lock years ago. Off-duty Chicago Police in a pleasure boat came in with a tanker barge. Pleasure boats aren't allowed to lock through with tankers/HazMat shipping. The pleasure boats have to wait, sometimes it may take hours, usually only the time for one lockage in that direction and then back again on the turnback... About 45 minutes @ most... Usually. Anyway, the off-duty cops (drunk out of their minds) came in anyway. To make a long story short, it took us 4 hours to get these above the law douchebags out... How would that have looked to the other 100's of boaters if I would have just let them go through? Locking procedure is already a mystery to many even know it is all written down word for word in law (USC 33 CFR 207.300). How ethical would that be? Just because they are cops that are loud, drunk & obnoxious, threatening to abuse their power and weapons? Perception is almost everything. Well after 4 hours, I take they were slowly sobering up... And I get paid by the hour. Eventually, their CO had to come in a calm the situation (them) and get them to comply. The funny thing is they would have been through in around 45 minutes if they just complied... Boy were they loaded, they threatened to stake out our road and give tickets, etc... LMAO. This incident was 20 years ago... I got zero tickets outside our access road in 20 years. What douchebags. Making it tough on ever other law abiding citizen/taxpayer that had to wait while their antics of priviledge and entitlement played out in the hot summer sun. Just do your job the right way and ETHICALLY, follow the SOP and there is no problem. No need to go "tit-for-tat." No need to abuse your power. And there should be no need for a football player to ask for "professional courtesy"... It's not like they get it anyway nowadays. I think mother's of cops are even having a hard time get cut some courtesy nowadays. ;-) "Sorry Mom, you gotta wait for the oil tow... Dock it on the other side of the river and chill! We will be back in 45!" ;-P ;-P You do have a point. But Officer Wilson was given the benny of doubt by the Grand Jury. Justice played out. He was treated as more credible and rightly so. Excuse me, I speak jibberish. Please explain this post. I am not too much up on the lingo. What does BFE mean? Sorry for being lazy. ;-) Unless it is Chelsea Clinton of course... Then Katy bar the door! ;-P EDIT: Jboyst... I figured it out. But what does "BFE" mean? butt !@#$ing egypt.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Police officers are agents of the government, and are subject to the laws which define their role as agents of the government. These are not "whims". Nor are their any actual "whims" to which they are subject. Further, as government agents, they are our servants; and if new laws are passed to which they must report, so be it. They are at the disposal of the people, not the other way around. That's how representitive government works. Government agents, especially those of the executive whom are empowered to act upon the population with force, should never be "given the benefit of the doubt". They should always be expected to prove that the force used was justified when called into question, as they did in this case. The fact that race baiters have chosen to immorally seize upon specific incidents to encite politically and monetarilly beneficial uprisings should never change that standard. I agree to a point... But it isn't a perfect liberatrian world filled with pretty rainbows and purple flying unicorns while we all live on Big Candy Mountain. As public servants, the police are entrusted with force and to use it correctly. They are treated as more credible in certain situations as was Officer Wilson... And rightly so... That's what I meant by saying "benefit of doubt." butt !@#$ing egypt. LMAO! HA! I was sure it was "Bumble F!@K Everyplace." ;-)
Alaska Darin Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Police officers are agents of the government, and are subject to the laws which define their role as agents of the government. These are not "whims". Nor are their any actual "whims" to which they are subject. It would have been better for you to type "I don't live in reality or have any experience in this area but I'm going to arrogantly stand by my stupidity because that's the guy that I am."
Recommended Posts