Police Standards Are A Problem

[ExiledInIllinois]

18 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Hey, I’m the goddamn paterfamilias! I knows what I’m doins. 

 

 

You're wasting your time with @TakeYouToTasker Daddy never loved him.

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, The_Dude said:

 

I do not believe in hitting children. 

 

But for you I'd make an exception.

[The_Dude]

17 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

But for you I'd make an exception.

 

There it is! There’s a good one! I thank you. 

32 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

You're wasting your time with @TakeYouToTasker Daddy never loved him.

 

If he talks like he writes how could he? Insufferable. 

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, The_Dude said:

 

There it is! There’s a good one! I thank you. 

 

If he talks like he writes how could he? Insufferable. 

The question I've been meaning to ask you, if you don't believe in hitting kids is it because you'd just as soon shoot them?

[The_Dude]

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

The question I've been meaning to ask you, if you don't believe in hitting kids is it because you'd just as soon shoot them?

 

Dude, I hate dead kids. I’ve seen enough. I HATE Haj. I freaking HATE em. But I hate seeing dead kids, even Haj kids even more. 

 

I dont remember what I said, but I had to be restrained from beating some MP pog, Nasty Girls ass for killing haj kids. But that was 04. Thems were the wild Wild West days. Najaf 04 — good times. I take great satisfaction in personally shooting up the Najaf mosque. GREAT satisfaction. But on children I am a constant guardian. 

 

I know Haj children will grow up to be filthy Haj...but children are children. 

 

That said — military age males are game and in 3rd world shitholes and that age is 13 and up. 

 

But The_Dude protects children. Even Haj children. All children deserve to be children. 

 

As ive stated — my views on Haj are complex and not as simple as they can appear upon first glance at one of my rants. 

[Alaska Darin]

46 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Dude, I hate dead kids. I’ve seen enough. I HATE Haj. I freaking HATE em. But I hate seeing dead kids, even Haj kids even more. 

 

I dont remember what I said, but I had to be restrained from beating some MP pog, Nasty Girls ass for killing haj kids. But that was 04. Thems were the wild Wild West days. Najaf 04 — good times. I take great satisfaction in personally shooting up the Najaf mosque. GREAT satisfaction. But on children I am a constant guardian. 

 

I know Haj children will grow up to be filthy Haj...but children are children. 

 

That said — military age males are game and in 3rd world shitholes and that age is 13 and up. 

 

But The_Dude protects children. Even Haj children. All children deserve to be children. 

 

As ive stated — my views on Haj are complex and not as simple as they can appear upon first glance at one of my rants. 

Seriously...you need therapy.  Like serious...committed type therapy.  You have some serious PTSD going on.

[DC Tom]

6 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

Seriously...you need therapy.  Like serious...committed type therapy.  You have some serious PTSD going on.

 

Post-Toke Stoner Dipshittery?

[The_Dude]

9 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

Seriously...you need therapy.  Like serious...committed type therapy.  You have some serious PTSD going on.

 

I do not have PTSD, sir. I’ve a many a friend who suffer the affliction. I’d pay good money to go back to Najaf, 2004. If only it were possible. I digress.....

[Sig1Hunter]

14 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

I know Haj children will grow up to be filthy Haj...but children are children. 

 

That said — military age males are game and in 3rd world shitholes and that age is 13 and up. 

 

But The_Dude protects children. Even Haj children. All children deserve to be children.

 

So, 13 year olds are cool to kill overseas as long as they are in "3rd world shitholes", but 14 year old criminals that are physically resistant to uniformed police don't need to be taken to the ground and handcuffed? And any cop that would dare do that is a POS to you? Am i getting this right? 

 

And, why are you referring to yourself in the third person? 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

13 hours ago, Alaska Darin said:

Seriously...you need therapy.  Like serious...committed type therapy.  You have some serious PTSD going on.

 

I told him that weeks ago.

 

He's messed in the head.

 

[Not at the table Karlos]

21 hours ago, whatdrought said:

 

And at the same time, weed out a lot of good cops who either don’t have the ability to get a 4 year degree, or else don’t have the desire to spend 4 years in school to work a crappy job when they could get a 18 month trade cert. and get paid twice as much. (Though that does speak to your point about compensation for our police force)

 

 Again, my point is - education does not have value in of itself. I can easily find 100 highly educated people who can’t hold a candle to 100 uneducated people. School’s don’t teach brains. 

 

Im glad your experience with education was good for you, but I’d wager to gues that it was merely a key that unlocked your potential to be a decent person. It didn’t grant you that potential. That being said, that potential is unlocked through a billion different things for a billIon different people.

 

The problem (if there is one) is that the process of selecting officers and training officers is broken. And why wouldn’t it be- it’s a government program. 

 

Another huge issue that I have with this thread, is that, while it’s completely true that that cop didn’t need to act as aggressively as he did- the kid still earned it. When you resist the cops while in the midst of committing a crime, you subject yourself to intervention. Again, not defending this officer, but the fact that the Media is sitting down and treating this kid like he’s a victim and not addressing the fact that he broke the law and resisted the police, is one of the biggest problems in society. 

There is a whole generation that believes the cops can’t enforce laws and that if they do it’s racist or brutality. It’s ridiculous. I have absolutely no sympathy for this kid, regardless of his being 14. 

You are clearly defending the officer assaulting this minor. No where in the video does it show the kid resisting. This is police brutality and I hope the family sues because they will get a lot of money for this. 

 

The police hire the uneducated because they don't question things. They go along with the flow and are easily indoctrinated. A lot of police agencies won't hire you if your IQ is above a certain level. Look at the difference between the amherst ny police department and others. Amherst wants educated officers and they are don't lose their minds beating the crap out of a minor.  It takes a special piece of ***** to think that this is ok. 

[The_Dude]

27 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

 

So, 13 year olds are cool to kill overseas as long as they are in "3rd world shitholes", but 14 year old criminals that are physically resistant to uniformed police don't need to be taken to the ground and handcuffed? And any cop that would dare do that is a POS to you? Am i getting this right? 

 

And, why are you referring to yourself in the third person? 

 

If they have a gun and are shooting at you, yes. If they're stealing candy bars, no. Not that hard.

[shrader]

2 minutes ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

You are clearly defending the officer assaulting this minor. No where in the video does it show the kid resisting. This is police brutality and I hope the family sues because they will get a lot of money for this. 

 

The police hire the uneducated because they don't question things. They go along with the flow and are easily indoctrinated. A lot of police agencies won't hire you if your IQ is above a certain level. Look at the difference between the amherst ny police department and others. Amherst wants educated officers and they are don't lose their minds beating the crap out of a minor.  It takes a special piece of ***** to think that this is ok. 

 

The video also doesn't show the kid stealing anything.  Even more proof that the kid is completely innocent.

[Not at the table Karlos]

1 minute ago, shrader said:

 

The video also doesn't show the kid stealing anything.  Even more proof that the kid is completely innocent.

What an idiotic reply..

 

Where did I say the kid was innocent? 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

What an idiotic reply..

 

Where did I say the kid was innocent? 

 

You didn't.  He's making the point that you don't know *****, because "the video doesn't show" is a piss-poor basis for an affirmative judgement.

[Not at the table Karlos]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

You didn't.  He's making the point that you don't know *****, because "the video doesn't show" is a piss-poor basis for an affirmative judgement.

So wouldn't that make the original post that I quoted a piss poor post because the guy assumed he resisted?

[shrader]

2 minutes ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

What an idiotic reply..

 

Where did I say the kid was innocent? 

 

And the part where you suggest that no resistance shown during 4 seconds of video means the kid did not resist?  Might as well take that to the next logical step.

[B-Man]

 

 

[whatdrought]

2 minutes ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

You are clearly defending the officer assaulting this minor. No where in the video does it show the kid resisting. This is police brutality and I hope the family sues because they will get a lot of money for this. 

 

The police hire the uneducated because they don't question things. They go along with the flow and are easily indoctrinated. A lot of police agencies won't hire you if your IQ is above a certain level. Look at the difference between the amherst ny police department and others. Amherst wants educated officers and they are don't lose their minds beating the crap out of a minor.  It takes a special piece of ***** to think that this is ok. 

 

Youre clearly defending the kid who is a thief.

 

go read all of my replies. 

 

The kid admits that he had previously been detained by a coach. He resisted, was back in the fray of it, and was then taken down by this cop.

 

Furthermore, if you’d chose to use your eyes to read before getting all up in ya feelins, you’d have seen several of my posts where I specifically said that I could not determine the context and that the officers action seemed violent to me.

 

what you highlighted from my post is true- when you break the law and resist, you deserve to get acted on by the cops. Whether or not the level of their actions is justified is another question. 

[Not at the table Karlos]

Just now, whatdrought said:

 

Youre clearly defending the kid who is a thief.

 

go read all of my replies. 

 

The kid admits that he had previously been detained by a coach. He resisted, was back in the fray of it, and was then taken down by this cop.

 

Furthermore, if you’d chose to use your eyes to read before getting all up in ya feelins, you’d have seen several of my posts where I specifically said that I could not determine the context and that the officers action seemed violent to me.

 

what you highlighted from my post is true- when you break the law and resist, you deserve to get acted on by the cops. Whether or not the level of their actions is justified is another question. 

Coach has no legal right to detain anybody. The kid can legally fight the coach if he puts his hands on him. That is not resisting arrest.  He broke the law by stealing a candy bar. He did not break the law by getting away from the coach. The police broke the law by assaulting a minor.