Where have all the police gone?

[BackInTex]

That question will be asked in 5-10 years.

Folks like SSS, Bob#s, the anarchist protesters, Al Shartpton, all will ask that question.

I'll know.

More blacks will die each time Nike releases a new pair of tennis shoes. None died last week BECAUSE of the police, but had they not shown up, there would be dead blacks everywhere.


Seattle

Houston - over 50 police responded. No serious injuries.

Huntsville, AL

Detroit

Orlando and others

It is sad folks like SSS and Bob#s can't or won't understand what their attitudes for the police do to folks who are and may become police. Bob#s want's to mandate body cameras and suspensions when cops try to do their job without getting killed. We ask cops to put themselves between us and dangerous people. They are not perfect and will make mistakes. They are not so unlike us in that they want to go home alive and see their kids and family. They have seen their comrades gunned down in seconds because their comrade hesitated, had second thoughts or thought maybe someone might be watching and I'll lose my job if I shoot.

The problem is NOT the police. It is the culture of the criminals. The 12 year old boy that was shot is a tragedy. There are white people shot and killed by the police, too. Like the blacks shot by police, most of them probably should have been. Was there crime a capital crime? Probably not, but when it comes to the cop getting shot or the suspect, the cop will choose the suspect, just like we would in their shoes.

[BackInTex]

An obvious result of the unwarranted backlash against the police.

Another police officer gunned down because he didn't fire first.

Thug protest on private property.

Story (with video) that has a happy ending But it does show how fast a police officer's life can change. This happened here in Houston and is an almost daily occurance for police here. For those who respect the law, this is a scary video to watch. For others, I'm sure they'll question why or how the officer was able to return fire so fast, and did he really need to do it. Also the officer can be seen ejecting his empty clip and reloading. [liberal thought]Did he really need to shoot that many times? Surely the suspect would comply after the first two or three shots. [/liberal thought]

[Bob Juch]

An obvious result of the unwarranted backlash against the police.

Another police officer gunned down because he didn't fire first.

Thug protest on private property.

Story (with video) that has a happy ending But it does show how fast a police officer's life can change. This happened here in Houston and is an almost daily occurance for police here. For those who respect the law, this is a scary video to watch. For others, I'm sure they'll question why or how the officer was able to return fire so fast, and did he really need to do it. Also the officer can be seen ejecting his empty clip and reloading. [liberal thought]Did he really need to shoot that many times? Surely the suspect would comply after the first two or three shots. [/liberal thought]

Where did you get those made-up headlines? Nothing in the stories reflect what they say.

[lilclyde54]

I just wish some of the blame for this tragedy would go to some of the professional protestors (Sharpton, Jackson, take your pick, there are plenty to choose from) who are instrumental in creating the societal mind set that helps lead anyone down this path of lawlessness. Of course, our MSM certainly won't do that.

[silverscreenselect]

It is sad folks like SSS and Bob#s can't or won't understand what their attitudes for the police do to folks who are and may become police. Bob#s want's to mandate body cameras and suspensions when cops try to do their job without getting killed. We ask cops to put themselves between us and dangerous people. They are not perfect and will make mistakes. They are not so unlike us in that they want to go home alive and see their kids and family. They have seen their comrades gunned down in seconds because their comrade hesitated, had second thoughts or thought maybe someone might be watching and I'll lose my job if I shoot.

A lot of customer service people have their calls monitored as part of quality control. They could lose their jobs if the employer thinks they are being rude to a customer. Other employers monitor their employees to see if they are goofing off on the job or spending too much time on the internet (which are often the same thing). I don't see BiT getting upset about those poor employees who are being watched or listened to. Plus, goofing off on the job or being rude to a customer doesn't get anyone killed.

[silverscreenselect]

Probably not, but when it comes to the cop getting shot or the suspect, the cop will choose the suspect, just like we would in their shoes.

If I was performing open heart surgery on somebody, my hands would probably be shaking and I might very well cut someplace I shouldn't. That's why I shouldn't be a surgeon. It doesn't mean that we should hold surgeons to the standards of what ordinary people would do in their places. We hold them to a higher standard.

For the same reason, we shouldn't judge police by what we might have done in their place. We haven't had the benefit of police training and we're not supposed to be as observant and able to distinguish routing problems from truly life endangering situations as we should expect police to do. People who have poor judgment or see themselves as latter day Wyatt Earps or are itching to settle grudges shouldn't be police. I would hope BiT isn't suggesting we hold police to the same standards that we hold a George Zimmerman.

[BackInTex]

I was at the mall today doing some Christmas shopping. Saw a thug walking by with a stocking cap that has "Fuck The Police" professionally embroidered on the front. Classy.

I wish someone would have played the knockout game on him. I wonder who he'd call? His mama?

[BackInTex]

A lot of customer service people have their calls monitored as part of quality control. They could lose their jobs if the employer thinks they are being rude to a customer. Other employers monitor their employees to see if they are goofing off on the job or spending too much time on the internet (which are often the same thing). I don't see BiT getting upset about those poor employees who are being watched or listened to. Plus, goofing off on the job or being rude to a customer doesn't get anyone killed.

Only you would compare a customer service job to that of a policeman. Only you. Pathetic. Next time you're robbed call customer service.

[BackInTex]

Probably not, but when it comes to the cop getting shot or the suspect, the cop will choose the suspect, just like we would in their shoes.

If I was performing open heart surgery on somebody, my hands would probably be shaking and I might very well cut someplace I shouldn't. That's why I shouldn't be a surgeon. It doesn't mean that we should hold surgeons to the standards of what ordinary people would do in their places. We hold them to a higher standard.

For the same reason, we shouldn't judge police by what we might have done in their place. We haven't had the benefit of police training and we're not supposed to be as observant and able to distinguish routing problems from truly life endangering situations as we should expect police to do. People who have poor judgment or see themselves as latter day Wyatt Earps or are itching to settle grudges shouldn't be police. I would hope BiT isn't suggesting we hold police to the same standards that we hold a George Zimmerman.

No amount of training will make someone want to be shot instead of a criminal. No amount of training will teach someone to put an aggressor's life before that of his childrens' father or mother.

That said, Michael Brown was righteously shot. End of story.

[BackInTex]

Where did you get those made-up headlines? Nothing in the stories reflect what they say.

You're delousional. Everything in the stories reflect my hyperlinked text (no headlines).

[silverscreenselect]

A lot of customer service people have their calls monitored as part of quality control. They could lose their jobs if the employer thinks they are being rude to a customer. Other employers monitor their employees to see if they are goofing off on the job or spending too much time on the internet (which are often the same thing). I don't see BiT getting upset about those poor employees who are being watched or listened to. Plus, goofing off on the job or being rude to a customer doesn't get anyone killed.

Only you would compare a customer service job to that of a policeman. Only you. Pathetic. Next time you're robbed call customer service.

And what's your point? That because cops do a dangerous job that they should get a free pass for making a mistake no matter what the consequences? Cause that sure sounds like it. Every employee at that mall you were at is or can be monitored by their employers to be sure they treat customers properly, that they don't goof off, that they don't steal. None of them can get a customer killed if they screw up (or the employer thinks they screw up) but they all can lose their jobs.

As we've seen over and over again, cops can and do kill people. And we now have the technology that makes it a bit easier to determine if the cops were justified or trigger happy. And in a lot of other cases in which people just get roughed up. Or in other cases if cops just shake people down. And it also might help if some cop gets gunned down, like those two in New York, to help find and convict the people who shot them.

And you're upset because one of them might lose his job because he makes a mistake and some poor guy gets killed. Only you would be upset because someone proposes using technology that will, in the long run, see that we have a police force that does its job better and protects innocent people from harm. Only you. Pathetic. Why don't you ask the family of that guy in Georgia who go shot in the no knock raid if they're upset those cops might lose their jobs for making a mistake or glad they weren't wearing cameras?

[silverscreenselect]

Probably not, but when it comes to the cop getting shot or the suspect, the cop will choose the suspect, just like we would in their shoes.

If I was performing open heart surgery on somebody, my hands would probably be shaking and I might very well cut someplace I shouldn't. That's why I shouldn't be a surgeon. It doesn't mean that we should hold surgeons to the standards of what ordinary people would do in their places. We hold them to a higher standard.

For the same reason, we shouldn't judge police by what we might have done in their place. We haven't had the benefit of police training and we're not supposed to be as observant and able to distinguish routing problems from truly life endangering situations as we should expect police to do. People who have poor judgment or see themselves as latter day Wyatt Earps or are itching to settle grudges shouldn't be police. I would hope BiT isn't suggesting we hold police to the same standards that we hold a George Zimmerman.

No amount of training will make someone want to be shot instead of a criminal. No amount of training will teach someone to put an aggressor's life before that of his childrens' father or mother.

That said, Michael Brown was righteously shot. End of story.

How about that 12-year-old in Cleveland? Was he righteously shot? How about that man in Georgia who got killed in the no-knock raid? Was he righteously shot?

Training won't make cops want to be shot. Training will hopefully allow them to develop better judgment in accurately evaluating the risk of a situation so that people don't die in situations that should have been avoided. That includes the Michael Browns, but it also includes the 12-year-old boys in Cleveland and the grandfathers in Georgia.

Surgeons make mistakes in judgment; people die. Airline pilots make mistakes in judgment; people die. Cops make mistakes in judgment; people die. We should train them all as much as possible and hold them accountable for their errors in judgment.

[Bob Juch]

Where did you get those made-up headlines? Nothing in the stories reflect what they say.

You're delusional. Everything in the stories reflect my hyperlinked text (no headlines).

No, you're the delusional one. I don't have time to go into a detailed analysis, but a quick example: The article where your headline said the cop was shot because he didn't shoot first didn't mention at all who shot first or even if the cop shot at all.

[Bob Juch]

Probably not, but when it comes to the cop getting shot or the suspect, the cop will choose the suspect, just like we would in their shoes.

If I was performing open heart surgery on somebody, my hands would probably be shaking and I might very well cut someplace I shouldn't. That's why I shouldn't be a surgeon. It doesn't mean that we should hold surgeons to the standards of what ordinary people would do in their places. We hold them to a higher standard.

For the same reason, we shouldn't judge police by what we might have done in their place. We haven't had the benefit of police training and we're not supposed to be as observant and able to distinguish routing problems from truly life endangering situations as we should expect police to do. People who have poor judgment or see themselves as latter day Wyatt Earps or are itching to settle grudges shouldn't be police. I would hope BiT isn't suggesting we hold police to the same standards that we hold a George Zimmerman.

No amount of training will make someone want to be shot instead of a criminal. No amount of training will teach someone to put an aggressor's life before that of his childrens' father or mother.

That said, Michael Brown was righteously shot. End of story.

Apparently your definition of "righteously shot" includes someone who was executed while he had his hands up.

[BackInTex]

Apparently your definition of "righteously shot" includes someone who was executed while he had his hands up.

My definition includes application of the Constitution and the review of evidence by a Grand Jury, not Al Sharpton's mouth.

[Bob Juch]

Apparently your definition of "righteously shot" includes someone who was executed while he had his hands up.

My definition includes application of the Constitution and the review of evidence by a Grand Jury, not Al Sharpton's mouth.

Does that include the Fifth Amendment? When the D.A. presenting the case to the grand jury is the head of an organisation raising money for Darren Wilson and knowingly allows perjured testimony is that application of the Constitution?

[BackInTex]

Apparently your definition of "righteously shot" includes someone who was executed while he had his hands up.

My definition includes application of the Constitution and the review of evidence by a Grand Jury, not Al Sharpton's mouth.

Does that include the Fifth Amendment? When the D.A. presenting the case to the grand jury is the head of an organisation raising money for Darren Wilson and knowingly allows perjured testimony is that application of the Constitution?

Especially the 5th amendment.

But realize also, that the perception of bias does not mean bias. Nor does bias always result in an incorrect verdict. I will admit there is the appearance of bias, and that should have been eliminated. It does not mean a wrong decision was handed down.

[Bob Juch]

My definition includes application of the Constitution and the review of evidence by a Grand Jury, not Al Sharpton's mouth.

Does that include the Fifth Amendment? When the D.A. presenting the case to the grand jury is the head of an organisation raising money for Darren Wilson and knowingly allows perjured testimony is that application of the Constitution?

Especially the 5th amendment.

But realize also, that the perception of bias does not mean bias. Nor does bias always result in an incorrect verdict. I will admit there is the appearance of bias, and that should have been eliminated. It does not mean a wrong decision was handed down.

You seem to have a problem with the part I've put in bold:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

[BackInTex]

You seem to have a problem with the part I've put in bold:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I have no problem with that. I fully support due process.

You are the one wanting to deny officer Wilson his due process.

[Bob Juch]

You seem to have a problem with the part I've put in bold:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I have no problem with that. I fully support due process.

You are the one wanting to deny officer Wilson his due process.

No, I want him subjected to due process. When the grand jury is given known false testimony that's not due process.

[Bob Juch]

Who's to blame for Jerad and Amanda Miller killing two policemen and Joseph Wilcox?