Douschebag Hall of Fame

Landlord said:
Yeah...that's the problem. Police can't have normal human responses, sorry. If you can't do better than 'normal' in the face of stress then you should not be a police officer.
Click to expand...
I agree, in theory.

In practice, deviations are and will forever be inevitable. The goal has to be to minimize them.

 
RedDenver said:
Huh, I did the exact same thing and saw tens of thousands of peaceful protesters and only a hundred-ish looters/rioters.
Click to expand...
Really?

I saw hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters and thousands of looters/rioters.  

But the topic was being okay with the looting and rioting.  Knapper said no one is okay with it.  But it seems me and your, at the least, agree that on the low end 100ish people are okay with it.

 
knapplc said:
What's concerning is, we're seeing patterns of abuse across the country in disconnected municipalities.
Click to expand...
I agree, and I wish I had good answers for how to address it. I feel like I'm more apt to identify problems with policing, its culture, the system, etc., rather than any actual solutions and I hate being that type of person.

 
I don't feel confident in any specific solutions either but fundamental reform of the hiring qualifications/de-escalation training/accountability structures for the police is a big start, as would be the de-militarization, more public transparency, and even disarming the police to some extent. Don't have to disarm all of them, but having a system where certain ranks (with corresponding increases in training and evaluation) are granted for certain permissions.

 
I don't know what the police training is but I get the feeling some of you think that they just apply online, get called in for a 5 minute interview, get hired and start the next day, full time, with a gun.

 
Landlord said:
I don't feel confident in any specific solutions either but fundamental reform of the hiring qualifications/de-escalation training/accountability structures for the police is a big start, as would be the de-militarization, more public transparency, and even disarming the police to some extent. Don't have to disarm all of them, but having a system where certain ranks (with corresponding increases in training and evaluation) are granted for certain permissions.
Click to expand...




Step 1 is leaders and regular people need to stop with the knee jerk reaction of getting pissed off anytime anyone says there needs to be police reform. People need to start listening when there are peaceful protests.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver said:
Why is it ok for the police to shoot at a guy with a microphone and camera crew that's posing no threat to anyone? Who were the police protecting or serving by doing that?
Click to expand...
Who said that's okay? I didn't say that's okay.

If you're referring to the reporter I've been calling whiner guy, that is not how I saw it happen. He was in the mob when he got gassed and took the rubber bullet. Then the mob retreated, he retreated a little but stayed between the mob and the police line. I do not believe anything happened to him at anytime he could have been identified as press. But that isn't really my issue with him. He was in a dangerous situation, took a couple bumps because of it but then, afterwards, went on frequent rants about how the attack was unprovoked and without warning. My opinion is that mob received plenty of warning that they were going to be forced to move. And like most others I've seen, they held their ground until the gas started. None of us know how "provoked" the situation was but it sure didn't seem as he began portraying it and I didn't feel it was right for reporter on national coverage to basically choose sides and unnecessarily influence those who might be watching. And I probably error on the side of thinking people should move when the police ask them to. I doubt there are many cases where they move crowds like that for sh#ts and giggles. Probably, usually, there is some safety concern, egress, threats to property we are not privy to etc. So yeah, I'm a little guilty of thinking crowds that are in the general vicinity of rioting, should be a little more proactive in protecting themselves. They should know what is coming. That doesn't absolve police of any possible wrongdoing but I'm kind of tired of people throwing items and insults at them for hours and thinking it can continue ad nauseum. Anybody who is surprised at the first teargas canister or rubber bullet, probably isn't paying close enough attention. If that is me white knighting, then so be it.

 
Landlord said:
Yeah...that's the problem. Police can't have normal human responses, sorry. If you can't do better than 'normal' in the face of stress then you should not be a police officer.
Click to expand...
And this is our differences in a nutshell. You want perfect and it doesn’t exist. And I’m allowing more towards normal. I would have to do a bunch of math that I’m not inclined to do at the moment. But how many police have been involved with crowd control these last 4 or 5 days? And how many protesters that blurred the line between peaceful and too aggressive? Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of interactions between pissed off protesters and cops who would really prefer to be safe at home with their families but instead are being insulted and assaulted because a fraction of them should not be wearing the uniform. Now, how many examples have we seen on video of the police doing wrong. 100.....200 examples. I’m not saying even one of those is okay or should be acceptable behavior but goddammit it’s going to happen in that environment. And realize, virtually every single one that happened or could be manipulated to look like it happened was captured on video by somebody. Zero tolerance for it in a riot is not realistic. I guess I reserve my zero tolerance stance for the George Floyd situations. That is something that should never happen.

So, if we are having a difference of opinion, it is likely over some gray area between normal human response and the ideal of perfect unfailing automatons. That isn’t me condoning any of it. It’s just acknowledging that some of it will happen in those heightened situations. And back to my math.....rough numbers, it is way less than 1% of cops who overstepped acceptability, in a riot atmosphere. It’s not perfect but I think it’s pretty close to about as good as we can expect. And I would say there are likely upwards of 5% to 10% of officers who should be removed from their jobs or not allowed contact with the public. That’s just some percentages I pulled out of my a$$ based on my interactions with police and the attitudes I’ve witnessed. It’s not a gentle job. Who wants to deal with criminals, problems and belligerent people on a daily basis? It would wear on a person pretty darn quick. The culture needs to change so those who are unable to deal with it get identified instead of it being a sort of good ole boy club that celebrates becoming more like the criminals they deal with. 1% or 5% or 10%. 90%+ are doing it right, and paying the price for those who aren’t. The good ones want the change as desperately as the rest of us. So yeah, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt in some very bad situations.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JJ Husker said:
Who said that's okay? I didn't say that's okay.

If you're referring to the reporter I've been calling whiner guy, that is not how I saw it happen. He was in the mob when he got gassed and took the rubber bullet. Then the mob retreated, he retreated a little but stayed between the mob and the police line. I do not believe anything happened to him at anytime he could have been identified as press. But that isn't really my issue with him. He was in a dangerous situation, took a couple bumps because of it but then, afterwards, went on frequent rants about how the attack was unprovoked and without warning. My opinion is that mob received plenty of warning that they were going to be forced to move. And like most others I've seen, they held their ground until the gas started. None of us know how "provoked" the situation was but it sure didn't seem as he began portraying it and I didn't feel it was right for reporter on national coverage to basically choose sides and unnecessarily influence those who might be watching. And I probably error on the side of thinking people should move when the police ask them to. I doubt there are many cases where they move crowds like that for sh#ts and giggles. Probably, usually, there is some safety concern, egress, threats to property we are not privy to etc. So yeah, I'm a little guilty of thinking crowds that are in the general vicinity of rioting, should be a little more proactive in protecting themselves. They should know what is coming. That doesn't absolve police of any possible wrongdoing but I'm kind of tired of people throwing items and insults at them for hours and thinking it can continue ad nauseum. Anybody who is surprised at the first teargas canister or rubber bullet, probably isn't paying close enough attention. If that is me white knighting, then so be it.
Click to expand...
I understand where you're coming from, but you're more concerned with the tone/style of the reporter than with the actions taken by the police. The job of the police is to defuse tensions, not merely say, "well, we warned 'em" and then respond with force.

De-escalation Keeps Protesters And Police Safer. Departments Respond With Force Anyway.

 
RedDenver said:
I understand where you're coming from, but you're more concerned with the tone/style of the reporter than with the actions taken by the police. The job of the police is to defuse tensions, not merely say, "well, we warned 'em" and then respond with force.

De-escalation Keeps Protesters And Police Safer. Departments Respond With Force Anyway.
Click to expand...


You're a better man than I, Gunga Din.

These nits who only see things from one perspective... just can't hang with them.

 
Back
Top