Police actions in the future...crime increase
- Thread starter ihhawk
- Start date
Both parties have recourse, and I'm sorry you find spitting on officers and yelling racial slurs at them "reasonable recourse". Many of us don't.
Apparently not the recourse to band together an sue. Why do you think that is? Do you think that's just? Injustice leads to more injustice. Give people just recourse and unjust recourse becomes unreasonable. It's pretty simple. Or you could blame the victims.
I have. I was a police officer in the military. I do exactly what officers say when I encounter them. I've had no problems.
You keep missing the point. I didn't suggest in any way that "citizens" do not have any legal recourse against the "government" for dereliction of duty. You, however, initiated this thread by suggesting that "communities" should bring "class action" lawsuits against the police. Class actions are subject to specific requirements, that would be virtually impossible to meet in the scenario that you described.
That does not mean, however, that citizens are without legal recourse.
So work through the legislative process and change the laws via the electoral process as the founding fathers intended. Don't rely on shake down rackets such as the ACLU to accomplish for you what you can't do by building a consensus on an issue.
Huh? the ACLU works within existing laws and our legal system. They work for liberals and republicans and all others to protect their Constitutionally guaranteed rights. How is that a shake down racket?
I have no idea what you do for a living, but let's say you make a mistake in your job. Any mistake even if it is small. If your boss called you into a meeting one day and said, moving forward if any of you make any mistake regardless of it's importance or size your position will be terminated and you will never be able to work in your chosen profession ever again. Human nature will lead you to not only being extremely careful moving forward, but it will also force you to completely avoid any activities that you feel would increase you chances of making said mistake. In essence your risk aversion mode would kick in. You will now look for an easier way to do your job which will reduce the risk of mistake, even if this makes you less effective at you job. Remember, your boss didn't tell you that you would be fired for being less effective in your job, he told you there was a zero tolerance for mistakes made. If you say that you wouldn't do this, then you are being intellectually dishonest. The scenario I just articulated is basically what has now happened in law enforcement. Police officers now know that if they make one mistake regardless of it's importance, their job, career and livelihood for their family is gone, no questions asked. So until this is corrected, you will see no pro-active policing unless there are contractual guarantees made by municipal and state employers preventing these types of terminations.
With all due respect, if you are so naïve that you don't understand how the ACLU is almost 90% funded by the political left in this country, and they very often use the tactic of merely threatening a lawsuit to drive certain organizations that neither want nor can afford to pay for an extended legal battle into financial settlements, then it's really not even worth anyone's time to bring you up to speed. A mere threat of an action in order to generate a financial consideration for you or who you represent is the text book definition of a racket.
The ACLU has successfully defended the KKK, nazi groups and gun owners on multiple occasions. They have filed joint lawsuits along side of the NRA. They protect everyone. It may seem like they are left, because the religious right is often the suppressor of civil rights and therefore a frequent opposition to the ACLU. Even so the ACLU defends the rights of the religious and the church all the time. They backed Chik fil A, when cities threatened to ban them over anti gay comments. They have even filed a lawsuit on behalf of Westboro Babtist church. Me, naive? No sir, it is you who is ignorant, or against the Constitution.
In fact the ACLU has even defended the right of Christians to protest, get this, the ACLU.
https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-tell...ool-allow-students-protest-aclu-football-game
Oh, I see, you are completely creating a scenario that has not taken place...and using it to make your invented point.
Brilliant. And you want "contractual guarantees" against being fired for, well, not doing your job correctly. So you are pushing for a, what? A union? Interesting, don't most Law Enforcements have them?
Also, I love the general idea that Chief is purporting: That LEOs are now summarily dismissed for making mistakes. Yeah, right. I'd wager this is still one of the hardest jobs to get fired from.
No I got your meaning originally. I just think it's a shame communities can't do as I suggest.
I think the FF wanted or should have wanted aggrieved citizens to seek redress through the courts.
Damn you're jumping through all sorts of mental hoops to accept a bunch of unionized government employees sitting on their rears.
That is the perception amongst many in law enforcement at this time. If you are not recognizing this, then you have not been listening to the news. The Police Corporal in Texas was forced to resign as a result of drawing his weapon. He has also received multiple death threats directed at him and his family and has had to move into protective custody. Was he mistaken in his actions? In my opinion yes. Did that mistake warrant removal from the force? in my opinion no. Especially when the tape clearly shows multiple people defying his orders. Remember, it is against the law in all 50 states and in DC to not comply with the directives of a police officer.
Bottom line is there are unintended consequences for every policy and action. Right now it is considered not only OK within the African-American community to defy police directives. That will cause problems. Like it or not.
I feel sorry for the law abiding folks in the lower income neighborhoods that will now be victimized by the thug element.
See you really ought to feel sorry for all the upper income folks as their taxes should be raised to pay for all the lawsuits that the poors should justly bring against a city employing such police officers.
LOL. You must have been in a dark cave for the past 30-40 years. The ACLU has been nothing but a democrat political organization for that long. Unless I missed it jumping in to protect the 1st amendment rights of the pizza restaurant in Indy?
Citation to his forceful resignation? Any link with support will do.
Protective Custody? I'd like to read about that. Last thing I read was his lawyer saying he was at an "undisclosed location." Is that what you are describing?
Remember, it is against the law in all 50 states and in DC to not comply with the directives of a police officer.
Yes, if only there were rules/laws/training on his use of a firearm, and use of physical force..........................oh wait, you seem to think that these 50-state laws say, "You are not allowed to not comply with an officer, if you do, you are allowed to be physically harmed, and even drawn on, and shot."
These kids were all arrested under the state's statute, right? Charged, convicted? No, of course not.
So, does the ACLU protect first amendment rights, or don't they? I'm intrigued to hear your answer.
Like I said, you can't win the argument
He doesn't even know that the insurance company would pay the liability claim, not the taxpayers. Like my grandfather always said, you can't argue with stupid.
They have taken some "token" cases like this in the past, but the point still stands: They are overwhelmingly liberal and take overwhelmingly leftist causes. And the KKK is not a conservative or right group.
The law requiring compliance with police directives applies to persons who are not under arrest, also.
Yea that's right, a bunch of pussies. Funny how the mindset has shifted on the perception of our police force. It's not a job I'd like because it's a thankless job. And then you have the people that call them out and refer to them as pussies. Maybe those people should become a police officer and show them how it's done. But then again, I doubt they have what it takes.
I think we need to have higher standards to become a police officer. Too many HS idiots, with a marginal IQ and a chip on their shoulders are currently police officers.
We need to increase their pay, only take the best of the best and weed out people who can't handle the pressures that come with being a police officer.
We need to increase their pay, only take the best of the best and weed out people who can't handle the pressures that come with being a police officer.
Excellent post but you should refrain from writing such logical, realistic and truthful posts. Those who cannot think for themselves will not tolerate such reasonable behavior.
Coff hasn't answered about the ACLU/1st Amendment, so I'll post this link:
https://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression
I'm sure he will find a way to say those aren't real, or are in some way partisan. Some excerpts:
The ACLU of Nebraska (2014) defended a Christian man’s right to distribute religious pamphlets outside an arena.
http://www.aclunebraska.org/index.p...tributed-religious-pamphlets-outside-of-arena
The ACLU of Tennessee (2014) defended an elementary-school student’s right to read his Bible during a free-reading period.
https://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-tn-protects-students-right-read-bible-school
The ACLU of North Carolina (2012) advocated for allowing a 6-year-old to read aloud a poem with the word "God" in it at her school's Veterans Day assembly, in response to school officials' decision to remove the word.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/12/3722569/divining-the-tricky-line-on-god.html
The ACLU of Louisiana (2012) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a member of Raven Ministries, a Christian congregation that regularly preaches the Gospel in New Orleans's French Quarter. The lawsuit challenged a city ordinance that restricts religious speech on Bourbon Street after dark. As a result of the lawsuit, a federal judge issued an order that blocks enforcement of the law.
https://www.laaclu.org/press/2012/092112.htm
The ACLU of Virginia (2012 and 2010) opposed bans on students' right to wear rosary beads at two public middle schools. The schools dropped the bans after receiving letters from the ACLU.
/religion-belief/letter-matacoa-middle-school
/religion-belief/letter-fairfield-middle-school
Those are just a few, and I tried to just post the Christian-related ones, because I know all minority religions must be democrat-related.........
https://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression
I'm sure he will find a way to say those aren't real, or are in some way partisan. Some excerpts:
The ACLU of Nebraska (2014) defended a Christian man’s right to distribute religious pamphlets outside an arena.
http://www.aclunebraska.org/index.p...tributed-religious-pamphlets-outside-of-arena
The ACLU of Tennessee (2014) defended an elementary-school student’s right to read his Bible during a free-reading period.
https://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-tn-protects-students-right-read-bible-school
The ACLU of North Carolina (2012) advocated for allowing a 6-year-old to read aloud a poem with the word "God" in it at her school's Veterans Day assembly, in response to school officials' decision to remove the word.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/12/3722569/divining-the-tricky-line-on-god.html
The ACLU of Louisiana (2012) filed a lawsuit on behalf of a member of Raven Ministries, a Christian congregation that regularly preaches the Gospel in New Orleans's French Quarter. The lawsuit challenged a city ordinance that restricts religious speech on Bourbon Street after dark. As a result of the lawsuit, a federal judge issued an order that blocks enforcement of the law.
https://www.laaclu.org/press/2012/092112.htm
The ACLU of Virginia (2012 and 2010) opposed bans on students' right to wear rosary beads at two public middle schools. The schools dropped the bans after receiving letters from the ACLU.
/religion-belief/letter-matacoa-middle-school
/religion-belief/letter-fairfield-middle-school
Those are just a few, and I tried to just post the Christian-related ones, because I know all minority religions must be democrat-related.........
Here you go.
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/201...ed-gun-on-questions-why-he-was-arrested.html/
Second paragraph down: "McKinney Police Cpl. David Eric Casebolt, a 10-year veteran of the department, voluntarily stepped down amid an internal police investigation and surging public pressure, including death threats." Sounds forced to me, unless death threats don't count in your mind.
It is a violation of law in all 50 states to defy the instructions of a sworn law enforcement officer. In Iowa it is a simple misdemeanor and comes with a max penalty of 30 days in jail and/or a $65-$650 fine. I believe section 723.1 - 723.03 of the Iowa code covers this. This specifically discusses failing to disperse from a public gathering at the instruction of an officer. Clearly what happened in Texas.
I know your pretty dense on this issue, hope I dumbed this down enough for you to understand.
What a perfect post. Highlights how poor your previous one was.
Claim he was forced to resign. Check.
Cite article which doesn't support? Check.
Cute a law that does not enhance your point? Check.
Trifecta.
Claim he was forced to resign. Check.
Cite article which doesn't support? Check.
Cute a law that does not enhance your point? Check.
Trifecta.
'
What does "cute a law" mean?
So you believe a 10-year veteran ranked police officer just woke up one morning and said, "i'm going to resign from my job today". Ya that's completely logical. I guess you can self rationalize it however you want to make you feel like you win. Tell trolley to keep it at a reasonable speed when he takes you back to the neighborhood of make-believe.
Now you're just trolling because no one can be this un-intelligent.
What does "cute a law" mean?
So you believe a 10-year veteran ranked police officer just woke up one morning and said, "i'm going to resign from my job today". Ya that's completely logical. I guess you can self rationalize it however you want to make you feel like you win. Tell trolley to keep it at a reasonable speed when he takes you back to the neighborhood of make-believe.
Now you're just trolling because no one can be this un-intelligent.
TIH would applaud if the cop was killed by those making the threats. His ilk gets apoplectic if the state enforces capital punishment against someone who tortured and murdered little girls. It's a mental disorder that can't be defeated with reason.
The smoke from those straw men is burning my eyes, your stupidity has all but blinded me.
You are a dishonest troll.
You are a dishonest troll.
So far I have learned:
He is lying about his resignation.
His boss is lying about his unacceptable conduct.
You two are proving my point better than I ever did.
He is lying about his resignation.
His boss is lying about his unacceptable conduct.
You two are proving my point better than I ever did.
