BLM Blamed for Spike in Deaths of Chicago's Blacks

[SuburbanFarmer]

you're being a clown right now.

two of us presented that scenario, and you responded to it.

yes police work alone often

no police dont shoot on sight as a matter of policy

Not an official policy, no. More of a de facto one. I'm sure that I don't need to pull up the videos and stories of kids getting shot in the back as they run, car chases ending in a hail of bullets, or a certain 8-year old that was shot within 2 seconds of a cruiser screeching up behind him here in Cleveland?

Those poor, noble souls.... They just wanted to help...

[Kazmyr]

I don't remember that scenario being presented, but I believe that cops typically travel in twos, carry batons, and have radios for backup. Am I mistaken?

Yeah, you are. Not every police force is the NYPD with the headcount and resources. As okee said, often times, they're alone. Depending on the nature of the situation, then backup comes, if available (and takes time to arrive at that).

And again, having a baton is not a guarantor of safety. However, your policy seems to be "No Gun. Use Taser/Baton. If Fail, Department Sends Flowers to Family of Officer."

I mean, I get it.. it's a lot cheaper to pay 1 guy to go out and just shoot on sight, than a bunch of them to help out with non-lethal situations. Just another corporate decision, I suppose.

So show me the departmental memo titled "Budget Concerns, Just Shoot the Pricks on Sight." And situations never, ever escalate right?

EDIT: Fine, call it a de facto policy. Still doesn't change the fact that you're being simplistic about police/citizen interactions.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/11/us/boston ... -released/

Good thing this department wasted money having multiple officers on this stop.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I don't remember that scenario being presented, but I believe that cops typically travel in twos, carry batons, and have radios for backup. Am I mistaken?

Yeah, you are. Not every police force is the NYPD with the headcount and resources. As okee said, often times, they're alone. Depending on the nature of the situation, then backup comes, if available (and takes time to arrive at that).

And again, having a baton is not a guarantor of safety. However, your policy seems to be "No Gun. Use Taser/Baton. If Fail, Department Sends Flowers to Family of Officer."

Pretty much, yeah. It's amazing that England still stands, what with those feeble, walking targets manning the streets.

I mean, I get it.. it's a lot cheaper to pay 1 guy to go out and just shoot on sight, than a bunch of them to help out with non-lethal situations. Just another corporate decision, I suppose.

So show me the departmental memo titled "Budget Concerns, Just Shoot the Pricks on Sight." And situations never, ever escalate right?

EDIT: Fine, call it a de facto policy. Still doesn't change the fact that you're being simplistic about police/citizen interactions.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/11/us/boston ... -released/

Good thing this department wasted money having multiple officers on this stop.

Yes it is. Very much so. I'm sure that police departments will solve a multitude of budget shortfalls, when they stop investing in bullshit. (As if that's going to happen)

[Okeefenokee]

So now we're comparing to other countries, because fuck it, why not.

Everyone in Somalia has a gun, and you never hear about police shootings in Somalia.

[Kazmyr]

I don't remember that scenario being presented, but I believe that cops typically travel in twos, carry batons, and have radios for backup. Am I mistaken?

Yeah, you are. Not every police force is the NYPD with the headcount and resources. As okee said, often times, they're alone. Depending on the nature of the situation, then backup comes, if available (and takes time to arrive at that).

And again, having a baton is not a guarantor of safety. However, your policy seems to be "No Gun. Use Taser/Baton. If Fail, Department Sends Flowers to Family of Officer."

Pretty much, yeah. It's amazing that England still stands, what with those feeble, walking targets manning the streets.

I mean, I get it.. it's a lot cheaper to pay 1 guy to go out and just shoot on sight, than a bunch of them to help out with non-lethal situations. Just another corporate decision, I suppose.

So show me the departmental memo titled "Budget Concerns, Just Shoot the Pricks on Sight." And situations never, ever escalate right?

EDIT: Fine, call it a de facto policy. Still doesn't change the fact that you're being simplistic about police/citizen interactions.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/11/us/boston ... -released/

Good thing this department wasted money having multiple officers on this stop.

Yes it is. Very much so. I'm sure that police departments will solve a multitude of budget shortfalls, when they stop investing in bullshit. (As if that's going to happen)

You're right, how stupid of me. It's a shame, though, that I wasn't arguing "batons will get our entire police forces rolled over." Cool it with the hyperbole. But I get your "FUCK THA POLICE" stance now, you'd rather have the officer die when a situation escalates, rather than the criminal.

And yes, bad shoots still need to be prosecuted (e.g. Philando Castile).

And investing in bullshit? Like the FREE equipment from the 1033 surplus program?

[Kazmyr]

So now we're comparing to other countries, because fuck it, why not.

Everyone in Somalia has a gun, and you never hear about police shootings in Somalia.

[Okeefenokee]

So now we're comparing to other countries, because fuck it, why not.

Everyone in Somalia has a gun, and you never hear about police shootings in Somalia.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Yeah, you are. Not every police force is the NYPD with the headcount and resources. As okee said, often times, they're alone. Depending on the nature of the situation, then backup comes, if available (and takes time to arrive at that).

And again, having a baton is not a guarantor of safety. However, your policy seems to be "No Gun. Use Taser/Baton. If Fail, Department Sends Flowers to Family of Officer."

Pretty much, yeah. It's amazing that England still stands, what with those feeble, walking targets manning the streets.

So show me the departmental memo titled "Budget Concerns, Just Shoot the Pricks on Sight." And situations never, ever escalate right?

EDIT: Fine, call it a de facto policy. Still doesn't change the fact that you're being simplistic about police/citizen interactions.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/11/us/boston ... -released/

Good thing this department wasted money having multiple officers on this stop.

Yes it is. Very much so. I'm sure that police departments will solve a multitude of budget shortfalls, when they stop investing in bullshit. (As if that's going to happen)

You're right, how stupid of me. It's a shame, though, that I wasn't arguing "batons will get our entire police forces rolled over." Cool it with the hyperbole. But I get your "FUCK THA POLICE" stance now, you'd rather have the officer die when a situation escalates, rather than the criminal.

And yes, bad shoots still need to be prosecuted (e.g. Philando Castile).

And investing in bullshit? Like the FREE equipment from the 1033 surplus program?

Does that include free maintenance, staff, parts, and garage space for 50-ton military equipment? I wasn't aware....

Also, no, I'm happy to see a cop defend themselves in an 'escalated situation'. However, it's quite obvious that situations are considered 'escalated' before they even begin now.



Deputy Dipshit screeches to a halt at 1:28, 12-year-old is dead by 1:30. Stunning policework.

[Okeefenokee]

Says the guy who's never had a gun drawn on him, and has no idea what it's like to react to that.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Says the guy who's never had a gun drawn on him, and has no idea what it's like to react to that.

I have, actually, several times. Once by a cop, whom I just stared at until he put it down, and once by an idiot showing off his M-16. In the second case, I told him to put it down, or one of us would die.