Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Donald Trump running for president

muscleupcrohn said:
History disagrees that people are more likely to abuse their power when there’s less potential punishment for it?
Click to expand...

In LA, doesn't seem like it since that what they did after the 92 riots.

So fear of punishment doesn’t deter crime is what you’re saying?
Click to expand...

You could point to a number of areas where it doesn't...drugs is one of them...or are you only talking about bad cops?

Why even have laws then, if they don’t actually deter crime?
Click to expand...

Don't think I ever said such a thing but if we are talking about criminals and bad cops...do you think new laws will all of a sudden change their attitude?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
So guilty cops aren’t bad cops? They’re “guilty” not of bad, but of doing good?
Click to expand...

Can think of plenty of people that were guilty of a crime that weren't "bad".
 
Admin said:
In LA, doesn't seem like it since that what they did after the 92 riots.



You could point to a number of areas where it doesn't...drugs is one of them...or are you only talking about bad cops?



Don't think I ever said such a thing but if we are talking about criminals and bad cops...do you think new laws will all of a sudden change their attitude?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
Yes, if bad cops think they could get fired, lose their pension, and/or go to jail, they may think twice about acting out. Sometimes they act out because they know they won’t get in ANY trouble for it. And even if that doesn’t always work, at least getting them off the job once they do bad things (instead of covering it up) would mean that there’s less bad cops at any given time. Less “repeat offenders” allowed to continue abusing their power.

Will this fix the issue of bad cops? No, but it will go a long way to help, and also restore the people’s’ trust in the police.

Edit: just like there should be very harsh penalty for gun related crimes. Hopefully it deters criminals, but if not, at least it keeps violent criminals off the street once they’re caught once. Less repeat violent offenders putting peoples’ lives in danger.

Edit: but I’m pretty sure lots of democrats voted AGAINST that.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Yes, if bad cops think they could get fired, lose their pension, and/or go to jail, they may think twice about acting out.
Click to expand...
Bad cops, like criminals, don't really think about that during the act.

Sometimes they act out because they know they won’t get in ANY trouble for it.
Click to expand...

Or sometimes they are that stupid.

And even if that doesn’t always work, at least getting them off the job once they do bad things (instead of covering it up) would mean that there’s less bad cops at any given time. Less “repeat offenders” allowed to continue abusing their power.
Click to expand...

Agree but if they are covering up now, why would they not in the future?

Will this fix the issue of bad cops? No, but it will go a long way to help, and also restore the people’s’ trust in the police.
Click to expand...

No it won't. Police will always be in a position of power in overwhelming force in which a country allows its public to be armed.
 
Admin said:
Bad cops, like criminals, don't really think about that during the act.



Or sometimes they are that stupid.



Agree but if they are covering up now, why would they not in the future?



No it won't. Police will always be in a position of power in overwhelming force in which a country allows its public to be armed.
Click to expand...
Because policy allows it to be easily covered up. We can change that. Body cams should be mandatory for officers, and if a cam mysteriously turns off when an officer is accused of committing a crime, or the footage mysteriously goes missing during said time, then that’s shady as f**k, and they should be considered guilty of SOMETHING in these instances.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
So a cop that commits a crime on the job isn’t a “bad cop?” Holy mental gymnastics Batman.
Click to expand...

Depends on the crime.....just like you. If you go out and speed today or illegaly park, I don't consider you a bad person.
 
Admin said:
Depends on the crime.....just like you. If you go out and speed today or illegaly park, I don't consider you a bad person.
Click to expand...
That’s not a crime relating to the performing of my job though. I mean a cop who commits a crime in the act of doing their job. Beating a suspect, having sex with someone in custody, etc.

If I’m an engineer who jaywalks on my way back from my lunch break, yeah, that doesn’t make me a bad engineer, but if I falsify the signature of a consultant or coworker on my plans, I am. It’d be a crime relating to my performing my work, and it would make me bad at my profession, yes.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
That’s not a crime relating to the performing of my job though. I mean a cop who commits a crime in the act of doing their job. Beating a suspect, having sex with someone in custody, etc.
Click to expand...

You said a crime.....not specifically the one you listed above.

If I’m an engineer who jaywalks on my way back from my lunch break, yeah, that doesn’t make me a bad engineer, but if I falsify the signature of a consultant or coworker on my plans, I am. It’d be a crime relating to my performing my work, and it would make me bad at my profession, yes.
Click to expand...

Um, ok.
 
Admin said:
You said a crime.....not specifically the one you listed above.



Um, ok.
Click to expand...
I mean any crime that relates to the performing of the job. If you commit a crime during your work in a way that relates to the performing of your job, you are irrefutably a BAD member of whatever profession you work for. How can you disagree with that?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I mean any crime that relates to the performing of the job. If you commit a crime during your work in a way that relates to the performing of your job, you are irrefutably a BAD member of whatever profession you work for. How can yo I disagree with that?
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to figure out how you are the only one who didn't get my entire point in the first place...just sort of...odd.

Asking me "How I can disagree with that?" when the situation hasn't even presented itself is why I feel you are extremely difficult to communicate with.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Very good point, but I’m saying I don’t think a normal officer needs an automatic rifle. Maybe officers in areas that are known for prevalent gang violence, or specially trained officers, or members of certain forces, etc. But if you’re just a random new cop, first day on the job in a random town not known for gang violence, do you really need an automatic rifle?
Click to expand...
ok, i misunderstood, i thought we were talking about semi-automatic rifles...fully automatic rifles is something i would never want to see in hands of regular cops. first of anyone who has ever fired a automatic rifle understands how inaccurate they are on full auto. 2nd there is only 1 situation i can think of where a highly trained swat member would need to use a weapon on full auto, that would be to keep criminal pinned down while getting a sniper in place.

it takes a ton of training to operate a weapon on full auto. the marines on board my ship used to go to fantail once a week for what is called famfire, to stay familiar with operating a M16 rifle. every now and then while standing fantail watch during famfire the gunny would let me fire off a clip, i can attest that if you are not well trained the barrel will move on you and it will be very difficult to hit a target.
 
thebigt said:
ok, i misunderstood, i thought we were talking about semi-automatic rifles...fully automatic rifles is something i would never want to see in hands of regular cops. first of anyone who has ever fired a automatic rifle understands how inaccurate they are on full auto. 2nd there is only 1 situation i can think of where a highly trained swat member would need to use a weapon on full auto, that would be to keep criminal pinned down while getting a sniper in place.

it takes a ton of training to operate a weapon on full auto. the marines on board my ship used to go to fantail once a week for what is called famfire, to stay familiar with operating a M16 rifle. every now and then while standing fantail watch during famfire the gunny would let me fire off a clip, i can attest that if you are not well trained the barrel will move on you and it will be very difficult to hit a target.
Click to expand...
Oh, of course police need semi-automatic weapons. I’m picturing police with only lever action rifles now lol. Civilians have access to semi-automatic weapons legally, forget what criminals and gangs get.
 
nostrum420 said:
This is what SWAT teams are for. This kind of stuff shouldn't be used on protesters or carried as a means of intimidation.
Click to expand...
Because there is always time to wait to deploy a SWAT team right?
 
manifesto said:
Because there is always time to wait to deploy a SWAT team right?
Click to expand...
Thebigt has more firsthand experience here than I’d wager either of us do, and he doesn’t think random cops should have automatic weapons either. Do you? First day on the job cop right out of the academy with an automatic rifle?
 
Admin said:
Don't think I ever said such a thing but if we are talking about criminals and bad cops...do you think new laws will all of a sudden change their attitude?
Click to expand...

Their attitude wouldnt matter if they lose their license to police. It really depend on what laws we are talking about anyways as that is vague. A good law to put police in check is to not have the police or community (local DA) police itself, but to rather have outside independent investigators. Having increased transparency can have an effect.

Personally, I think police should all have self funded liability insurance. No insurance, no job. The best police to police the police would be private insurance companies. If a cop shows he is high risk he can lose his insurance policy and his ticket to "serve" the community. Then another bonus is other police wouldnt want their policies inflated and slightly more likely to be transparent about incidents they encounter with other bad cops.
 
ax1 said:
Their attitude wouldnt matter if they lose their license to police. It really depend on what laws we are talking about anyways as that is vague. A good law to put police in check is to not have the police or community (local DA) police itself, but to rather have outside independent investigators. Having increased transparency can have an effect.

Personally, I think police should all have self funded liability insurance. No insurance, no job. The best police to police the police would be private insurance companies. If a cop shows he is high risk he can lose his insurance policy and his ticket to "serve" the community. Then another bonus is other police wouldnt want their policies inflated and slightly more likely to be transparent about incidents they encounter with other bad cops.
Click to expand...
Let's ask CHAZ! :D
 
thebigt said:
military grade weapons are being used on protesters?

cops carry rifles in trunk, by the time swat team gears up and arrives cops carrying side arms would be massacred by criminals with weapons like those used in LA shootout.
Click to expand...

Yes, the grenade launchers used to fire tear gas, for instance.

I don't think 1 extreme incident justifies rifles in the trunk of every cruiser.
 
Last edited:
nostrum420 said:
So let's arm every beat cop to the teeth?
Click to expand...
A pistol and a rifle is "armed to the teeth"? Also, alot of agencies don't even issue a rifle...
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Thebigt has more firsthand experience here than I’d wager either of us do, and he doesn’t think random cops should have automatic weapons either. Do you? First day on the job cop right out of the academy with an automatic rifle?
Click to expand...
Police academy teach officers to use automatic rifles...so yes...they should be issued to even newer officers.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
No, but automatic rifles would be. I think some of us may have different ideas of what we’re talking about here.
Click to expand...
Well, there are no "pump action" rifles lol...police agencies issue semi auto rifles. A handgun will not penetrate a suspect wearing body Armour
 
nostrum420 said:
Pistol, rifle, taser, mace, smoke grenades, sometimes tear gas, flash bangs, etc., etc, etc 🙈
Click to expand...
So having adequate force options available, so an officer doesn't have to kill everyone, is armed to the teeth? Copy that.
 
manifesto said:
Police academy teach officers to use automatic rifles...so yes...they should be issued to even newer officers.
Click to expand...
You’re out of your mind if you think a rookie cop would be at all competent to use an automatic weapon... even bigt admits as much. And do they keep up on training regularly? Or just a few months (or likely a few hours of actual training in total) once is enough for 20+ years of use?
 
nostrum420 said:
Yes, the grenade launchers used to fire tear gas, for instance.

I don't think 1 extreme incident justifies rifles in the trunk of every cruiser.
Click to expand...
i do!!
not full auto but i am fine with semi-auto
 
manifesto said:
Well, there are no "pump action" rifles lol...police agencies issue semi auto rifles. A handgun will not penetrate a suspect wearing body Armour
Click to expand...
I think they should have SEMI-automatic weapons for normal cops, not FULLY-automatic. Not bolt or lever action rifles, semi-automatic. Of course they should have semi-automatic rifles, I’m saying most of them shouldn’t have fully-automatic rifles.
 
nostrum420 said:
Wow...


Have a nice Sunday fellas.
Click to expand...
Yeah. A few months of total training, likely with maybe a handful of hours teaching how to use an automatic weapon is surely good enough to allow a cop to carry an automatic weapon for 20+ years on the job. Makes sense, right?

Edit: that’s akin to me taking a psychology elective in college and saying that’s sufficient for me to be a practicing psychologist.
 
Last edited:
muscleupcrohn said:
You’re out of your mind if you think a rookie cop would be at all competent to use an automatic weapon... even bigt admits as much. And do they keep up on training regularly? Or just a few months (or likely a few hours of actual training in total) once is enough for 20+ years of use?
Click to expand...
there are only a few situations where it is even beneficial to go full auto. i think seals mostly use burst, where i think it is 6 rounds, but they train like 8 hours a day with those 'special' weapons.

for average cops to go full auto in a urban setting would be crazy, imo.
 
thebigt said:
there are only a few situations where it is even beneficial to go full auto. i think seals mostly use burst, where i think it is 6 rounds, but they train like 8 hours a day with those 'special' weapons.

for average cops to go full auto in a urban setting would be crazy, imo.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Makes sense to me.
 
manifesto said:
Oh, then a completely justified shooting....
Click to expand...

They patted him down previous to this, so they knew the only weapon he had was non-lethal and the cop decided to use lethal force when he also had a non-lethal alternative already drawn. Justified is for a court to decide.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
You’re out of your mind if you think a rookie cop would be at all competent to use an automatic weapon... even bigt admits as much. And do they keep up on training regularly? Or just a few months (or likely a few hours of actual training in total) once is enough for 20+ years of use?
Click to expand...
I meant semi auto....typo bud. My apologies
 
muscleupcrohn said:
I think they should have SEMI-automatic weapons for normal cops, not FULLY-automatic. Not bolt or lever action rifles, semi-automatic. Of course they should have semi-automatic rifles, I’m saying most of them shouldn’t have fully-automatic rifles.
Click to expand...
No agency I have ever heard of issues fully auto...
 
Aleksandar37 said:
They patted him down previous to this, so they knew the only weapon he had was non-lethal and the cop decided to use lethal force when he also had a non-lethal alternative already drawn. Justified is for a court to decide.
Click to expand...
Nah, I can decide in my mind if it's justified or not. I dont need a court for that.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
IRA bombing reasoning was based on Christians not being able to coexist within their own religion.
Click to expand...
You gonna move to CHAZ...? I'm sure you would fit right in...although I think they are out of food and asking for foreign aid now (from the USA)...lmao
 
manifesto said:
There are bad people in every profession. Sociopaths will have zero problem making it through the hiring process
Click to expand...

Yeah, but how many other professions (except for Catholic priests) don't just fire their employees when they mess up? There are so many of these cops that get busted and then their records show countless other times where they should have been fired, but instead everything was covered up or they were transferred. Worst case scenario is the bad apples get an early retirement with a pension. Even this cop that murdered George Floys is possibly going to get to keep his pension.
 
manifesto said:
You gonna move to CHAZ...? I'm sure you would fit right in...although I think they are out of food and asking for foreign aid now (from the USA)...lmao
Click to expand...

If you want to move this to a personal attack conversation, we can do that, but here's your chance to walk it back. I've already said that I don't support or agree with CHAZ. Me correcting you on a subject that you based on doctored photos doesn't mean I agree one way or another.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
IRA bombing reasoning was based on Christians not being able to coexist within their own religion.
Click to expand...

It wasn't about coexisting, it was about the majority ruled by the minority in Derry.
 
nostrum420 said:
Yes, the grenade launchers used to fire tear gas, for instance.

I don't think 1 extreme incident justifies rifles in the trunk of every cruiser.
Click to expand...

But we must to keep us safe.They used 9/11 boogeyman and the threat of terror for much of our recent couple decade militarization. Especially NYC, thats why they became more powerful than most countries on the planet, to keep us "safe." What ever happened to that? But people didnt listen to me back then when I said no, and now the current generation are getting the rewards of the increased safety!

Invalid Link Removed
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Yeah, but how many other professions (except for Catholic priests) don't just fire their employees when they mess up?
Click to expand...

The one profession that controls them, politicians.
 
Admin said:
It wasn't about coexisting, it was about the majority ruled by the minority in Derry.
Click to expand...
the goal of the bombings was economic disruption. the public thought hell yeah, give it to the man. this lasted awhile until they started seeing family killed as collateral damage. once the glamour was gone and people saw how disruptive the violence was to daily life they turned against them, without public support they were dead in the water, much as i see happening here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top