Good morning Darrell,
I ran across this most interesting article while having my coffee and thought you'd be interested in reading it.
I didn't find it all that interesting, simply more propaganda by someone who apparently despises authority.
It does not show a balanced reaction to the issue as a whole, because incidents where Police Officers do something stupid, or illegal (and I saw no video so I cannot really judge, though I would agree tackling a guy for fraud could be questioned, though that does not negate the fact that even credit card fraud criminals are no less likely to be violent in trying to escape than any other criminal), there is usually action taken.
And what your "side of the story" is always lacking are events where Police Officers do give up their lives for the sake of the public welfare, do capture criminals that are dangerous, and do capture them without using excessive or questionable force.
That is what is always going to put you into a category of a disgruntled citizen lacking the ability to look at both sides apart from the bias you have, and questionably an anti-authoritarian that knows nothing of God's command for submission to the higher powers.
It renders you useless in judging matters, even secular matters which have some pretty obvious facts which you ignore and never mention.
And I would suggest that if you want to have a voice that can actually speak on the matter, join the Police Force and after a few years of walking the beat, then...see if you still think the same way.
Apparently the NYPD Union President Patrick Lynch is of the same opinion as you about letting the police police the police.
I don't apologize for that.
So present something that would deny that police officers can better judge if their fellow officers have crossed the line.
You can't possibly know what many of them go through, and if we consider those who have previous experience with either a fellow officer dying or, because they did not immediately take control of a situation, were either the cause or victim of violence on the part of the suspect, then we might have a little more sympathy for a police officer that doesn't even leave room for the suspect to get the upper hand.
You just don't know how serious it is, apparently.
Apparently, you have this view that all of the suspects dealt with by the police are poor, downtrodden victims of excessive force.
Your view is biased and does not reflect all relevant details. Your view discounts the views of those who are actually doing the work.
So go ahead, armchair quarterback the issue, that is your right.
He actually uses the same argument (actually a fallacy, appeal to authority)
It's not an appeal to authority, because it does not leave Police Officers as having the final say, and it is not a situation that can be broad-brushed.
The simple fact is that every situation that comes under scrutiny by either the Police or the Public is going to be different. In some cases, the Police Officer is guilty of abusing his authority, or going over the line. In some situations, the suspect led to whatever consequences resulted (like being shot for reaching for something instead of complying with the Officer's demand).
Secondly, In order for me to see corruption I would have to know that the Law was bypassed, and that the Police actually "policed" themselves. If there is suspected abuse or corruption, I expect this to go into the hands of prosecutors, and it be worked out by those placed in positions of judging the events. Consequences should be decided in a court of Law, not in the Public, and not in the squad-room.
So please don't throw around terms of psycho-babble that you do not really understand.
you used earlier in our discussion, if sitting here watching you create one strawman after another to knock down can be called a discussion.
You should probably get started now: first showing what is a straw man, then secondly...knocking it down.
But I guess, judging from your position, making an accusation closes the case, no need for further investigation or examination of all relevant data.
And that is the same thing you are charging the Police with,
SNIP
Here's another challenge for you: go find the name of those particular logical fallacies.
But anyway here's the article.
NYPD Union Prez Patrick Lynch: Only Police Are Qualified To Judge The Actions Of Police
from the lol-no dept
As you've probably already heard, last week former tennis star James Blake was blitzed by an NYPD plain clothes officer in front of his hotel, tackled to the ground, and left cuffed there bruised and cut. The officer in question thought he was brutalizing someone who had committed credit card fraud. In itself, this would be quite a problem, as credit card fraud isn't the kind of crime that typically results in an NYPD beatdown. Except that James Blake is black. He's also, as it turns out, not even the suspect this officer was supposed to be looking for. He just happened to fit the description. The NYPD has since apologized to him, an apology that one would hope was met with narrowed eyes and a defiant chin.
But you'll never guess who isn't apologizing. Actually, you probably will, because it's NYPD Patrolemen's Benevolent (hah!) Association President Patrick Lynch, who penned a letter to the media covering the story. Let's just see how much we can get through this before we stop pretending like we're dealing with a sane person, shall we?
Right, let's hope it was "was met with narrowed eyes and a defiant chin." lol
I like this also...
But according to Lynch's amazingly stupid letter, this all goes out the window when it comes to the police. They have earned the benefit of the doubt. Why? Because danger, yo.
...and this...
The officer in question thought he was brutalizing someone who had committed credit card fraud. In itself, this would be quite a problem, as credit card fraud isn't the kind of crime that typically results in an NYPD beatdown.
Now where is the evidence he "thought he was brutalizing..."?
Does someone have the officer himself on record saying this? lol
And since when are credit card frauds made out to be criminals that police officers should know are never violent? That is usually, I am sure, just one of the endeavors of a criminal.
Or am I wrong to call credit card fraud criminal.
I can't judge what happened, I didn't see what happened. I don't know the attitudes of either when it took place.
I can't see that as justification for disgruntled citizens thinking they have the ability to better know how a police officer should respond to a situation where violence or possibly death is a very real possibility.
And all I see is a consistent diminishing of the fact that many of these people are in fact criminals who will in fact cause violence or death if they are able to control the situation.
The bottom line, Justice must be sought for both sides, and that means both prosecuting corrupt police officers as well as laying responsibility on criminals when they resist the authority of the Police.
Continue . . .
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...e-are-qualified-to-judge-actions-police.shtml
Before I forget, have you found that evidence to show the success of the 40+ year old policy of drug prohibition yet?
You might get a kick out of
this.
How about
this.
You need to understand that the "war on drugs" can no more be "won" than the war on crime can be. It is simply an issue that will continue...until the Lord returns.
What you and I consider "success" might be two different things, and that because we look at it differently, perhaps. If you think that Law Enforcement is not successful because it has not ended drug use or arrested and imprisoned all those involved then of course you might view the war on drugs as unsuccessful. But the liberal mentality that you present in these posts and your apparent contempt for Law Enforcement is actually helping...
...the criminals.
Do you feel that the Government should start regulating drugs? So they can reap the taxes?
Some in our country do.
And I think that is about all for me, for now. Unless you want to actually address the posts and points offered, I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming, with a suggestion that the programming you suffer from is better called self-indoctrination.
God bless.
