Cops misbehaving in the US

oslooskar said:
I suggest that you carefully reread what I wrote.
Click to expand...
I re-read it several times before I even posted. Now I have re-read.

I still don't get your meaning, that is why I stated for clarification:

"...to appear to classify all cops........." "Know that may not be your intent, but it came across as such".

What was your intent? What did you mean to say? That you have been "transformed" by something recently?

Confused.
 

CooCooforCoCoPuffs said:
I re-read it several times before I even posted. Now I have re-read. I still don't get your meaning, that is why I stated for clarification:
"...to appear to classify all cops........." "Know that may not be your intent, but it came across as such". What was your intent? What did you mean to say? That you have been "transformed" by something recently? Confused.
Click to expand...

My statement, "I have no sympathy for thugs with badges who get shot," is self-explanatory. It refers solely to individuals who abuse their authority as law enforcement officers and behave like thugs. It does not classify in any way, shape, or form about all police officers. If it came across differently to you, that’s on your interpretation, not my words. Therefore, I encourage you to focus on what was actually written, not how it “appears” to you.
 
HermitHogan said:
Kentucky police fatally shoot man while serving warrant at wrong home
Doug Harless was killed by police officers at home at 511 Vanzant Road despite search warrant intended for 489 Vanzant Road. :rolleyes:
Kentucky police fatally shoot man while serving warrant at wrong home
Click to expand...

Too many Americans today fail to realize that they cannot have both freedom and militarized police. The two are fundamentally incompatible. In fact, there is no greater threat to 'the security of a free state' than militarized police forces.
 
oslooskar said:
Too many Americans today fail to realize that they cannot have both freedom and militarized police. The two are fundamentally incompatible. In fact, there is no greater threat to 'the security of a free state' than militarized police forces.
Click to expand...
I would add governmental forces interfering with a woman's rights over her own person to be worse. If you don't own yourself, you own NOTHING.
 
This comment posted in response to the video (~4mins) of a probable cause hearing below makes some great points.

"When the process is the punishment, the police have no concern about whether the charges get dismissed. The slogan "you may beat the charge, but you can't beat the ride" is not referencing the trip to the jail. Until there is personal, substantial consequence there will be no change. We all know this. The cost of actual deterrence has to be high.

Take speeding... we know it's wrong. We do it anyways because the costs don't outweigh the benefit. We know enforcement is low and, when caught, the personal impact is minimal. M*rder? Different story. Violating rights is just the cop version of speeding. They know enforcement is few and far between and, when caught, the personal impact is non-existant. When the attitude is "go ahead and sue me" there is an obvious lack of deterrence and fear of consequences of court decisions."

 
Pepper said:
I would add governmental forces interfering with a woman's rights over her own person to be worse. If you don't own yourself, you own NOTHING.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your perspective, and I agree that personal autonomy is fundamental—if you don’t own yourself, you truly own nothing. However, I think it’s important to consider the broader picture. Women’s rights are undoubtedly critical, but they are part of a larger framework of individual freedoms that should apply equally to all.

For example, young men drafted to fight in Vietnam faced a profound violation of personal autonomy. They were forced into combat against their will, and many lost their lives or returned with lifelong trauma. This tragic chapter highlights that no one’s rights should be seen as inherently more important than another’s.
 
oslooskar said:
For example, young men drafted to fight in Vietnam faced a profound violation of personal autonomy. They were forced into combat against their will, and many lost their lives or returned with lifelong trauma. This tragic chapter highlights that no one’s rights should be seen as inherently more important than another’s.
Click to expand...
Yes. You are absolutely right in my book. I spent years in SDS-Students for a Democratic Society, working anti draft with even more fervor than anti war.

You continue to impress me oslooskar.
 
oslooskar said:
Too many Americans today fail to realize that they cannot have both freedom and militarized police. The two are fundamentally incompatible. In fact, there is no greater threat to 'the security of a free state' than militarized police forces.
Click to expand...
What is your definition of "militarized police forces"?
 
CooCooforCoCoPuffs said:
What is your definition of "militarized police forces"?
Click to expand...

By 'militarized police forces,' I refer to law enforcement agencies that adopt military equipment, tactics, and mindsets. This includes the use of military-grade weaponry, armored vehicles, and other tools designed for warfare rather than for civilian policing. It also includes, the application of military-style strategies, such as SWAT-style raids for non-violent offenses or crowd control measures designed to intimidate rather than protect. And, most of all, it includes the shift away from serving as community protectors to functioning as an occupying force, where citizens are viewed more as potential threats than as individuals to be safeguarded. Now, you may argue that this militarization is necessary for public safety, but I believe it undermines the principles of freedom and the 'security of a free state' by fostering fear, eroding trust between police and the community, and enabling excessive use of force.
 
oslooskar said:
By 'militarized police forces,' I refer to law enforcement agencies that adopt military equipment, tactics, and mindsets. This includes the use of military-grade weaponry, armored vehicles, and other tools designed for warfare rather than for civilian policing. It also includes, the application of military-style strategies, such as SWAT-style raids for non-violent offenses or crowd control measures designed to intimidate rather than protect. And, most of all, it includes the shift away from serving as community protectors to functioning as an occupying force, where citizens are viewed more as potential threats than as individuals to be safeguarded. Now, you may argue that this militarization is necessary for public safety, but I believe it undermines the principles of freedom and the 'security of a free state' by fostering fear, eroding trust between police and the community, and enabling excessive use of force.
Click to expand...
Yep, a lot of police officers have an "us vs. them" attitude where them is the general public. I've seen that at protests where people are protesting peacefully but the police are grouped as a military unit ready to attack for any excuse that would allow them to bash in someone's head.

You can tell that's their mindset when they're standing there fuming with anger and with a white-knuckle grip on their batons. When that's their state of mine and collective persona, they're antagonizing the few troublemakers at the protest. Rather than "keeping the peace," they're inciting violence.
 
oslooskar said:
My statement, "I have no sympathy for thugs with badges who get shot," is self-explanatory. It refers solely to individuals who abuse their authority as law enforcement officers and behave like thugs. It does not classify in any way, shape, or form about all police officers. If it came across differently to you, that’s on your interpretation, not my words. Therefore, I encourage you to focus on what was actually written, not how it “appears” to you.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that the the words you write reflect the thoughts in your head. And ask yourself if however long those words that
you wrote continue to exist that you wouldn't mind to forever being defined by them.
 
Last edited:
Olivia said:
Keep in mind that the the words you write reflect the thoughts in your head. And ask yourself if however long those words that you wrote continue to exist that you wouldn't mind to forever being defined by them.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your perspective, but I stand by the importance of context in understanding words and their intent. My statement was clear in distinguishing between individuals who abuse their authority and the majority of police officers who serve honorably. Words do reflect thoughts, but they should be interpreted as they are written, not as they are presumed. I trust that anyone reading my statement with care would see the distinction I made.
 
The very nature of their job means they are constantly dealing with the lowest form of life on Earth. It's bound to have an effect on them. A young person may join the police force full of good intentions but quickly become disillusioned and cynical. Their work surely brings out the worst in their own nature.
 
oslooskar said:
I appreciate your perspective, but I stand by the importance of context in understanding words and their intent. My statement was clear in distinguishing between individuals who abuse their authority and the majority of police officers who serve honorably. Words do reflect thoughts, but they should be interpreted as they are written, not as they are presumed. I trust that anyone reading my statement with care would see the distinction I made.
Click to expand...
You really need to organize your thoughts so that what you write is what you actually mean so that you don't have to explain yourself afterwards.
 
Last edited:
Olivia said:
You really need to organize your thoughts so that what what you write is what you actually mean so that you don't have to explain yourself afterwards.
Click to expand...

My original statement was already clear and well-organized. Misinterpretations often stem from differences in reading comprehension rather than a lack of clarity in writing. Incidentally, I noticed that your message included 'what what,' which could suggest some disorganization in your own response. Perhaps we can agree that communication is a two-way street.
 
oslooskar said:
My original statement was already clear and well-organized. Misinterpretations often stem from differences in reading comprehension rather than a lack of clarity in writing. Incidentally, I noticed that your message included 'what what,' which could suggest some disorganization in your own response. Perhaps we can agree that communication is a two-way street.
Click to expand...
l'm sorry. l totally got you wrong. Kudos on noticing two WHATS in one sentence One haw to be to
 
The rest of my comments were deleted because my on screen key board went bad l'm sorry if that bothered your sensitive little head.
 
Olivia said:
The rest of my comments were deleted because my on screen key board went bad l'm sorry if that bothered your sensitive little head.
Click to expand...

It’s not about my "sensitive little head," Olivia. It’s about you living up to the high standard of organized communication you emphasized earlier. Seriously, you need to aim for consistency.
 
I was young, but I remember these criminals, a domestic terror organization:

On March 6, 1970, a dynamite bomb they were building in New York City – intended to blow up hundreds of soldiers and their dates at a dance that evening – went off in their own hands, killing three of their own number. The Weather Underground (as the faction now called itself) went on to bomb dozens of government and corporate targets over the next few years, but the group was incapable of leading a larger movement: Though there were no further casualties after the 1970 explosion, the vast majority of SDS’ members were put off by the Weatherman violence.
​
SDS also engendered second-wave feminism, though sometimes in a paradoxical fashion. Many female members felt both empowered and thwarted – they gained skills and experience in organizing, but were angered by their second-class status in the organization.​
​
But SDS’s confrontational tendencies from 1967 onward bitterly alienated much of its potential political base. In my view, the group’s romanticism toward the Cuban, Vietnamese, and Chinese revolutions – and its infatuation with the paramilitary Black Panther party – flooded out its common sense and intellectual integrity.​
 
oslooskar said:
It’s not about my "sensitive little head," Olivia. It’s about you living up to the high standard of organized communication you emphasized earlier. Seriously, you need to aim for consistency.
Click to expand...
Good point. You be consistent with your opinion and l'll be consistent with mine. As long as we both understand and recognize those differences and accept them for what they are, then that should resolve the debate.and, for what it's worth, call it a tie.
 
Last edited:
Olivia said:
Good point. You be consistent with your opinion and l'll be consistent with mine. As long as we both understand and recognize those differences and accept them for what they are, then that should resolve the debate.and, for what it's worth, call it a tie.
Click to expand...

A tie? I’m not sure what we were debating, Olivia, as my point was about clarity and consistency—not a matter of differing opinions. But if calling it a tie helps you move forward, I’m happy to let you have that.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top