Immigration question for the Progressives

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:29 pm

The Outsider wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:
I don't think anyone can logically argue they should be.

To say LEOs aren't in the top 10 of most dangerous jobs is subjective as to what qualifies as dangerous. Sure there are 12 jobs that have more deaths per capita, but as a whole LEOs meet encounter more hostile situations than any job in America. More so than the military.


At the end of the day it's up to the authority figures killing innocents to figure out why and fix it. That should be common sense.


If it were that easy it would be fixed by now. That should be common sense.

The line between who is innocent and guilty is blurred. Many, if not most, of these people are "guilty", but does their crime deserve death? For many it certainly isn't, but as I stated before we are having extreme amounts of turnover and demand for a position that is disrespected and extremely dangerous with relative low compensation rates. You also have an increased scrutiny and disobedience towards police in general. If the solution falls solely on LEOs, it's not going away. The onus is on all of us from the top down, equally.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 3036
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:49 pm

Seems like reform would be easy with '09 Chuck Schumer.

Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 9931
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 396 times
Been thanked: 400 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:03 pm

We don’t disagree all that often, but in this case it seems we do.


uscbucsfan wrote:
The line between who is innocent and guilty is blurred.


I’m not 100% sure I understand this. What is blurry? Can you give me an example? Are you referring to the laws the criminals may be breaking as blurry? Or when the use of force is justified as being blurry?


uscbucsfan wrote:Many, if not most, of these people are "guilty", but does their crime deserve death? For many it certainly isn't



Unless the police officer is in danger of imminent death or someone in the general public he is serving is in danger of imminent death, a police officer should not be shooting anyone. It’s the most absolute power a state can make.

Now we can all argue the semantics of imminent danger ... and we can all think of exceptions to any codified rule of imment danger...but I very much am on the side of caution in all my definitions and rationale.

While we don’t get to read about the thousands of times officers drew their guns correctly, the stories we hear about shootings that aren’t justified are far too prevalant.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 3321
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 98 times
Been thanked: 184 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:30 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:We don’t disagree all that often, but in this case it seems we do.


uscbucsfan wrote:
The line between who is innocent and guilty is blurred.


I’m not 100% sure I understand this. What is blurry? Can you give me an example? Are you referring to the laws the criminals may be breaking as blurry? Or when the use of force is justified as being blurry?


uscbucsfan wrote:Many, if not most, of these people are "guilty", but does their crime deserve death? For many it certainly isn't



Unless the police officer is in danger of imminent death or someone in the general public he is serving is in danger of imminent death, a police officer should not be shooting anyone. It’s the most absolute power a state can make.

Now we can all argue the semantics of imminent danger ... and we can all think of exceptions to any codified rule of imment danger...but I very much am on the side of caution in all my definitions and rationale.

While we don’t get to read about the thousands of times officers drew their guns correctly, the stories we hear about shootings that aren’t justified are far too prevalant.


It's blurry as to the action created the deadly or excessive force is still illegal. People are saying "innocents", but they are still mostly committing crimes and then resisting/disobeying LEOs.

I'm not saying it's not an issue, but you are still more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed by a police officer. You are pointing to the most extreme and rare cases and saying, "They should err on the side of caution". This is super easy to do after the fact in your living room. This is why Graham v. Connor established objective reasonableness, to eliminate Monday Morning QB. It's impossible to look at a case after the fact and asses how in danger the officer's life was. This is why officer almost always get off, not due to the blue wall, but because there is literally a Supreme Court case that protects them.

The cases are rising and I stated my opinion why. Additional training is not a legitimate answer to resolve this. There needs to be a higher scrutiny of candidates and to do that there needs to be better pay/benefits. After that this still will take place, because no amount of training in the world can recreate these situations. No one knows how they will react until they are in the middle of it. We have a higher rate of it, we also have more guns in the population, a bigger resistance to police/authority. It's a vicious cycle. Things need to change on all levels.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 3036
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby PrimeMinister » Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:09 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:I guess the point that you are missing is they don't consider it to be additional government intervention for anyone who is currently a citizen. I had a more general statement, but there are those who absolutely see national ID as another step to Orwellian database.

This is what a lot of conservatives (none of whom are here, I'm sure) when they say they want small government. What they mean is that they want small government for THEM. They'll weild that government power all over everyone else, so long as it lets them do whatever they want.

This is how we can lead the G8 in police shootings per 100 people by far and nobody cries about fascism.

This is how we can have a for profit prison system that incarcerates people for YEARS for crimes with no victims and nobody cares.

This is how we can be at war for over 15 years and nobody gives it a second thought unless theres a mass casualty event.

Small government aint so small to some people.


I’m late but damn well said.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 6589
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 166 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby PrimeMinister » Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:21 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:

I don’t remember exactly what qualified as violence against police in the article.

I absolutely agree that the respect for police is incredibly low at the moment. And that their jobs are harder then ever


Right, and the Police trust in the public is at an all time low, too. It creates these terrible violent situations, but I don't believe it to be systematic as far as implemented from the top down to be quicker to use violence. I think it's systematic as far as Police all over are running into more issues/escalation/violence than ever before. As I spoke in the Police violence thread, many of these men/women aren't cut out for those situations and they are being tested at an all-time rate, equating to an increased amount of police shootings.

Everyone asks for more training, but we need better candidates. That only comes with better pay. Units are so starved for officers they are waiving prior drug use, past issues, etc. It creates a bad product, but the excessive violence in the communities and attrition of the force is creating a massive demand.


Well said, USC.

I’d add in that the public’s trust level has fallen, but not specifically in the police. The public no longer trusts that those “bad eggs” (officers who abuse their power and sometimes commit murder) will be brought to justice. If the public knew that Officer Bad Egg would answer for making a kid beg for his life before murdering him we would t have this issue.

The police have brought this on themselves through the “blue wall of silence”. Not all officers hold to the police version of “stop snitching” but many appear to. Every time an officer gets away with abuse the public trusts all officers less.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 6589
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 166 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby NYBF » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:59 am

This could be an Onion story. But here we are...

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/get-co ... illegally/
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 4507
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 169 times
Been thanked: 383 times

Previous

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 8 guests