(ill repost as many times as it takes to get around your sock puppets.)
dangerous jobs have risk. don't like it don't become one.
"it is far better than 100 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent man be punished."
Or adapted to this situation: it is better that the police be injured, than those same overly militarized police burn holes in the chests of babies in their cribs, deaf and/or non-english speaking grandmothers be shot, or the mentally ill / suicidal be killed when their family called the police to stop precisely that.
no, that's bulls***, and you damn well know it. the only person who has brought up opposing cops having body armor is YOU. you cannot make a rational argument based on telling others what they think, on putting words in their mouths.
also, its neither a false dichotomy, nor do I think (nor did I suggest) that police must allow themselves to be killed. that is not what I said, but your illequipped brain is apparently incapable of proper reading comprehension, so do not even try to pretend to think that between us you are the intellectual. all evidence points otherwise.
No, actually, that's not how it works. Trump is not a conservative. The Republican party, which, although it does include some conservative politicians, is not run by conservatives.
and thus have the calls of "well he just wasn't conservative enough" already begun.
hes neither really conservative nor liberal, but a purely self-interested scumbag who whose views aren't so much left/right as they simply un-American.
but they have also ruled that many of the protections of the constitution do extend to all people subject to the authority of the US government, regardless of citizenship or status.
those decisions you list are in the nature of carve-outs from that larger perspective.
no they cant vote, but they get due process. no they cant own a gun, but they do enjoy free speech.
you mean the next fake video from james ive been paid by Donald trump okeefe? the same okeefe whose every video has been proven to be faked or deliberately deceptively edited?
also, if incite you to commit violence by simply wearing a shirt and saying nothing, then you're still the only person guilty of anything. this is like blaming rape victims for what they wore, and just as wrong.
interesting intersection of precedent and new technology, where the new technology calls into question the validity of the precedent. ultimately the precedent has value, and continues to do so (ie, fingerprinting or identifying a person). but this new application is clearly a step too far. but how to legally justify a contradiction to the precedent without upending it?
its because trump doesn't represent anything remotely American. its a rare case of bipartisanship. its true that the democratic leadership is losing middle America, when the working man used to be their base.
its yet another switch up among the parties. Nixon completed the racial switch. now we are seeing the education/wage switch.
and this is likely to be much farther reaching, because the truth is most economic opportunity, especially of the type we tell kids will be possible with better education, isn't in middle America. its in the cities, most of which are located on the coasts (though California is a bit of a special case; its geography naturally leading to a near perfect mix; reason why its got the worlds 6th largest economy). and that only helps drive and permanently set the increasing partisan divide which is as much a divide between economic class as it is party. personally I hate that development too, as id much rather live in rural America than a city. but there's no where for me to work there.
The nine principles were as follows: 1.To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2.To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3.To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4.To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5.To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6.To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7.To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8.To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9.To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
dangerous jobs have risk. don't like it don't become one.
"it is far better than 100 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent man be punished."
Or adapted to this situation: it is better that the police be injured, than those same overly militarized police burn holes in the chests of babies in their cribs, deaf and/or non-english speaking grandmothers be shot, or the mentally ill / suicidal be killed when their family called the police to stop precisely that.
they could have put anything on the robot. they chose to use a bomb, instead of CS (tear) gas or any of a number of other options that would have ended the situation without further loss of life.
by that logic of yours, we should replace all police with robots as in Elysium or any of a number of other scifi stories. why risk anyone's lives? lets just use robots to decide everyone's fate and enforce the laws. the reason is because putting humans in the mix, putting them at risk, is part of the safeguard against abuse of power. your logic is the logic that justifies saving police lives at the cost of all others.
being a police officer is dangerous, though not in the top 10. and it should be. it is by nature a risky profession. some days you interact with normal everyday citizens who just went a lil too fast. others you interact with actual dangerous criminals. that's the nature of the job when it comes to enforcing the law in relation to the nations citizens...all of them, normal or dangerous.
there are far too many police who think they're supposed to be warriors. THEY ARE NOT. that flawed mindset largely comes from ex-military who transitioned but forgot they aren't at war with America's citizens. I've actually been told by various officers that the view of them as guardians is dangerous and emperils theyre safety. that is garbage.
police are not warriors. they absolutely ARE guardians. and part of being a guardian of the public is protecting ALL OF THE PUBLIC, including the dangerous ones, to the best of your ability.
and if that doesn't sit well with you, then don't become one.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither did Hillary so what's your point?
again: NO ONE has said, or implied, the words you are trying to put in their mouths. .
stop trying to tell others what they think, and read what they have actually said, using what little reading comprehension skill you have.
(ill repost as many times as it takes to get around your sock puppets.)
dangerous jobs have risk.
don't like it don't become one.
"it is far better than 100 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent man be punished."
Or adapted to this situation: it is better that the police be injured, than those same overly militarized police burn holes in the chests of babies in their cribs, deaf and/or non-english speaking grandmothers be shot, or the mentally ill / suicidal be killed when their family called the police to stop precisely that.
also: nice racist dog whistles.
no, that's bulls***, and you damn well know it.
the only person who has brought up opposing cops having body armor is YOU .
you cannot make a rational argument based on telling others what they think, on putting words in their mouths.
also, its neither a false dichotomy, nor do I think (nor did I suggest) that police must allow themselves to be killed.
that is not what I said, but your illequipped brain is apparently incapable of proper reading comprehension, so do not even try to pretend to think that between us you are the intellectual. all evidence points otherwise.
SpaceX = Spacers
No, actually, that's not how it works. Trump is not a conservative. The Republican party, which, although it does include some conservative politicians, is not run by conservatives.
and thus have the calls of "well he just wasn't conservative enough" already begun.
hes neither really conservative nor liberal, but a purely self-interested scumbag who whose views aren't so much left/right as they simply un-American.
that's not an improvement
hostile to western values?
maybe you didn't hear, but Syria is/was a democracy.
and the whole conflict originated because the people wanted MORE of it, more of western values.
these threads always bring out the bigots.
Islam teaches that women are literally the property of their husbands, no different than cattle
so does Christianity.
the destruction of the western world isn't a stated belief of that religion, but of an extremist group who falsely claim that religion as their own.
but they have also ruled that many of the protections of the constitution do extend to all people subject to the authority of the US government, regardless of citizenship or status.
those decisions you list are in the nature of carve-outs from that larger perspective.
no they cant vote, but they get due process.
no they cant own a gun, but they do enjoy free speech.
that doesn't make it not xenophobic
so is the part about the militia.
not a troll post.
you mean the next fake video from james ive been paid by Donald trump okeefe?
the same okeefe whose every video has been proven to be faked or deliberately deceptively edited?
also, if incite you to commit violence by simply wearing a shirt and saying nothing, then you're still the only person guilty of anything.
this is like blaming rape victims for what they wore, and just as wrong.
blah false claim blah putting words in peoples mouth blah blah bs blah.
interesting intersection of precedent and new technology, where the new technology calls into question the validity of the precedent.
ultimately the precedent has value, and continues to do so (ie, fingerprinting or identifying a person).
but this new application is clearly a step too far.
but how to legally justify a contradiction to the precedent without upending it?
its because trump doesn't represent anything remotely American.
its a rare case of bipartisanship.
its true that the democratic leadership is losing middle America, when the working man used to be their base.
its yet another switch up among the parties.
Nixon completed the racial switch.
now we are seeing the education/wage switch.
and this is likely to be much farther reaching, because the truth is most economic opportunity, especially of the type we tell kids will be possible with better education, isn't in middle America. its in the cities, most of which are located on the coasts (though California is a bit of a special case; its geography naturally leading to a near perfect mix; reason why its got the worlds 6th largest economy). and that only helps drive and permanently set the increasing partisan divide which is as much a divide between economic class as it is party. personally I hate that development too, as id much rather live in rural America than a city. but there's no where for me to work there.
for those who don't click the link:
The nine principles were as follows:
1.To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2.To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3.To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4.To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5.To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6.To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7.To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8.To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9.To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
oh irony
dangerous jobs have risk.
don't like it don't become one.
"it is far better than 100 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent man be punished."
Or adapted to this situation: it is better that the police be injured, than those same overly militarized police burn holes in the chests of babies in their cribs, deaf and/or non-english speaking grandmothers be shot, or the mentally ill / suicidal be killed when their family called the police to stop precisely that.
also: nice racist dog whistles.
several counties out in bumphuck Oklahoma have MRAPS now.
and the boonies of Oklahoma aren't the only place this is happening.
MRAPS.
Mine Resistant Armored Personnel Carriers.
like we used in Iraq to protect from IEDs.
why do counties with a population of 5,000 people and 300,000 cows need MRAPS, let alone SWAT teams?
firstly, they are suspects, not criminals.
a criminal has been convicted of a crime.
secondly, they do not cease to be citizens, they do not lose their rights, upon being deemed a suspect.
they could have put anything on the robot.
they chose to use a bomb, instead of CS (tear) gas or any of a number of other options that would have ended the situation without further loss of life.
by that logic of yours, we should replace all police with robots as in Elysium or any of a number of other scifi stories.
why risk anyone's lives? lets just use robots to decide everyone's fate and enforce the laws.
the reason is because putting humans in the mix, putting them at risk, is part of the safeguard against abuse of power.
your logic is the logic that justifies saving police lives at the cost of all others.
being a police officer is dangerous, though not in the top 10. and it should be. it is by nature a risky profession. some days you interact with normal everyday citizens who just went a lil too fast. others you interact with actual dangerous criminals. that's the nature of the job when it comes to enforcing the law in relation to the nations citizens...all of them, normal or dangerous.
there are far too many police who think they're supposed to be warriors.
THEY ARE NOT.
that flawed mindset largely comes from ex-military who transitioned but forgot they aren't at war with America's citizens.
I've actually been told by various officers that the view of them as guardians is dangerous and emperils theyre safety.
that is garbage.
police are not warriors.
they absolutely ARE guardians.
and part of being a guardian of the public is protecting ALL OF THE PUBLIC, including the dangerous ones, to the best of your ability.
and if that doesn't sit well with you, then don't become one.