The protesters are the ones chanting “death to cops” and, as Terr’s just cited “pigs in blankets”. Despite all the claims of police brutality and racism, I’ve seen nothing comparable to that from them.
But hey, you carry on supporting criminals and their enablers instead of the police who are trying to stop them, and getting murdered for doing so. Actually murdered, not killed in self defence or by accident. This incident has just made it clear that those criticising the police don’t have a leg to stand on, and that claims that the police aren’t at any real risk, and are overreacting, are utter bullshit.
Aside from your normal anti-gun bullshit, should we ban knives as well? Might have kept the woman in Aus from stabbing 8 kids to death, or the spate of stabbings in China.
Wait, my mind is blown. Baseball bats and rolling pins… you’re right. Your novel, clever genius-level analogy has convinced me. I’ve never heard anyone say anything remotely like this!
Sheer genius. Incredible. I’ve done a 180 on this topic because of your insight.
Yes. I’ve never seen any policeman saying that they should kill people, just that they have to sometimes. Sometimes, it’s necessary for the police to kill in self defence, or it’s an unfortunate side effect of subduing someone - such as in the Garner case. However, it’s never necessary, or even permissible, for someone to kill (or use any force) against a police officer who’s doing their job.
The scum calling for, and celebrating, the death of cops really should realise that the only reason they’re able to do that, to “protest”, is because they’re in a well policed society ruled by law. In an actual police state, the protests would be shut down, and reporting on them would be prevented. Ironically, the very existence of the protests proves they’re not necessary.
By and large, the question of whether or not anything “has” to be done is largely a matter of opinion. Do you “have” to go to work tomorrow? Do you “have” to follow your doctor’s advice? While there may be consequences for choosing not to, one still always has a choice. Recent events, as well as official statistics, indicate that the choice of whether or not to kill a citizen is one which many American cops are either too paranoid, too ill-trained, or just too stupid to be trusted to make. Nine times out of 10 these cops are not forced to kill. They choose to kill and they choose wrong.
In 2012, cops in England and Wales shot to death a grand total of two people. In 2013 they managed to go the entire year without shooting and killing anyone at all. This year the casualty figure is one. Know how many citizens American cops have shot and killed this year? About 450. These are the kind of numbers I’d associate with Colombia or South Africa. At this rate it will take UK cops about five hundred years to kill as many citizens as US cops killed in the last eleven months.
By now, the problem is obvious. American cops just think differently to cops pretty much anywhere else in the Western world. In America, it seems that if a citizen does anything that a cop could possibly construe as even being remotely threatening the lethal force card immediately becomes a viable card to play. Cops in other countries simply don’t think like this. In England, for example, cops are expected to refrain from shooting civilians unless they have quite literally no other choice in the world, and if they break that rule then heads fucking roll. The only way to effect meaningful change is to force American cops to change their mindsets so that they learn to behave more like cops in other civilised nations. Either take their guns, or fire those with poor disciplinary records, or change the way they are trained, or all of the above and then some.
Will this will result in higher casualties among police? If the figures from other countries are anything to go by, probably not. But even if it does, so be it. Given the choice between saving a few cops and saving a few hundred civilians, I’ll go with the civilians.
Patrick Lynch is a reprehensible asshole, tho. It is both his job and IMO his pleasure to takes great offense to anything even remotely critical of police officers and/or their actions. His usual response is to paint the “cops vs. everyone” line even broader so that it includes not just the object of his ire but anyone even tangentially related. IMO he also has Cheney-like blinders on with regards to police and is prone to blame the victim; for instance:[
The Police Union, they are on the forefront of cleaning out corrupt and violent cops? Found them both, did they?
Not like the teacher’s unions, always protecting the incompetent and poorly trained. Everybody knows what unions are like. Except this one, because, well, they’re cops.