And we aren’t happy with the cop killing Eric Garner, so your argument is we want more of that? We should have our Federal law enforcement operate at the same low bar as local police?
In the first 24 days of this year, cops in the US killed more people than did cops in the UK in the past 24 years. Fact. Math rules!
This is one of those talking points openly dispersed in hopes of forcing a narrative…
1.) The U.S. contains around 300 million more people.
2.) The U.S. is the most diverse country in the world.
3.) The vast majority of police officers in the UK do not carry guns.
4.) The vast majority of police shootings in the U.S. are justifiable, and save lives.
I think we don’t need to strangle guys for selling cigarettes, but we should use whatever force is needed to lock up the guys that steal millions in grazing fees and threaten police and civilian with weaponry that they shouldn’t even have in the first place.
Okay, let’s talk about your use of the word “justifiable”. What makes a shooting “justified”? And if we call a shooting “justified” what does that mean?
Here in Nevada, it means that the cops have said the magic words (“I thought maybe he was gonna be a threat to somebody somewhere at sometime” or “I thought I saw a weapon” or “he made a move that might have been sort of like he maybe had a weapon”, etc.) and now they get to go home. We know that the system was rigged so that cop’s were protected, so calling a shooting “justifiable” had no real-world meaning. EVERY shooting was legally justified, even the ones that no sane person could call justified or necessary.
So the fact that you keep resorting to using an argument that, for me at least, is not only meaningless but a direct appeal to rigged laws and a system that supports itself at the expense of the populace means that you’re actually losing the argument a little every time you bring it up.
You fail to provide facts. Just silly, illogical, generic conspiracy theories, fueled by your bias.
Cops, unfortunately, are put into positions where they have to shoot the bad guy. Such an action saves lives. They aren’t going around shooting good people.
Let’s use your insane conspiracy theory. Let’s say that every police shooting is of a deviant nature. It’s still such a small percentage of police interactions. Less than 1%. Fact!
I’ll let the Las Vegas Review Journal and local law enforcement know that you found no facts at the link I provided. :rolleyes: Did you really think you could get away with that statement? :dubious:
Nope, not my theory. And the strawman you created is yours, not mine. Was it hard to knock it down?
In the UK, how many citizens carry guns?
In the UK, do people recognize that being a policeman is a potentially dangerous job?
Yikes! Someone needs a lecture on what facts are.
Even under the guise of your tinfoil hat… Let’s go with the premise that ever police shooting is malicious and unjustified. It’s still less than 1% of all police altercations. They just don’t happen very often. And when they do, they happen to whites more frequently. The vast majority of police officers have never fired their gun in the line of duty.
You’re a part of this hate culture against police. Like your coherts, you force narratives, and you’re terrible at math.
You let that sink in right; Facts:
No matter how many liberal articles you post; no matter how many conspiracy theories you force on us; nothing excuses how terrible you liberals remain at math.
In a country of over 300 million people, where gangs rule and control certain locations of our biggest cities, terrorizing children - in less than 1% of police dealings, is a shot fired. Less than 1%!
When a person is killed by a police officer, they’re more likely to be white than black.
Which may end up being cheaper in the long run.
Damn, dude? Bigot much? Can you make that brush even wider; it only appears to be a mile or so wide now.
When someone has an agenda, they’ll stop at nothing to push their forced narratives. Logic, science, math - none of these things matter to them.
Police officers shoot people in less than 1% of police interactions. LESS THAN 1%!
When a police officer kills someone, the percentages suggest that said person in most likely to be white. MOST LIKELY TO BE WHITE!
Facts, logic, math and science: the liberal agenda’s worse enemy.
The numbers in the gun discussion are insane and can often be used to argue both sides of the argument. For example, you say that police officers need guns less than 1% of the time, so why do they even carry them? Lock them up in the trunk of the car in case they get into a situation where they know they’ll need them, but if it’s SO VANISHINGLY RARE that you use exclamation points to try to get your message across, why do they even have them?
Once again, LOGIC escapes them!
Having a gun serves as a deterrent. More than often, simply brandishing a gun puts an end to a dangerous situation. The threat, not the action. Which only furthers the evidence that police officers are acting responsibly in situations where the average person would crap their panties.
The average police officer never fires their weapon through the entirety of their career.
Math rules!
In Chicago, an offset of BlackLivesMatters is protesting. Are they protesting the countless young lives lost to vicious gangs throughout the city? Nope! Are they protesting the black-on-black crime that resonates? Nope! So they must be protesting the prioritization of education within their communities, right? Nope!
So what are they protesting, you ask? The police. Again!
These people want LESS police. Meanwhile, gangs will be responsible for lost lives, and multiple shootings, this weekend.
So much for caring about the community!
True, you should definitely try to affect political change within a criminal organization through protest. I mean trying to do it within the actual government seems useless.
I can’t help but think that if the Bundys were black the reasoning would be totally different.
Once a black person refuses to obey a lawful order they are under arrest; Henceforth any move they make seems to be a threat to public safety. If they are resisting an order no matter how mundane then there must be something they are hiding. The reasoning then will go that they are to be considered armed and dangerous.
If the Bundys are stealing public property that has to be serious enough to force them off the land. If they refuse and as you say they are armed with military weapons, then they should be considered a public threat (Just think of them as black, if you can) If you are in an apartment that you shouldn’t in, a constable may come and force you off. Do you have a gun? They are going to get you out, period. They don’t postpone it or refuse to do it for practical reasons.
Gent,
I’ve mod noted you and I’ve warned you. You don’t seem to be listening. Anything, anywhere in Great Debates or Elections, that sounds remotely like an insult or attack on another poster in any form will earn you more warning and likely lead to the revocation of your ability to post.
Learn from this, please. The SDMB demands a level of civility higher than expected in most of places on the Internet. If you can’t live up to that standard you can expect your stay here to be short.
Jonathan Chance
Moderator