Or what their official title is
https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/law-enforcement/ohio-peace-officer-training-academy
I’ll agree that the title itself can be suggestive of something that it’s not, but it’s not really fair to call someone out for using the proper terminology here, even if the proper terminology itself is a bit disingenuous.
Well, you should try at least something that will, before you start correcting others when they properly use the language.
Nope, you all got conned.
Maybe you meant to take this to @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness’s thread on objects that have changed their meaning over time.
Peace officers aren’t made of peace.
But that’s still their official title, and the objections that you are making here are incredibly stupid.
Do you think their job is to create peace? If so, fine. I don’t and won’ t use such inappropriate titles.
And it’s nothing anyone is making up or using for any sort of argumentative points or political reasons. It’s literally the legal and accepted term for officers in those sorts of positions, and I’d wager it’s probably been the accepted term for a century or more. It’s also used the same way in Canada, for what that’s worth.
Would you mind providing a link to your dictionary, so that we can all be on the same page?
Can’t do that man, it’s an internal lexicon. But someone suggested that “police” had changed its meaning (as some words do over time) to “peace”. What do you think about that?
I think that I’ll speak the same language as the rest of the populace when I attempt to communicate with them.
So if the powers in charge tell you what to say, you’ll just say it? OK. I know most people are sheep. I am too in many ways.
Checking out of this thread for the time being.
Well, no, you are incorrect here, as peace officer has been in use for a very long time.
The point being that not everyone who is a peace officer is a police officer, so it’s more a catch all term.
Probably for the best, as you have not contributed anything of value.
I always provide value. Yes-men provide no value. You should know that.
I fully agree that this individual ought not have been shot based on the facts as I understand them. And I agree that police should greatly adjust their policies regarding pursuit and use of force.
But please explain to me why there has been no mention in this thread (based on my somewhat quick reading) that is is not really a good idea to ignore a policeman’s command, to run away, and then to fight with the cop, struggling for his taser?
Sure, if he had gotten back into his car, there coulda been an, “I thought he was reaching for a gun!” shooting. But - whatever shade your skin - does running increase your odds?
Because that is blaming the victim.
It’s that dictionary that says a “Fireman” is one who starts fires.
Do you generally expect different things from attorneys than you do of claimants ?
If there is a bailiff in your courtroom, and a claimant starts yelling and screaming and walking vigorously around your courtroom – obviously distressed – do you expect your team to try to defuse the situation, or should your bailiff simply shoot them ?
I’m all for doing everything we can to reduce the need for crime by funding and enacting root cause solutions, looking anywhere and everywhere for best practices that lead to a better society for all.
Until then, I still maintain that I expect more from trained, equipped, funded Agents of the State than I do from ‘criminals.’ The former is also much more in my control than the latter.
Fair enough, I did get a chuckle out of your stupidity this morning.
This is true, but once again, adds no value to the conversation whatsoever. Perhaps in a ridiculous attempt at passive aggressive disparagement, you were implying that those who use the English language properly are “yes-men” but you are too much of a coward to actually come out and make the accusation, as you know just how much stupider it will make you look than you already do.
Here we have a thread where we are talking about the problems with law enforcement in the US, and you think that you contribute anything of value over trying to correct other people’s proper use of a word, and then try to call them sheep and yes-men when they tell you how full of shit you are for your idiotic interjections.
If you had just said something like, “Peace officer seems a contradiction in terms”, then you would have had a majority agreement out of the other posters in this thread. But when you accuse them of being bootlickers as you have so pathetically implied, you are just talking out your ass.
Oh, sure, we all know that if you don’t respect a cop’s awthawity you are in for a bad time from that cop.
What we don’t believe is that is grounds for summary execution.
Huh?
Isn’t it possible that TWO people might both act badly in a certain situation? I agreed that this guy oughtn’t have been shot. I agree that police pursuit/force policies should be changed.
Hell - even if I view cops as the equivalent of “dangerous animals.” Oughtn’t I exercise some care not to “poke that bear”?
I hear a lot about the “talk” people of color have to have with their kids/sons. Which is a sad state of affairs. What part of that talk advises running and fighting? Especially if you haven’t done something clearly/seriously wrong (carrying drugs/weapons, dead body in the trunk.) And here - in daylight, with a witness with a phone.
I’m just trying to figure out the mindset. (I haven’t heard yet of allegations of mental illness/past trauma.)
This is the thread about how policing should improve, so we’re talking about what the police do wrong.
Maybe there’s another thread about how people can avoid being shot.