The behaviour of US police officers

Status
Not open for further replies.
HoverBoarder said:
Police brutality is absolutely an issue, and it requires a holistic solution. Not just ones that we want to the other side to fix.

Once you take the stance that "the other side can only be included when they adequately admit guilt for____," it usually means that the problem will never be addressed.

The idea that it is OK to attack police without repercussions has led to most of the main high profile lethal police encounters, and the view that people may attacks them has led to a much higher level of police force, and the increased use of police force has increased the idea from some people that they are justified in attacking the police.

It is a negative reinforcing cycle, and you can't just point to one side to fix all of it.

There are many steps that are needed to reduce the violence, and we have to take into account that there are some people who are more interested in demonizing one side rather than actually addressing the issue.

Some would rather people continue to be unnecessarily killed rather than include the police or BIPOC communities in addressing the solution.
Click to expand...
But there it comes again, as if the murder of civilians is some kind of "tit for tat" because the cops don't get no respect. It's the old joke about the beatings continuing until morale improves. The cops will keep on unnecessarily killing people until the people are deferential enough to stop accusing them of doing it. The way you phrase it it sounds as if the cure for unecessary killing is to pretend it doesn't happen.

I don't believe it's good to attack cops or to kill them either, and sure, it's a good idea to see their side of the law enforcement issue, but I don't think it's reasonable to require some kind of diplomatic deference and compromise to convince them that they should stop being brutal and unnecessarily murdering people.
 
HoverBoarder said:
There have been repeated instances of groups of people getting together for the purpose of engaging in Domestic Terrorism in Portland. They have been attacking the pearl district repeatedly for the primary purpose of engaging in destruction, violence, and to terrorize the innocent people living there.

The police have been obscenely lenient with the Terrorists that they engage with there.

Many of the attackers who have assaulted the people, businesses, and police there, have been released the same day in order to continue their pursuit of terror the very next day.

Against these terrorists, HC is an important tool, but we need a lot more tools, both physical and political. I agree that HC gas should be limited as much as possible, and there are steps that we could take to make sure it is much less likely too get into the situation where it would have to be used in the first place.

People should not be allowed to attack and terrorize their city without repercussions. The fact that it keeps happening is the core problem, the use of HC gas is just a symptom of that problem.

Those who engage in mass Domestic Terrorism events in the city, or support them should be identified. With pictures identified posted on a public board. Too often people have used masks to try to hide their identity from the public to avoid any repercussions while they terrorize the city.

People's employers, family, and friends should know if they have been part of the Domestic Terrorism attacks against their city.

That would be an excellent way to reduce violence from protests and from police. If you want to reduce the use of HC and other less lethal tools, that is an excellent way to do that.
Click to expand...

HC smoke has no crowd control value. It is not an irritant like tear gas or pepper spray, it's toxic and hazardous to human health. It won't disperse crowds during a riot, but it can cause a delayed toxic effect.

Deliberate poisoning is generally not considered a lawful use of force in any circumstance.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
HC smoke has no crowd control value. It is not an irritant like tear gas or pepper spray, it's toxic and hazardous to human health. It won't disperse crowds during a riot, but it can cause a delayed toxic effect.

Deliberate poisoning is generally not considered a lawful use of force in any circumstance.
Click to expand...


It depends. There are those (as we can see here) that would consider poisoning the entire crowd to be a fair and just application of force.

For certain crowds, of course.
 
Another cop moonlighting as a member of a fascist street gang.

Fresno police officer placed on leave after seen with Proud Boys at Tower Theatre protest
Click to expand...

https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article249939048.html

Former proud boy and now the leader of his own spinoff fash group

Fitzgerald in online posts says he’s the president of “Sons of ‘76,” a local “patriotic fraternity” focused on community service and charity. But Fitzgerald said he previously was part of the Proud Boys and encourages others to join that group along with the “Three Percenters,” both fascist, white supremacist groups that engage in violent clashes at political rallies.

In a podcast episode, Fitzgerald said he was part of the local Proud Boys group for about a year and reached the third degree and leadership level of membership before he left.
Click to expand...



Seems like a good attitude for an armed agent of the state

In one Instagram photo from 2019, Fitzgerald posted a photo of himself wearing a “Punisher” mask and pointing a gun with the caption “**** is a lot easier when you can kill people.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
HC smoke has no crowd control value. It is not an irritant like tear gas or pepper spray, it's toxic and hazardous to human health. It won't disperse crowds during a riot, but it can cause a delayed toxic effect.

Deliberate poisoning is generally not considered a lawful use of force in any circumstance.
Click to expand...
It's a smoke grenade, not blankets with diseases on them.

There were a lot of steps that the feds took to try to reduce violence, and those were the steps that the extremists there took the most offense to, as violence was their main objective.

The fence that did the most to stop the physical attacks by the armed protestors was one of the main things that they tried to remove. Even some radical officials who presumably would want to have less violence took steps to try to remove the fencing to allow more violence there.

You can't take extraordinary steps to increase violence at the courthouse and than be surprised when it happens. Smoke grenades was a small component compared to all the chaos that was happening there. Do you think they spray containers with bleach and urine to shoot into people's eyes were poisonous?
 
Last edited:
Blue Mountain said:
I stopped reading right there.
Click to expand...

You can choose what types of Domestic Terrorism you choose to pay attention to, but not the victims who are affected by it.

This was right around the area where all of those dozens of families were nearly burned alive simply because they lived in the same building as the mayor. There is a long history of Domestic Terrorist attacks against innocent citizens of Portland here by violent extremists.

If you do only care about some forms of Domestic Terrorism while purposefully ignoring others though, you lose there moral high ground to be shocked and offended by other forms of Domestic Terrorism like at the Capitol.
 
bruto said:
But there it comes again, as if the murder of civilians is some kind of "tit for tat" because the cops don't get no respect. It's the old joke about the beatings continuing until morale improves. The cops will keep on unnecessarily killing people until the people are deferential enough to stop accusing them of doing it. The way you phrase it it sounds as if the cure for unecessary killing is to pretend it doesn't happen.

I don't believe it's good to attack cops or to kill them either, and sure, it's a good idea to see their side of the law enforcement issue, but I don't think it's reasonable to require some kind of diplomatic deference and compromise to convince them that they should stop being brutal and unnecessarily murdering people.
Click to expand...

If you set up policies to encourage there to be unnecessary violence and attacks, there are going to be times when that escalates no matter how much effort is put into trying to de-escalate the situation.

A better idea is to put at least some effort into trying to prevent situations from being able to get violent like that in the first place.
 
quadraginta said:
It depends. There are those (as we can see here) that would consider poisoning the entire crowd to be a fair and just application of force.

For certain crowds, of course.
Click to expand...

Definitely a cop out. No one wants to "poison the entire crowd" I am certainly a fan of better crowd control methods, but when you set up a situation that encouragers violence, especially with an extremist group that sets up a "protest" with the specific purpose of engaging in violence, than there will be side effects of the less than lethal tools that are needed to keep them at Bay.

The better method would be to put in place policies that would encourage peaceful protests and protect against ones that are primarily intent on violence.

There are many reasonable ways to do that, and I have mentioned them many times.

You can't purposely set up conditions to encourage violence and than get shocked and appalled when it happens.
 
Hell, it's probably risky for the pigs too. The DoD has phased out these particular types of smoke grenades because of their excessive toxicity. It's unsafe for anyone to be exposed to these fumes.
 
ponderingturtle said:
So thats why the cops have so many of them.
Click to expand...
One article mentions that some of the cans are years past expiration date. It's usually not possible to discern what these are because they burn so hot it destroys all labels. One thrown grenade was a dud, likely due to being well past expiration, allowing for journalists to see what was actually being used.
 
HoverBoarder said:
If you set up policies to encourage there to be unnecessary violence and attacks, there are going to be times when that escalates no matter how much effort is put into trying to de-escalate the situation.

A better idea is to put at least some effort into trying to prevent situations from being able to get violent like that in the first place.
Click to expand...

I don't really question the practicality of what you say, but bristle at the moral implications. It's kind of like having to include the Taliban in peace talks.
 
HoverBoarder said:
If you set up policies to encourage there to be unnecessary violence and attacks, there are going to be times when that escalates no matter how much effort is put into trying to de-escalate the situation.

A better idea is to put at least some effort into trying to prevent situations from being able to get violent like that in the first place.
Click to expand...

But it isn't like the police are trained to descalate anything they are trained to simply assert authority through force. Violence is the question for the police and the answer is usually yes.
 
ponderingturtle said:
But it isn't like the police are trained to descalate anything they are trained to simply assert authority through force. Violence is the question for the police and the answer is usually yes.
Click to expand...


And if there isn't any when they get there they'll do everything they can to provoke some.

How else are the going to get to use all their cool Army surplus hand-me-down toys?

Like toxic smoke bombs even the Army won't use anymore because they are too dangerous.
 
bruto said:
But there it comes again, as if the murder of civilians is some kind of "tit for tat" because the cops don't get no respect. It's the old joke about the beatings continuing until morale improves. The cops will keep on unnecessarily killing people until the people are deferential enough to stop accusing them of doing it. The way you phrase it it sounds as if the cure for unecessary killing is to pretend it doesn't happen.

I don't believe it's good to attack cops or to kill them either, and sure, it's a good idea to see their side of the law enforcement issue, but I don't think it's reasonable to require some kind of diplomatic deference and compromise to convince them that they should stop being brutal and unnecessarily murdering people.
Click to expand...

We can't really expect professionals to act any better than Cartman.
 
HoverBoarder said:
If you set up policies to encourage there to be unnecessary violence and attacks, there are going to be times when that escalates no matter how much effort is put into trying to de-escalate the situation.

A better idea is to put at least some effort into trying to prevent situations from being able to get violent like that in the first place.
Click to expand...

What I think you meant:

If politicians set up policies to encourage there to be unnecessary violence and attacks by protestors, there are going to be times when that escalates no matter how much effort the police put into trying to de-escalate the situation.

A better idea is for politicians to put at least some effort into trying to prevent situations from being able to get violent like that in the first place.​

How it read:

If police set up policies to encourage there to be unnecessary violence and attacks between police and protestors, there are going to be times when that escalates no matter how much effort protestors put into trying to de-escalate the situation.

A better idea is for protestors to put at least some effort into trying to prevent situations from being able to get violent like that in the first place.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom