17
   

I saw a white man with a gun. I heard a policeman saying, "Place the weapon down on the ground, ple

 
 
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2014 08:20 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
Yes, but there aren't enough active shooters, so to keep from losing their new munitions, they're using them predominantly to issue warrants, which used to be a reasonably peaceful procedure.



Not enough ASEs???? Tell that to the parents of the kids killed in those schools. How many ASEs do you decree before you woud allow SWAT Teams?

And the operative words here are USED TO BE.



FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2014 08:28 pm
@giujohn,
I refuse to believe that you're that dense. You've figured out how to use a keyboard and ostensibly feed yourself.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2014 08:36 pm
Quote:
Crime’s Down, So Why is Police Aggression Increasing?

You might not know it from watching TV news, but FBI statistics show that crime in the U.S.—including violent crime—has been trending steadily downward for years, falling 19% between 1987 and 2011. The job of being a police officer has become safer too, as the number of police killed by gunfire plunged to 33 last year, down 50% from 2012, to its lowest level since, wait for it, 1887, a time when the population was 75% lower than it is today.

So why are we seeing an ever increasing militarization of policing across the country?

Given the good news on crime, what are we to make of a report by the Justice Policy Institute, a not-for-profit justice reform group, showing that state and local spending on police has soared from $40 billion in 1982 to more than $100 billion in 2012. Adding in federal spending on law enforcement, including the FBI, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Drug Enforcement Agency and much of the Homeland Security Department budget, as well as federal grants to state and local law enforcement more than doubles that total. A lot of that money is simply pay and benefits. The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that the ranks of state and local law enforcement personnel alone swelled from 603,000 to 794,000 between 1992 and 2010. That’s about two-thirds as many men and women as the entire active-duty US military.

What these statistics make clear is that policing in America is ramping up even as the crime rate is falling.

...


- See more at: http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/03/19/crimes-police-aggression-increasing/#sthash.p9eEetYu.dpuf
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2014 08:39 pm
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2014 08:40 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
giujohn wrote:



Quote:

That's one.


Wrong...its 562...guess you flunked arithmetic


I'm pretty sure I did better in math than you did in logic. Had you ever taken a class in it, that is.



The response was to illustrate how cavalier and dismisive you seem to be regarding police deaths. Or are you being purposely obtuse?
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2014 08:48 pm
@FBM,
Crime is down so why the increase of police?

Thats the same old crap that caught us with are pants down on 12/8/41. Look how long it took the U.S. to play catch up.

Where is the "logic" that because crime is down we should scale back police?

If burglaries are down in you neighborhood do you turn your alarm off and leave your door unlocked?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2014 09:01 pm
@giujohn,
In '41 "are" domestic pants weren't down. These police are not defending us from foreign aggression; they're (supposed to be) protecting us from domestic threats, rather than becoming one. Disproportionately arming oneself against invisible threats is sheer paranoia, and a militarized police force is indistinguishable from a tyrrany. You know, like North Korea.

And, yes, when I was young we didn't lock "are" doors for the very reason that crime was so rare. When I moved to an urban area where crime was more common, I responded appropriately and locked my doors. Duh.
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2014 09:12 pm
@FBM,
Well, maybe your not being obtuse on purpose...the WWII reference was an EXAMPLE not to be taken LITERALLY.

An increase in ASEs and home grown terrorism is certainly NOT an "invisable threat".

Quote:
When I moved to an urban area where crime was more common, I responded appropriately and locked my doors. Duh.


But..but.. CRIME IS DOWN!!!! So why dont you leave your door unlocked? (and then tell us where you live while you're at it)

FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2014 09:17 pm
@giujohn,
Derp. Maybe "your" not being obtuse on purpose, either. But I'd need more evidence of that than I've seen so far. Even though crime nationwide is down, that doesn't mean that there's less or none in any particular location. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy ) Any given rural area is going to have lower crimes rates than a city if for no other reason than that there are fewer people there.

And while crimes rates have been plunging:

Quote:
In 1981, for example, there were 3,000 no knock warrants executed in America. In 2005, just 24 years later, this number skyrocketed to over 50,000 no knock raids.



- See more at: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/number-annual-swat-team-raids-jumps-3000-1981-over-50000-2005#sthash.rV6AM0jp.dpuf
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2014 08:15 am
@giujohn,
All of them? You like to prove you are an idiot, don't you.

At least 4 of them were stopped by armed civilians. Are you arguing the civilians were violating the law by being in gun free zones with a gun? One of those was stopped by armed security guards at a church so churches are hardly a gun free zone.

44 of the shootings took place in pedestrian traffic areas, businesses like Radio Shack in Florida and a convenience store in Texas. 6 of them took place in malls. 15 of them in open spaces. 7 in residences. I suppose you are going to now tell us that malls and stores in Texas and Florida are gun free zones. Like I said. You do like to prove you are an idiot. One needs only to pay attention to the news and the open carry incidents to know you are an idiot.
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site569/2014/0603/20140603__targetGunProtest_300.jpg



The FBI report is here:
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013
While they don't classify which areas are gun free zones, it's obvious they can't be all be gun free areas.

giujohn wrote:
51 percent of the attacks studied occurred in the workplace, while 17 percent occurred in a school, 17 percent occurred in a public place, and six percent occurred in a religious establishment.
(all gun free zones)


What a bunch of nonsense to call them all gun free zones. You should check out the laws of the different states. The street outside a court house in Idaho is now a gun free zone? The street outside an army recruiting center in Arkansas is a gun free zone? The highway in Oklahoma is a gun free zone? The shooting of soldiers outside the recruiting center is classified as a government building even though the shooter never entered the building.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2014 09:05 am
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:




Peter Blair, PhD, and Hunter Martindale, PhD, conducted a study of 84 active shooter incidents from 2001 to 2010. Here’s a summary of their findings:
■Two percent of the shooters bring improvised explosive devices (IEDs) as an additional weapon.
■In 10 percent of the cases, the shooter stops and walks away. In 20 percent of the cases, the shooter goes mobile, moving to another location.
■43 percent of the time, the crime is over before police arrive. In 57 percent of the shootings, an officer arrives while shooting is still underway,officers had to use force to stop the killing..




Those are some interesting statistics compared to the FBI stats.

Quote:
However, in 45 of the 160 incidents where law
enforcement did engage a shooter, law enforcement suffered casualties in 21 (46.7%) of the
incidents, resulting in 9 officers killed and 28 wounded.
Significantly, 10 of the officers were wounded in gunfights categorized as occurring in
open spaces where the shooters were moving through streets and between buildings.

In the FBI statistics the police only engaged the shooter 28% of the time. I wonder which one to trust? Maybe the one that actually lists the incidents?

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2014 09:17 am
@giujohn,
The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial shows that officer deaths are down. 2013 was the fewest officer deaths since 1941. Even the last 10 years shows a down trend in officer deaths.

http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html

And before you argue that officers killed by armed felons has gone up, you should check the stats.

I find it interesting that in the last 10 years, 2012 which had the most active shooter incidents had fewer officers being shot to death than 6 out of the 10 years.
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2014 02:10 pm
@parados,
Quote:
. I suppose you are going to now tell us that malls and stores in Texas and Florida are gun free zones.


I can prove YOU"RE an idiot. Apparently you have never carried concealed or lived in Texas ( I've done both).
What most of the uninformed (like YOU) think is that it's the wild west in Texas because they watched Bonanza and Gunsmoke on TV when they were young. In fact, up until 1995 Texas had more strict gun laws than New York State (excluding the Sullivan Law)
Now that you are allowed to carry concealed in Texas ANY private property owner can make it ilegal for you to carry on the premisis by posting a 30.06 sign. So you bet your idiot ass that it is ilegal to carry in malls and RadioShack and churches. Oh and BTW most business insurance policys are REQUIRING the businesses to post it.
And one more thing dumb ass, suggesting I get my information from the "news" is THE most idiotic statement I've heard on this forum in quite a while (and that includes EVERYTHING Q has uttered).
The news is as uninformed as you are (not sure if this is the chicken or egg) Case in point: when Don Lemon of CNN was engaged in a live debate after Ferguson saying taht he waliked into a store and bought an Automatic AR-15 rile and shot numerous shots just by pulling back on the trigger. (he's a professional idiot, you still have amateur status))
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2014 02:13 pm
@parados,
Quote:
The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial shows that officer deaths are down


Hey idiot...I'm the one that brought that statistic to the debate.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2014 06:18 pm
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2014 06:34 pm
@FBM,
Not hard to figure out...dont want to get Tasered?...comply with police instructions...especially if your a BIG guy like this one was and in an emotional state where your actions would be unpredictable by police. It's called OFFICER SAFTEY.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2014 06:35 pm
@giujohn,
When exactly was he a threat to the officers during the time that he was grieving over the dead child in the hospital room, which is what parents tend to do? What kind of heartless monsters rip a grieving parent away from the body of a dead child?
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2014 06:46 pm
@FBM,
Well now we dont know for exactly how long the police gave him before he kept refusing their instrctions do we? But what IS clear is that at one point when the police try to move him away from the table he is resisiting. As I said, this is a big guy, he's not thinking clearly, he is unpredictable, he could at any momnent swing on an officer and break a nose, put out an eye or cause any number of other injuries. If you think it's prudent to use force only AFTER an officer is injured you need to re-evaluate your postion, cause I gotta tell you no sane person would advocate that.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2014 06:51 pm
@giujohn,
Why were they even trying to rip him away from his dead child? The child was dead. Nobody was trying to resuscitate him. Why not let the parent grieve? That's what parents are supposed to do. That's normal behavior. It was inhuman to treat him like that for perfectly normal and peaceful behavior.
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2014 07:51 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
Why were they even trying to rip him away from his dead child? The child was dead. Nobody was trying to resuscitate him. Why not let the parent grieve? That's what parents are supposed to do. That's normal behavior. It was inhuman to treat him like that for perfectly normal and peaceful behavior


Now u r being obtuse...as I said YOU DONT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. You are basing your emotional comments on incomplete evidence. You dont know how long he was allowed to greive over the body. You cant hear waht he was saying. For all we know he could ahve been verbally threatening to the officer BUT WE DONT KNOW, DO WE?
What we CAN see is the man RESISTING THE POLICE. If the Doctor has told the police to remove the man from the ER waht are the police to do? Tell the Doc to **** off? The hospital has rules. Yes his son is dead yes he was upset. But it seems in this "entitlement mentality society" that the liberals have fostered we can act ANY ******* WAY WE WANT. Let me say again...you dont get to exercise your rights any time or place you choose. There are limits. And one more thing you in your emotional obtuse response hasn't considered. His son was SHOT AND KILLED a victim of a CRIME. A crime under investigation. Once the effort to save the life is over the body is now EVIDENCE. Allowing anyone to insert themselves even remotely into the cahin of custody could very well jeopardise any future prosecution. Yes, yes you will now poo-poo that he couldnt possibly have caused any coruption of the evidence but you dont appear to be very savy to forensics or how it works in court with a slick defense attorney bringing up any reasonable doubt. by your reasoning if the father was in the morgue you would have also let him grieve over the body. And we know THAT would never happenen.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 12:57:45