Looks Like Another One Slipped Thru the Cracks

[abbey1227]

........ of gun control and background checks, huh?

Brandon Scott Hole

The FBI revealed Friday the teenager’s mom had contacted them last March about his suicidal intentions, and he was placed “on an immediate detention mental health temporary hold by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.” They also seized a shotgun at his home.

“Based on items observed in the suspect’s bedroom at that time, he was interviewed by the FBI in April 2020. No Racially Motivated Violent Extremism (RMVE) ideology was identified during the course of the assessment and no criminal violation was found. The shotgun was not returned to the suspect,” the FBI added in a statement.

A police report from the incident first obtained by WTHR said he’d purchased the shotgun in the last 24 hours.

[Prometheus]

Thanks for making me look up who this guy was.

I don't know what the gun control laws in Indianapolis are so I can't speak to them, but do you think that every person ever questioned by police should be on a watch-list and have their freedoms infringed?

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

[abbey1227]

Apr 17, 2021 4:32:07 GMT Prometheus said:

Thanks for making me look up who this guy was.

I don't know what the gun control laws in Indianapolis are so I can't speak to them, but do you think that every person ever questioned by police should be on a watch-list and have their freedoms infringed?

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

it's a two point thing here really........... 1. the Background system in place did not, and likely will never identify every person that's a threat. Heck, some people are perfectly fine for years.....and then just suddenly snap.

and 2. Like that health discussion were were having...... there's little inconveniences in the US like the Constitution and healthcare privacy laws that get in the way all the time.

My personal opinion? If you were whcky enough to have threatened 'suicide by cop'........ then I would think there'd at least be a record of it and maybe at the least a slight delay in the purchase of a gun. I don't think that's too much to expect from this all encompassing Govt we have that promises so much security, no? If he'd have had a peanut allergy, they'd have given more attention to it?

And all of that is simply negated by the reality that if he wanted to buy a gun in a criminal manner, it wouldn't really be that big a chore anyway.

So, there we are.

[Prometheus]

Apr 18, 2021 0:49:59 GMT abbey1227 said:

Apr 17, 2021 4:32:07 GMT Prometheus said:

Thanks for making me look up who this guy was.

I don't know what the gun control laws in Indianapolis are so I can't speak to them, but do you think that every person ever questioned by police should be on a watch-list and have their freedoms infringed?

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

it's a two point thing here really........... 1. the Background system in place did not, and likely will never identify every person that's a threat. Heck, some people are perfectly fine for years.....and then just suddenly snap.

and 2. Like that health discussion were were having...... there's little inconveniences in the US like the Constitution and healthcare privacy laws that get in the way all the time.

My personal opinion? If you were whcky enough to have threatened 'suicide by cop'........ then I would think there'd at least be a record of it and maybe at the least a slight delay in the purchase of a gun. I don't think that's too much to expect from this all encompassing Govt we have that promises so much security, no? If he'd have had a peanut allergy, they'd have given more attention to it?

And all of that is simply negated by the reality that if he wanted to buy a gun in a criminal manner, it wouldn't really be that big a chore anyway.

So, there we are.

The Constitution doesn't have anything to do with background checks IMO, but HIPAA sure puts a crimp in them.

Here's what I find odd, Abs: you take every opportunity to show fallibility as evidence that the larger institution fundamentally flawed, but you don't take into consideration all the times it worked correctly... unless it's some pet notion that you harbor.

For example, you seem to be outrageously worried that those 2% of traffic stops that lead to something bigger are extremely important regarding someone not following the rules, but you don't want paramedics to follow the rules well enough to be able to save a life.

If a pizza delivery guy doesn't get to the customer in 25 minutes or less, does it mean that the entire take-out food industry is awash in mismanagement?

[abbey1227]

Apr 18, 2021 1:42:44 GMT Prometheus said:

The Constitution doesn't have anything to do with background checks IMO, but HIPAA sure puts a crimp in them.

Here's what I find odd, Abs: you take every opportunity to show fallibility as evidence that the larger institution fundamentally flawed, but you don't take into consideration all the times it worked correctly... unless it's some pet notion that you harbor.

For example, you seem to be outrageously worried that those 2% of traffic stops that lead to something bigger are extremely important regarding someone not following the rules, but you don't want paramedics to follow the rules well enough to be able to save a life.

If a pizza delivery guy doesn't get to the customer in 25 minutes or less, does it mean that the entire take-out food industry is awash in mismanagement?

As always, it's a balancing act.......... between freedoms for all........and so called safety for all. I tend to lean more towards the freedom than the safety.

It's simply that I feel the govt has involved itself in far too many areas. Meanwhile people who feel differently have an endless stream of things they feel the govt should get much more involved in.

All the times it works correctly is sorta been my point.......the background checks works for the most part......along with the thousands of laws already on the books. But then WHY the demand for ever more laws and regulations? To create more criminals out of legal gun owners?

I am having an issue buying into the 2% number......but even if it is accurate.......something tells me it's ignoring the problem areas in the 40 out of 5000+ counties in the US......and using the other 2900+ counties to water down the reality of what police in high crime areas are dealing with. For instance, in my area, the county police might have 1 or 2 squad cars out total to cover 1/2 the county........but in the worst areas in Illinois or Maryland? They likely need a ton of cops to respond pretty much non-stop to the crimes and 911 calls.

I just don't feel that saving everyone's life 100% of the time should have ever become the responsibility of the rest of us. I've actually argued for a debate on the cost of losing a home here or there to fire.......compared to the ever rising costs of having the latest and greatest fire station installed and maintained in every community? People are supposed to have insurance anyway, no?

You forget 2 things, I think........ for years Dominos Pizza had a Guarantee of 30 minutes or less or it was FREE. That only stopped after some sizable lawsuits resulted from speeding delivery drivers and typical lawyers.

Now, even though that guarantee is no longer in place for any of the delivery outfits.........the policies and equipment designed for 30 minutes are still in place. So it's a guarantee without actually claiming it to be, y'know?

If anything, it's a great example of how effective the business place can be compared to govt run things...... like schools. 

[Prometheus]

1. Until you get hurt

2. What do you expect of a nation full of orphans with parents?

3. That 2% is an average. Maybe 4% of stops in those areas lead to more but for the number to get high enough to really be worth the trouble, you 'd be left having to suggest that there's really no crime anywhere but in those places and that's just stupid. And, AGAIN, the police building better relationships in those areas would probably prove to be a better avenue of information and possibly even reduce the number of riots when a single cop fucks up.

4. Dude, I just picked an example. But now that you mention it, I'm guessing that paramedics will be more diligent about stocking their ambulances....

See what you stepped into?

[abbey1227]

Apr 18, 2021 9:45:50 GMT Prometheus said:

1. Until you get hurt

2. What do you expect of a nation full of orphans with parents?

3. That 2% is an average. Maybe 4% of stops in those areas lead to more but for the number to get high enough to really be worth the trouble, you 'd be left having to suggest that there's really no crime anywhere but in those places and that's just stupid. And, AGAIN, the police building better relationships in those areas would probably prove to be a better avenue of information and possibly even reduce the number of riots when a single cop fucks up.

4. Dude, I just picked an example. But now that you mention it, I'm guessing that paramedics will be more diligent about stocking their ambulances....

See what you stepped into?

1. I'm under the impression you believe me as hypocritical as most? or worse?

2. More idiocy........and the enabling is only making it all the worse.

3. How do you build better relationships when you're viewed as an occupying force? How do you solve the very occasional fuck up of single cops? They're human, too.

4. Or there won't be as many ambulance services available in the coming years? Unless the Govt takes over that industry completely?

I step into a lot of things.......isn't that what makes for interesting conversation?

[Prometheus]

Apr 19, 2021 15:37:40 GMT abbey1227 said:

Apr 18, 2021 9:45:50 GMT Prometheus said:

1. Until you get hurt

2. What do you expect of a nation full of orphans with parents?

3. That 2% is an average. Maybe 4% of stops in those areas lead to more but for the number to get high enough to really be worth the trouble, you 'd be left having to suggest that there's really no crime anywhere but in those places and that's just stupid. And, AGAIN, the police building better relationships in those areas would probably prove to be a better avenue of information and possibly even reduce the number of riots when a single cop fucks up.

4. Dude, I just picked an example. But now that you mention it, I'm guessing that paramedics will be more diligent about stocking their ambulances....

See what you stepped into?

1. I'm under the impression you believe me as hypocritical as most? or worse?

2. More idiocy........and the enabling is only making it all the worse.

3. How do you build better relationships when you're viewed as an occupying force? How do you solve the very occasional fuck up of single cops? They're human, too.

4. Or there won't be as many ambulance services available in the coming years? Unless the Govt takes over that industry completely?

I step into a lot of things.......isn't that what makes for interesting conversation?

1. Let's just say that I fail to see the unifying logic....

2. Kids without a "family" connection will seek "parents" elsewhere. Anyone wishing to exploit this desire will find a way whether it be a cult, a street gang, or a government.

3. That's just it. If the cops were just rolling through the neighborhood and talking with people... shooting a few hoops with the kids... talking with shop owners... instead of pulling over taillight violators and stopping and frisking everyone with baggy pants, they might start to be viewed as protectors and servers... (sort of like how white people saw them in the 50's) and NOT as an occupying force.

If they see a kid running from a shop with a stolen candy bar, should they pull their guns and shoot or just track the kid down, make him/her pay, and then have a sit-down with the kid and his/her guardian? Why go through the current expense (and future expenses) of tossing the kid in juvie for a candy bar? I'm not saying the kid should be allowed to get away with it twice. I'm saying that we should try other ways to not let it happen a second time.

Would it work? I don't know, but it's worth a shot since the current method sure as hell isn't working.

4. If there weren't anymore private ambulance companies, the government would be FORCED to fund taxpayer-paid services because it's as necessary a public good as a firefighting service or police service. The citizens would demand it. And the guy who argues against it is going to be the first to sue the local/state/federal government when his kid dies because there was no ambulance to provide emergency care and transportation when the kid fell their bike and cracked their skull.

Unless you think parents are just going to say, "Well, she wasn't showing personal responsibility by wearing a helmet - which we taught her was her freedom to not do if she wanted - so the wife and I will just move on and maybe get to the chore of making another one."

[abbey1227]

Apr 20, 2021 3:01:51 GMT Prometheus said:

1. Let's just say that I fail to see the unifying logic....

2. Kids without a "family" connection will seek "parents" elsewhere. Anyone wishing to exploit this desire will find a way whether it be a cult, a street gang, or a government.

3. That's just it. If the cops were just rolling through the neighborhood and talking with people... shooting a few hoops with the kids... talking with shop owners... instead of pulling over taillight violators and stopping and frisking everyone with baggy pants, they might start to be viewed as protectors and servers... (sort of like how white people saw them in the 50's) and NOT as an occupying force.

If they see a kid running from a shop with a stolen candy bar, should they pull their guns and shoot or just track the kid down, make him/her pay, and then have a sit-down with the kid and his/her guardian? Why go through the current expense (and future expenses) of tossing the kid in juvie for a candy bar? I'm not saying the kid should be allowed to get away with it twice. I'm saying that we should try other ways to not let it happen a second time.

Would it work? I don't know, but it's worth a shot since the current method sure as hell isn't working.

4. If there weren't anymore private ambulance companies, the government would be FORCED to fund taxpayer-paid services because it's as necessary a public good as a firefighting service or police service. The citizens would demand it. And the guy who argues against it is going to be the first to sue the local/state/federal government when his kid dies because there was no ambulance to provide emergency care and transportation when the kid fell their bike and cracked their skull.

Unless you think parents are just going to say, "Well, she wasn't showing personal responsibility by wearing a helmet - which we taught her was her freedom to not do if she wanted - so the wife and I will just move on and maybe get to the chore of making another one."

1. You don't see/agree with the logic I'm using most of the time. 

2. Absolutely. That's why I had started a thread about the sheer number of times Teachers are being charged with diddling with kids........while Priests are basically olde news.

3. ID chips will fix most of this, right?    You're not saying it......but many directly involved are saying thieving, looting and all the rest are absolutely birthrights to the poor and underclass in the US. They're sick. They deserve to be violated in their own homes on a weekly basis just to give them a bit of their own medicine.

I'd agree with you about a more personal and on-foot police presence. But how do we convince the police and their union to go along?.....much less these communities that openly endorse ACAB? One of the few times I was actually shocked by a reality in recent years was jpat telling me that he was treated far worse by black people compared to anyone else.

4. Not if Judge's do what they should have been doing for decades and throwing out such lawsuits from the get-go. The citizens would demand it? Let those citizens form a co-op then and directly pay for it. Anyone that opts out of the payments doesn't receive the service. Pretty easy to keep track of in this age of technology.

[Prometheus]

Apr 20, 2021 6:54:29 GMT abbey1227 said:

Apr 20, 2021 3:01:51 GMT Prometheus said:

1. Let's just say that I fail to see the unifying logic....

2. Kids without a "family" connection will seek "parents" elsewhere. Anyone wishing to exploit this desire will find a way whether it be a cult, a street gang, or a government.

3. That's just it. If the cops were just rolling through the neighborhood and talking with people... shooting a few hoops with the kids... talking with shop owners... instead of pulling over taillight violators and stopping and frisking everyone with baggy pants, they might start to be viewed as protectors and servers... (sort of like how white people saw them in the 50's) and NOT as an occupying force.

If they see a kid running from a shop with a stolen candy bar, should they pull their guns and shoot or just track the kid down, make him/her pay, and then have a sit-down with the kid and his/her guardian? Why go through the current expense (and future expenses) of tossing the kid in juvie for a candy bar? I'm not saying the kid should be allowed to get away with it twice. I'm saying that we should try other ways to not let it happen a second time.

Would it work? I don't know, but it's worth a shot since the current method sure as hell isn't working.

4. If there weren't anymore private ambulance companies, the government would be FORCED to fund taxpayer-paid services because it's as necessary a public good as a firefighting service or police service. The citizens would demand it. And the guy who argues against it is going to be the first to sue the local/state/federal government when his kid dies because there was no ambulance to provide emergency care and transportation when the kid fell their bike and cracked their skull.

Unless you think parents are just going to say, "Well, she wasn't showing personal responsibility by wearing a helmet - which we taught her was her freedom to not do if she wanted - so the wife and I will just move on and maybe get to the chore of making another one."

1. You don't see/agree with the logic I'm using most of the time. 

2. Absolutely. That's why I had started a thread about the sheer number of times Teachers are being charged with diddling with kids........while Priests are basically olde news.

3. ID chips will fix most of this, right?    You're not saying it......but many directly involved are saying thieving, looting and all the rest are absolutely birthrights to the poor and underclass in the US. They're sick. They deserve to be violated in their own homes on a weekly basis just to give them a bit of their own medicine.

I'd agree with you about a more personal and on-foot police presence. But how do we convince the police and their union to go along?.....much less these communities that openly endorse ACAB? One of the few times I was actually shocked by a reality in recent years was jpat telling me that he was treated far worse by black people compared to anyone else.

4. Not if Judge's do what they should have been doing for decades and throwing out such lawsuits from the get-go. The citizens would demand it? Let those citizens form a co-op then and directly pay for it. Anyone that opts out of the payments doesn't receive the service. Pretty easy to keep track of in this age of technology.

1. That's because I don't find it logical

2. K

3. Several police departments have already done it to much success. Does it mean that it will work everywhere? No. But the fact that it might not work everywhere isn't a reason to get rid of it where it does and that's something YOU simply don't get. You see one instance of "government" fucking up and you're ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

4. A co-op of citizens working together to ensure that their interests are protected? We call those cities, towns, counties, states, and countries.

Opting out:
A bloody car crash... mangled bodies... but not dead. "Hey Phil! Bring over the fingerprint scanner so we can decide who to save and who gets to die."

"Shit!" Phil replies, "I have to change the batteries. Did you restock batteries in the truck?"

"I knew I forgot something. You drive up to the store to buy some, but leave the body bags."


Before you say a damn thing, I'm just going to ask you to look at response #1 again and try to move your brain to understand.

[abbey1227]

Apr 20, 2021 7:31:15 GMT Prometheus said:

1. That's because I don't find it logical

2. K

3. Several police departments have already done it to much success. Does it mean that it will work everywhere? No. But the fact that it might not work everywhere isn't a reason to get rid of it where it does and that's something YOU simply don't get. You see one instance of "government" fucking up and you're ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

4. A co-op of citizens working together to ensure that their interests are protected? We call those cities, towns, counties, states, and countries.

Opting out:
A bloody car crash... mangled bodies... but not dead. "Hey Phil! Bring over the fingerprint scanner so we can decide who to save and who gets to die."

"Shit!" Phil replies, "I have to change the batteries. Did you restock batteries in the truck?"

"I knew I forgot something. You drive up to the store to buy some, but leave the body bags."

Before you say a damn thing, I'm just going to ask you to look at response #1 again and try to move your brain to understand.

2. K-12, apparently

3. I've often suggested people disband their police departments and form their own neighborhood watches. Why not something in between? I see a few police shootings out of over 12 Million arrests per year as unfortunate outcomes....... I'm not the one calling for defunding or changing police procedures simply because a tiny percentage of people don't know how to be arrested properly.

4. Now who's looking to throw out an untried idea because of a worst case scenario?    You don't thinik the mandatory chip implants will work?

[Prometheus]

Apr 20, 2021 7:39:50 GMT abbey1227 said:

Apr 20, 2021 7:31:15 GMT Prometheus said:

1. That's because I don't find it logical

2. K

3. Several police departments have already done it to much success. Does it mean that it will work everywhere? No. But the fact that it might not work everywhere isn't a reason to get rid of it where it does and that's something YOU simply don't get. You see one instance of "government" fucking up and you're ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

4. A co-op of citizens working together to ensure that their interests are protected? We call those cities, towns, counties, states, and countries.

Opting out:
A bloody car crash... mangled bodies... but not dead. "Hey Phil! Bring over the fingerprint scanner so we can decide who to save and who gets to die."

"Shit!" Phil replies, "I have to change the batteries. Did you restock batteries in the truck?"

"I knew I forgot something. You drive up to the store to buy some, but leave the body bags."

Before you say a damn thing, I'm just going to ask you to look at response #1 again and try to move your brain to understand.

2. K-12, apparently

3. I've often suggested people disband their police departments and form their own neighborhood watches. Why not something in between? I see a few police shootings out of over 12 Million arrests per year as unfortunate outcomes....... I'm not the one calling for defunding or changing police procedures simply because a tiny percentage of people don't know how to be arrested properly.

4. Now who's looking to throw out an untried idea because of a worst case scenario?    You don't thinik the mandatory chip implants will work?

3. And yet that "tiny percentage of people who don't know how to be arrested properly" seem to cause larger problems for millions of people. It seems to me that by "defunding the police" of their traffic duties - or even a portion of them - might go a long way to re-establishing trust in the force and then reduce the "tiny percentage" to something tinier and possibly even reduce the hardships caused to the millions.

Professional police forces evolved from (what were essentially) neighborhood watches. I'm not sure returning to something broken is the way to fix the current issues. However, reducing the number of duties that a police force is responsible for - which is what you're suggesting  - already has a name:

DEFUNDING THE POLICE!

[abbey1227]

Apr 20, 2021 9:51:30 GMT Prometheus said:

3. And yet that "tiny percentage of people who don't know how to be arrested properly" seem to cause larger problems for millions of people. It seems to me that by "defunding the police" of their traffic duties - or even a portion of them - might go a long way to re-establishing trust in the force and then reduce the "tiny percentage" to something tinier and possibly even reduce the hardships caused to the millions.

Professional police forces evolved from (what were essentially) neighborhood watches. I'm not sure returning to something broken is the way to fix the current issues. However, reducing the number of duties that a police force is responsible for - which is what you're suggesting  - already has a name:

DEFUNDING THE POLICE!

I got no stats or links for you, fella........ but I suspect you might be surprised by the results if they completely abandoned traffic stops. During covid, many police depts were instructed to just ignore most of the lesser stuff and only respond to 'real' emergency calls. Coincidentally? Shootings and murders had a jump in numbers....... during this so called lockdown?

Maybe your idea would be better handled by firing all cops and just hiring social workers? Though, most of them .......just like EMTs prefer to be safe and only respond after the police have told them it's safe. It's a weird Catch-22

What was broken about neighborhood watches? It's just the Govt decided it needed to establish an actual work force dedicated to enforcing the laws. Then they proceeded to keep adding more and more laws year after year.

The more I think about it........ I do wanna try it. No more regular police. Just social workers.......and SWAT. When SWAT shows up, there will be no expectation of hesitation, imo.

I do wonder how the Officer Darian Jarrott and Omar Cueva types of the world will get along, though?

[Prometheus]

Apr 20, 2021 10:29:06 GMT abbey1227 said:

Apr 20, 2021 9:51:30 GMT Prometheus said:

3. And yet that "tiny percentage of people who don't know how to be arrested properly" seem to cause larger problems for millions of people. It seems to me that by "defunding the police" of their traffic duties - or even a portion of them - might go a long way to re-establishing trust in the force and then reduce the "tiny percentage" to something tinier and possibly even reduce the hardships caused to the millions.

Professional police forces evolved from (what were essentially) neighborhood watches. I'm not sure returning to something broken is the way to fix the current issues. However, reducing the number of duties that a police force is responsible for - which is what you're suggesting  - already has a name:

DEFUNDING THE POLICE!

I got no stats or links for you, fella........ but I suspect you might be surprised by the results if they completely abandoned traffic stops. During covid, many police depts were instructed to just ignore most of the lesser stuff and only respond to 'real' emergency calls. Coincidentally? Shootings and murders had a jump in numbers....... during this so called lockdown?

Maybe your idea would be better handled by firing all cops and just hiring social workers? Though, most of them .......just like EMTs prefer to be safe and only respond after the police have told them it's safe. It's a weird Catch-22

What was broken about neighborhood watches? It's just the Govt decided it needed to establish an actual work force dedicated to enforcing the laws. Then they proceeded to keep adding more and more laws year after year.

The more I think about it........ I do wanna try it. No more regular police. Just social workers.......and SWAT. When SWAT shows up, there will be no expectation of hesitation, imo.

I do wonder how the Officer Darian Jarrott and Omar Cueva types of the world will get along, though?

See what you did there? You ignored everything that has been discussed and tried to reshape it under another premise.

No one is suggesting that the police give up all traffic stops, just that they stick to the major ones... as discussed earlier but that you seem to have forgotten.

No one is suggesting firing all cops and just hiring social workers... as discussed earlier but that you seem to have forgotten.

"What was broken about neighborhood watches?"

Inconsistent knowledge and application of the law.

I don't recall the particulars of the Jarrott-Cueva case nor do I feel like looking them up. Why did the cop pull Cueva over? If it was for speeding or erratic driving then it probably would have played out the same way.

If it was for a busted taillight then probably never would have happened.

Is this the case where the cop pulled the guy over and got killed because he didn't know the guy he pulled over was being tracked DHS or something like that?

Either way, you're just grasping at anecdotal straws.

[abbey1227]

Apr 20, 2021 16:16:55 GMT Prometheus said:

<abbr data-timestamp="1618935415000" title="Apr 20, 2021 11:16:55 GMT -5" class="o-timestamp time">Apr 20, 2021 11:16:55 GMT -5</abbr> Prometheus said:

See what you did there? You ignored everything that has been discussed and tried to reshape it under another premise.

No one is suggesting that the police give up all traffic stops, just that they stick to the major ones... as discussed earlier but that you seem to have forgotten.

No one is suggesting firing all cops and just hiring social workers... as discussed earlier but that you seem to have forgotten.

"What was broken about neighborhood watches?"

Inconsistent knowledge and application of the law.

I don't recall the particulars of the Jarrott-Cueva case nor do I feel like looking them up. Why did the cop pull Cueva over? If it was for speeding or erratic driving then it probably would have played out the same way.

If it was for a busted taillight then probably never would have happened.

Is this the case where the cop pulled the guy over and got killed because he didn't know the guy he pulled over was being tracked DHS or something like that?

Either way, you're just grasping at anecdotal straws.

Dude, maybe it's just because of where you're at and the video you're allowed to see?...........but THAT is exactly what many people and groups are calling for. Abolsihing the police. I just saw and heard it less than 1/2 an hour ago......and this was after getting a Guilty on ALL charges finding against Chauvin.

Inconsistent knowledge and application of the law? Sounds like the exact scenario that many police officers are accused of whenever one of these cases pops up yet again.

Apparently his dept was working with Homeland Security. The 'probable cause' excuse given by the officer was too heavily tinted windows.........but it's clear it was a task force set up to stop and identify drug traffickers. Which is what Cueva had been guilty of several times in the past.

Everyone's arguments are anecdotal ........until a biased study says otherwise. George Floyd's outcome was anecdotal compared to the millions of otherwise not noteworthy police stops.

[Prometheus]

Apr 21, 2021 1:52:03 GMT abbey1227 said:

Apr 20, 2021 16:16:55 GMT Prometheus said:

<abbr data-timestamp="1618935415000" title="Apr 20, 2021 11:16:55 GMT -5" class="o-timestamp time">Apr 20, 2021 11:16:55 GMT -5</abbr> Prometheus said:

See what you did there? You ignored everything that has been discussed and tried to reshape it under another premise.

No one is suggesting that the police give up all traffic stops, just that they stick to the major ones... as discussed earlier but that you seem to have forgotten.

No one is suggesting firing all cops and just hiring social workers... as discussed earlier but that you seem to have forgotten.

"What was broken about neighborhood watches?"

Inconsistent knowledge and application of the law.

I don't recall the particulars of the Jarrott-Cueva case nor do I feel like looking them up. Why did the cop pull Cueva over? If it was for speeding or erratic driving then it probably would have played out the same way.

If it was for a busted taillight then probably never would have happened.

Is this the case where the cop pulled the guy over and got killed because he didn't know the guy he pulled over was being tracked DHS or something like that?

Either way, you're just grasping at anecdotal straws.

Dude, maybe it's just because of where you're at and the video you're allowed to see?...........but THAT is exactly what many people and groups are calling for. Abolsihing the police. I just saw and heard it less than 1/2 an hour ago......and this was after getting a Guilty on ALL charges finding against Chauvin.

Inconsistent knowledge and application of the law? Sounds like the exact scenario that many police officers are accused of whenever one of these cases pops up yet again.

Apparently his dept was working with Homeland Security. The 'probable cause' excuse given by the officer was too heavily tinted windows.........but it's clear it was a task force set up to stop and identify drug traffickers. Which is what Cueva had been guilty of several times in the past.

Everyone's arguments are anecdotal ........until a biased study says otherwise. George Floyd's outcome was anecdotal compared to the millions of otherwise not noteworthy police stops.

1. My VPN is working and I'm not seeing "many" people and groups calling for any such thing.

2. Better 1,000 cases a year than 1,000 cases a week.

3. Then it sounds like the stop was part of some sort of sting and the officer was a sacrificial lamb and therefore has nothing to do with the conversation.

4. The number of women falsely accusing men of rape making the news is anecdotal but we men would sure like to see it stop and have the false accusers jailed.

It's really a public trust issue. We trust that the police are out there to keep us safe from the "bad guys"; to find the people who robbed us or hurt us and bring them to justice; to keep the streets safe for our kids.

That trust is evaporating, and simply never existed in certain areas anyway. The police need to earn back that trust... and we need to help them by giving them the opportunity to do so.

To finish up this conversation, I'd like to call back to something you just said on the film thread. You said, "... many people who went to Christian schools have developed lifelong 'flinches'." Apply that thought to certain neighborhoods and the police. There's a lot of flinching. Hell, re-imagine Father James as a cop and run through the movie. It might help you understand the issues at play here.

[abbey1227]

Apr 21, 2021 2:33:05 GMT Prometheus said:

1. My VPN is working and I'm not seeing "many" people and groups calling for any such thing.

2. Better 1,000 cases a year than 1,000 cases a week.

3. Then it sounds like the stop was part of some sort of sting and the officer was a sacrificial lamb and therefore has nothing to do with the conversation.

4. The number of women falsely accusing men of rape making the news is anecdotal but we men would sure like to see it stop and have the false accusers jailed.

It's really a public trust issue. We trust that the police are out there to keep us safe from the "bad guys"; to find the people who robbed us or hurt us and bring them to justice; to keep the streets safe for our kids.

That trust is evaporating, and simply never existed in certain areas anyway. The police need to earn back that trust... and we need to help them by giving them the opportunity to do so.

To finish up this conversation, I'd like to call back to something you just said on the film thread. You said, "... many people who went to Christian schools have developed lifelong 'flinches'." Apply that thought to certain neighborhoods and the police. There's a lot of flinching. Hell, re-imagine Father James as a cop and run through the movie. It might help you understand the issues at play here.

1. Selective vision, I guess. Or simply a statistical argument? Even thousands of people is just a small blip compared to the entire population these days.

2. Here's where that 'One is too many!" argument makes things ridiculous when involving humans.

3. Nothing? It has to do with the laws in place, the enforcement efforts and the current state of reality police officers are dealing with.

4. I'd guess that's primarily because men don't often report being raped........even more than the ladies skip the reporting.

See where I'm the 'Don't trust Govt' type....... and criticized for it? But when I defend the police, people are like "What the hell are you doing defending govt?"

I don't see that effort as even worth bothering to try.

I was making a cringeworthy priest/abuse joke. The natural response to that is people avoid leaving their kids alone with priests now, right? So where's the similar adjustment to not trusting the police to not kill you? Resisting arrest and fleeing all traffic stops seem like a rational response, in your opinion? Being involved in criminal activity seems like the best approach?

I know, it's just me being insensitive yet agian. But I just feel more like Willy Wonka uselessly murmuring "Stop. Wait. Don't." when it comes to observing many humans and their behaviors.

[Prometheus]

Apr 21, 2021 2:42:41 GMT abbey1227 said:

Apr 21, 2021 2:33:05 GMT Prometheus said:

1. My VPN is working and I'm not seeing "many" people and groups calling for any such thing.

2. Better 1,000 cases a year than 1,000 cases a week.

3. Then it sounds like the stop was part of some sort of sting and the officer was a sacrificial lamb and therefore has nothing to do with the conversation.

4. The number of women falsely accusing men of rape making the news is anecdotal but we men would sure like to see it stop and have the false accusers jailed.

It's really a public trust issue. We trust that the police are out there to keep us safe from the "bad guys"; to find the people who robbed us or hurt us and bring them to justice; to keep the streets safe for our kids.

That trust is evaporating, and simply never existed in certain areas anyway. The police need to earn back that trust... and we need to help them by giving them the opportunity to do so.

To finish up this conversation, I'd like to call back to something you just said on the film thread. You said, "... many people who went to Christian schools have developed lifelong 'flinches'." Apply that thought to certain neighborhoods and the police. There's a lot of flinching. Hell, re-imagine Father James as a cop and run through the movie. It might help you understand the issues at play here.

1. Selective vision, I guess. Or simply a statistical argument? Even thousands of people is just a small blip compared to the entire population these days.

2. Here's where that 'One is too many!" argument makes things ridiculous when involving humans.

3. Nothing? It has to do with the laws in place, the enforcement efforts and the current state of reality police officers are dealing with.

4. I'd guess that's primarily because men don't often report being raped........even more than the ladies skip the reporting.

See where I'm the 'Don't trust Govt' type....... and criticized for it? But when I defend the police, people are like "What the hell are you doing defending govt?"

I don't see that effort as even worth bothering to try.

I was making a cringeworthy priest/abuse joke. The natural response to that is people avoid leaving their kids alone with priests now, right? So where's the similar adjustment to not trusting the police to not kill you? Resisting arrest and fleeing all traffic stops seem like a rational response, in your opinion? Being involved in criminal activity seems like the best approach?

I know, it's just me being insensitive yet agian. But I just feel more like Willy Wonka uselessly murmuring "Stop. Wait. Don't." when it comes to observing many humans and their behaviors.

So it's OK for the police to abuse their power until they find Charlie Bucket?

[abbey1227]

Apr 21, 2021 2:47:23 GMT Prometheus said:

Apr 21, 2021 2:42:41 GMT abbey1227 said:

So it's OK for the police to abuse their power until they find Charlie Bucket?

One person's abuse is another person's tough love

[Prometheus]

Apr 21, 2021 2:53:03 GMT abbey1227 said:

Apr 21, 2021 2:47:23 GMT Prometheus said:

So it's OK for the police to abuse their power until they find Charlie Bucket?

One person's abuse is another person's tough love

No.

No it isn't.

Not in all cases at least.