Is America a Police state?

[bluegoo300]

i guess what you're saying is you need a policeman to police the police. someone to supervise, observe, that can deal with such situations but is not active in it

yes and there is a person who does it, its called internal affairs that is why you never hear about cops talking about other cops in the media because internal affairs says you cant.

 

[bluegoo300]

Don't agree. The cop could have hid behind his car some distance away. He puts himself in the danger area, sees a reaction he doesn't like, and kills him. That's plain wrong. No justification for that. He could be drunk, on drugs, on medication, he may have some medical problem, may have fallen and be concussed. No justification whatsoever. Stay at a distance first and observe.

well this is what happens when you don't react like the officer did look at the body language of these cop killers you can see what they are about to do. this right here is why officers tell you to stop moving and keep your hands up

 

[Robert.Evans]

yes and there is a person who does it, its called internal affairs that is why you never hear about cops talking about other cops in the media because internal affairs says you cant.

Well, for me, it has been a thread which has helped my knowledge a lot, esp the last vid. That is why, no doubt, some cops overreact.

Shame people don't know these things without people like you telling them. What exactly is the media doing??

Though i have to say, I still feel for all those who don't like the police: its just that power thing. No one likes to feel threatened, verbally, presence, or violently.

Thanks anyway.

 

[bluegoo300]

Not exactly like that, but I have been in some nasty situations. And there is still the question of why don't police in other places act like this? In England they don't have guns. In Japan if their police acted like ours then their police would be killing more people than civilians. In Germany the police aren't killing citizens like this either.

The point was is that he was clearly incapacitated, in state to defend himself or attack, and he was shot dead. Tasers were supposed to have prevented this sort thing, and even on video they still behave this way and still rarely face the consequences of their actions.

first you cant compare different countries police forces there are to many different factors such as gun control, gang related violence, police procedure, police equipment and many more. second that line about him "protecting himself" WHAT? really if he "protects" himself by reaching into his jacket and not listening to officers instructions. the thought going though the officers mind is he is going for a weapon to harm me. third watch this video the first part is called "The End of Watch" its a saying or code that all cops know. this video show what officers feel and deal with on a daily basis

Fact Check: and officer is killed every 59 hours.

 

[bluegoo300]

Well, for me, it has been a thread which has helped my knowledge a lot, esp the last vid. That is why, no doubt, some cops overreact.

Shame people don't know these things without people like you telling them. What exactly is the media doing??

Though i have to say, I still feel for all those who don't like the police: its just that power thing. No one likes to feel threatened, verbally, presence, or violently.

Thanks anyway.

absolutely its been a pleasure to talk with you I agree that there are bad cops out there but the good outweigh the bad. and second intimidation is an officers biggest advantage take for example someone who will not cooperating. I know for me officers are not allowed to cures "all the time" however if I raise my voice and use foul language for me at lest 9 times out of 10 people tend to think "oh **** he is not playing I should listen" that way I never get physical however I don't think someone should be physically attacked for no reason that's just stupid and those officers should be fired.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

yes and there is a person who does it, its called internal affairs that is why you never hear about cops talking about other cops in the media because internal affairs says you cant.

You do hear about cops calling out bad cops, but not that often.

 

[bluegoo300]

You do hear about cops calling out bad cops, but not that often.

there is a term they use for those people its call a blue falcon I wont say what it means here but you can look it up.

 

[freethinker44]

there is a term they use for those people its call a blue falcon I wont say what it means here but you can look it up.

Non-military police call it the thin blue line. That's exactly the kind of mentality perpetuating police corruption. A good cop wouldn't think twice about crossing the blue line.

 

[bluegoo300]

Non-military police call it the thin blue line. That's exactly the kind of mentality perpetuating police corruption. A good cop wouldn't think twice about crossing the blue line.

your facts are incorrect the thin blue line looks like this top: black middle: blue line bottom: black it means top: you(to public) middle: police (protecting civilians) : criminals (bad guys) its to commemorate the fallen and symbolizes the relationship between police and there community think twice before you say something you don't understand. just because i'm an MP now does not mean i'm not a civilian cop too its called the national guard.

 

[freethinker44]

your facts are incorrect the thin blue line looks like this top: black middle: blue line bottom: black it means top: you(to public) middle: police (protecting civilians) : criminals (bad guys) its to commemorate the fallen and symbolizes the relationship between police and there community think twice before you say something you don't understand. just because i'm an MP now does not mean i'm not a civilian cop too its called the national guard.

Yeah, I know what it's supposed to mean, but language is fluid and it has come to represent the camaraderie of police officer more so than commemorating the fallen.

And with that, this is basically a semantics argument, which is really no argument at all. I usually call the argument a win for myself when the other side devolves into semantics, so...

 

[bluegoo300]

Yeah, I know what it's supposed to mean, but language is fluid and it has come to represent the camaraderie of police officer more so than commemorating the fallen.

And with that, this is basically a semantics argument, which is really no argument at all. I usually call the argument a win for myself when the other side devolves into semantics, so...

your argument about it being a semantics argument is invalid because there is only one definition of the thin blue line your argument is a statement of opinion not a definition of it.

 

[freethinker44]

your argument about it being a semantics argument is invalid because there is only one definition of the thin blue line your argument is a statement of opinion not a definition of it.

No, it's semantics. You're not arguing against any arguments, you're arguing against the words used. And let's be honest, it's because you don't have an argument against my post, but you've firmly established your place in your in-group and to you this feels like a zero sum game where if you make any concession or agree in any way, you lose everything. So instead of making a clearly weak and easily defeated argument against my post, you instead attack the words used in the argument. You don't have a good argument against what I say, so you use a semantics argument in an attempt to superficially bolster your position.

Fortunately, I don't fall for the semantics trap. I don't come on here just to own people with words, that's just a pleasant benefit. I really come here to learn through debate. I'm not only criticizing your arguments, I'm also learning from the criticism of my own, and if you can't or won't refute my arguments I take that as a sign that my thinking is closer to the truth. And the inverse is true also, if I can't refute your thinking then I realign my own, because I'm not trying to defend a group, I just want to know the truth. And if all you have is a semantics argument, then you sir, do no have it.

 

[bluegoo300]

Non-military police call it the thin blue line. That's exactly the kind of mentality perpetuating police corruption. A good cop wouldn't think twice about crossing the blue line.

look at your quote it makes no sense a blue falcon and the thin blue line are completely different. I fail to see how being a buddy ****er causes police corruption your statement is crazy because for example the military is also not allowed to talk to media only high ranking official's. are they all corrupt to because the don't talk to the media. that's what your quote says to me.

 

[freethinker44]

look at your quote it makes no sense a blue falcon and the thin blue line are completely different. I fail to see how being a buddy ****er causes police corruption

Semantics. "Don't cross the thin blue line" and "don't be a buddy ****er" are qualitatively identical. And being a buddy ****er doesn't cause police corruption, police that don't do that cause police corruption.

your statement is crazy because for example the military is also not allowed to talk to media only high ranking official's. are they all corrupt to because the don't talk to the media. that's what your quote says to me.

Wait, you don't think all the outrage over police abuse is because we think they don't talk to the media enough, do you? Because that's not it at all. Police media relations is almost a non-issue. If that's what my post says to you, then not only are you using a semantics fallacy, you're also using a straw-man fallacy. I couldn't care less how much police or military talk to the media, as long as we still have the Freedom of Information Act.

 

[bluegoo300]

Wait, you don't think all the outrage over police abuse is because we think they don't talk to the media enough, do you? Because that's not it at all. Police media relations is almost a non-issue. If that's what my post says to you, then not only are you using a semantics fallacy, you're also using a straw-man fallacy. I couldn't care less how much police or military talk to the media, as long as we still have the Freedom of Information Act.[/QUOTE]

Semantics. "Don't cross the thin blue line" and "don't be a buddy ****er" are qualitatively identical. And being a buddy ****er doesn't cause police corruption, police that don't do that cause police corruption.

look at what you said: if an officers doesn't come out on media about another officers its corruption because I know officers come out all the time in court proceedings and in internal affairs I was one you just don't hear about it and that's the way internal affairs works but there corrupt RIGHT BECAUSE YOU DIDNT HEAR ABOUT IT HOWEVER I FORGOT YOU WERE AN EXPERT ON POLICE PROCEDURE AND YOU CAN TELL IN EVER CASE WHEN AN OFFICER DID HIS JOB AND WHEN HE/SHE IS CORRUPT RIGHT? second you are using a definition of the saying "the thin blue line" that DOES NOT EXIST the true meaning of it is that the police: middle separate you:the innocent citizen for the criminals not "don't be a buddy ****er" that's a military thing i'm not trying to make a semantics argument however what your saying is like saying that Ebola virus is a government based super virus that targets the African population. that's not a definition of EVD that you opinion no fact in it

 

[freethinker44]

look at what you said: if an officers doesn't come out on media about another officers its corruption because I know officers come out all the time in court proceedings and in internal affairs I was one you just don't hear about it and that's the way internal affairs works but there corrupt RIGHT BECAUSE YOU DIDNT HEAR ABOUT IT HOWEVER I FORGOT YOU WERE AN EXPERT ON POLICE PROCEDURE AND YOU CAN TELL IN EVER CASE WHEN AN OFFICER DID HIS JOB AND WHEN HE/SHE IS CORRUPT RIGHT?

Moving on, the fact that you consider cops that call out bad cops to be "buddy ****er" completely proves my point. Cops that call out bad cops shouldn't be labeled buddy ****ers, they should be labeled heroes. And like I said, media has nothing to do with it. Unless there is a gag order, we can get the info we need from the FOIA. The outrage isn't from the police not informing the public about police corruption, the outrage comes when police clearly mess up and from FOIA requests we learn their buddies totally covered for them.

second you are using a definition of the saying "the thin blue line" that DOES NOT EXIST the true meaning of it is that the police: middle separate you:the innocent citizen for the criminals not "don't be a buddy ****er" that's a military thing i'm not trying to make a semantics argument however what your saying is like saying that Ebola virus is a government based super virus that targets the African population. that's not a definition of EVD that you opinion no fact in it

You're still just arguing the meaning of the words. AND you're compounding it with strawmen arguments. Move on.

 

[bluegoo300]

Moving on, the fact that you consider cops that call out bad cops to be "buddy ****er" completely proves my point. Cops that call out bad cops shouldn't be labeled buddy ****ers, they should be labeled heroes. And like I said, media has nothing to do with it. Unless there is a gag order, we can get the info we need from the FOIA. The outrage isn't from the police not informing the public about police corruption, the outrage comes when police clearly mess up and from FOIA requests we learn their buddies totally covered for them.


You're still just arguing the meaning of the words. AND you're compounding it with strawmen arguments. Move on.

you were so focused on my statement you didn't look at what I was responding to its not the officers job to talk to people about a case against another officer that's for IA to do. maybe its my fault for not stating that earlier. second I don't think its corruption so much as people often don't get there stories right during an initial debriefing because they are still caught up in the moment, and this is not just isolated to police look at the story of Pat Tillman. and we will drop thee other subject because neither of us are looking at it the way the other is.

 

[freethinker44]

you were so focused on my statement you didn't look at what I was responding to its not the officers job to talk to people about a case against another officer that's for IA to do. maybe its my fault for not stating that earlier. second I don't think its corruption so much as people often don't get there stories right during an initial debriefing because they are still caught up in the moment, and this is not just isolated to police look at the story of Pat Tillman.

Pat Tillman's kind of a bad example. There is evidence that he may have been murdered and the Army covered it up, but that's for another argument. There's a lot of controversy around Tillman's death.

Anyways, whether or not an officer talks about a case is irrelevant, that's not a primary source for information about officer misconduct or corruption, although it's a great source when it does come directly from them. The issue comes when an officer has clearly messed up pretty bad, whether intentional or not, and only gets a slap on the wrist if he's punished at all. For example, earlier in the thread you agreed that the campus cop spraying those protesters was in the wrong. This isn't an example of one bad cop, none of the other officers intervened to protect the protesters, and an IA investigation cleared him of any wrong doing. His only punishment was after 8 months of paid leave he was fired and awarded $38,000 dollars in workman's comp because he was turned into an internet meme. This is what pisses people off. Cops are not held accountable for the same behavior they hold us accountable for, and that needs to change, and thankfully it is beginning to change.

 

[bluegoo300]

Pat Tillman's kind of a bad example. There is evidence that he may have been murdered and the Army covered it up, but that's for another argument. There's a lot of controversy around Tillman's death.

Anyways, whether or not an officer talks about a case is irrelevant, that's not a primary source for information about officer misconduct or corruption, although it's a great source when it does come directly from them. The issue comes when an officer has clearly messed up pretty bad, whether intentional or not, and only gets a slap on the wrist if he's punished at all. For example, earlier in the thread you agreed that the campus cop spraying those protesters was in the wrong. This isn't an example of one bad cop, none of the other officers intervened to protect the protesters, and an IA investigation cleared him of any wrong doing. His only punishment was after 8 months of paid leave he was fired and awarded $38,000 dollars in workman's comp because he was turned into an internet meme. This is what pisses people off. Cops are not held accountable for the same behavior they hold us accountable for, and that needs to change, and thankfully it is beginning to change.

first like I also said in an earlier post you have to stay your post that's why none of thee other officers intervened and also you never once saw any of the other officers back him up on the news or anything so how are they covering for him. and I agree he should be held accountable for his acts but the "things are changing" part may be going to an extreme also like I said in a previous post the story of the officer who was fired do to social media pressure even though he did nothing wrong.

 

[freethinker44]

first like I also said in an earlier post you have to stay your post that's why none of thee other officers intervened and also you never once saw any of the other officers back him up on the news or anything so how are they covering for him.

If a civilian broke through their line and calmly pepper sprayed the people the other officers wouldn't have thought twice about intervening. A cop does it and no one lifts a finger. Sure, maybe it will be handled in an IA investigation (except in this case it wasn't), but in the meantime people are being assaulted and they are letting it happen. They might not be actively covering for him, but at a minimum they are guilty of not doing their jobs, and at most the are being complicit. Either way, they may not be bad cops, but they definitely aren't good cops.

and I agree he should be held accountable for his acts but the "things are changing" part may be going to an extreme also like I said in a previous post the story of the officer who was fired do to social media pressure even though he did nothing wrong.

I just want police to follow the same rules as everyone else, if anything they should be held to higher standard, but I would be happy with the same standard. If they mess up they should be held accountable to the same degree a non-LEO would be. And I expect LEOs to actively protect citizens against other LEOs committing crimes just as they would any other criminal.