She definitely deserves her own unique point on the hot/crazy matrix.
Last edited:
SPD pulling over people on S Montgomery
- Thread starter paindonthurt
- Start date
- Status
We should start a poll. I've never found her attractive but maybe I'm missing something.
Ok, I can see it now.
I think I could pump some sense into her.
You "honestly" can't see why someone would disagree with the statement that if you did these 2 simple things then in no way would a cop ever shoot you? Seriously?
Yeah, I pretty much can.
I'll even add more. If I'm not involved in drug dealing, if I don't lose my mind and resist arrest, if I don't attack a cop, if I don't disrespect a cop, if I'm not eating bath salts/shooting meth/any and all variants thereof. OR....and perhaps the only one, I don't give the cop any reason to think I'm reaching for a gun (after a long conversation in which I haven't done any of the above things).
All of which are activities that are very, very easy to avoid. It's literally crazy to think otherwise. We've all seen the videos of all these police shootings.
The only logical conclusion is that the anti-police folks simply want chaos to reign in society.
So, you don't think I can provide multiple counterfactuals, cases where a citizen did none of those things nor anything objectionable at all.....yet got shot by a cop just the same?
Come on, man. No, it's not every single one. There are plenty of examples of police shooting unarmed citizens who were not resisting arrest. I'm not saying it happens a lot but the idea that every single police shooting involves someone resisting arrest or "doing something they shouldn't be doing" is just demonstrably false.
This happened in Indianola just last month. Eleven year old kid doing exactly what police told him to do. Still got shot.
Hmmmm, so domestic violence, which is the main call where most cops get shot. So of course your gun is drawn.
Then you have Greg Capers, who was a police veteran, who just 2 years ago, received a Policeman of the Year award.
The facts of that case have not come out. No telling how chaotic that situation was.
At abolute worse, it was an accident. When **** goes down, accidents happen.
Why are we focusing on police reform, when the domestic violence situation is why the cops got called?
And now, you're talking about a situation so rare, that it doesn't even register as a statistic. That's liberal logic, make rules and changes based on the exceptions, rather than the rules. Nothing is ever 100% absolute.
And I mean even if you don’t think she is attractive, it’s hard to imagine anyone would look at the other 3 girls and say that AOC is not the hot one.
This is a judgment-free zone, but you may have to fight Coach34 over her.
So you've changed your argument from "it only happens when people resist arrest" to "accidents happen."
It doesn't actually sound like the situation was chaotic at all by the time police arrived. Kid calls the police on behalf of his mother. When they show up, she tells them the guy they called about had already left but that there were kids in the house. Police tell anyone in the house to come forward with their hands up. Kid does exactly that and still gets shot.
The fact that Capers was Policeman of the Year two years ago is not a mitigating factor. If anything, it's more damning. If an award-winning police officer finds it so easy to shoot an unarmed kid who is obeying instructions, how on earth can you possibly claim that all police shootings - "every single one. Period." - are justified because of the actions of the person who got shot?
I get that we don't all agree on things and that there can be reasonable differences of opinion. What I don't understand is why some people say, and apparently believe, just unbelievably stupid ****.
No, it's incredibly stupid to use those far and away exceptions (and even in those, there's **** going down) as evidence that you are right.
A 99.99% factual statement is that you can avoid getting shot by the police if you don't do dumb ****. You're literally talking about 0.01% as your defense. If that is me catching a clue, and some sort of victory for you and the squad, then I'm sorry, you're just dumb and your priorities are misplaced.
The point here is that police reform is not the real problem in this country.
Anything else is just you morons trying to beat me in an argument. You can have it. Your view point is still a byproduct of brain damage, and the fact that you're trying to 'get' me is evidence of it. As is your defense of criminals rather than cops.
The argument was SOLELY that it was 100%. That's the only reason I even chimed in, with others making the same point. Because, as you NOW admit, it's dumb to claim 100%. Just look at how many times you called me stupid or whatever before you caught on you clown.
Now that you've moved the goalposts and we've addressed that you did, let's address your new position. It is plausible. I don't agree that it's anywhere near 99.99%. I think both the number of clear incidents combined with the "mostly clear" incidents (citizen didn't perfectly follow a command, but the command was unreasonable) and other in-between incidents, combined with clear data from other countries, it seems pretty clear to me that the need and benefit of reform is obvious. You disagree, but you are not a reasonable person, as demonstrated in this thread.
Thank you for admitting that your initial comment of "every single one. Period." was wrong. I'm sure that wasn't easy for you.
I don't mind disagreeing and I obviously don't mind debating an issue. But no one is trying to "get" you. You (and others) have this habit of making outrageous statements like "every single one. Period." and acting like they're absolute truths or in any way fact based. And then when some of us point out that you are factually incorrect - because you are and there's evidence to prove you are - you get offended, change your argument and then resort to saying things like "brain damage" or "defending criminals" or "want chaos to reign" or some other nonsensical charged statement.
I shouldn't have to say this but wanting cops to not shoot unarmed citizens shouldn't be a controversial statement. Believing that people are innocent until proven guilty isn't some radical idea. It certainly is not the same thing as defending criminals (never mind the fact that the Constitution guarantees people the right to a defense. Why do you hate the Constitution?). Nor does it make someone anti-police. Wanting something to be better doesn't mean you're against it. Because, by that logic, anyone who criticizes any of our athletic teams is anti-MSU.
Just make whatever point you want to make without resorting to outlandishly childish rhetoric. Using independently verified facts (and not just something you've made up like "99.99%") would be even better. But your "every single one. Period." comment is blatantly, demonstrably false and deserved to be pushed back on.
Last edited:
No, it's really just stupid for you fixate on that. Nothing in this world can ever be absolute. But some things are dang near close, and this is one of them.
Which is why the whole defense of criminals in FAFO territory is just plumb stupid. Simply not worth the effort. Go focus on something that actually makes society better. Anybody can tell you that after any city institutes the type police reform you squad guys reference, crime rises and the city becomes a worse place to live.
I wasn't the one who made the absolute comment. Reread the thread if you need to.
Lets be clear here, clown. YOU called ME stupid for asking if you were sure you wanted to make that absolute comment. YOU said you just couldn't understand why anyone would disagree with that absolute comment. Take the L or keep digging, those are your only options here.
I'm not defending criminals, I'm defending CITIZENS. It's called freedom you clown. But I would not be surprised that a fascist doesn't think freedom makes society better.
"What is the common trait in all these police shootings? It is the alleged criminal getting mad and resisting, or doing something they shouldn't be doing. In every single one. Period."
STRAIGHT OUTTA STARKVEGAS /
A CRAZY MOTHA 17 NAMED BINGLE /
FROM A GR00P CALLED SPSSERS WHO MINGLE /
WHEN IM CALLED OUT THERE AINT NO DOUBT / I LEAN ON DA GAS AND DATS YOUR A$$ / I SQUEEZE YOUR GIRL AND 17 WIT YOUR WORLD / AND YOU TOO IF YA 17 WIT ME
A CRAZY MOTHA 17 NAMED BINGLE /
FROM A GR00P CALLED SPSSERS WHO MINGLE /
WHEN IM CALLED OUT THERE AINT NO DOUBT / I LEAN ON DA GAS AND DATS YOUR A$$ / I SQUEEZE YOUR GIRL AND 17 WIT YOUR WORLD / AND YOU TOO IF YA 17 WIT ME
Cite?
Because
and the largest GOP run city is Ft Worth.
Which had this issue....
It's almost like the pandemic and more guns caused a rise in murder everywhere....
But that doesn't fit in your " democrats are bad because lying fox news told me so" brain.
You seriously have to be a moron to believe what you just typed. Fort Worth is an extremely safe and clean city.
I have not been to Ft Worth in a while and I have not felt "unsafe" walking in any city in a long time ( last time i felt unsafe it was 3 am in the east village on a side street)
That's not what the crime stats say....
It's more dangerous than Chicago
It is safer in Texas than Odessa (GOP Mayor), Lubbock (GOP mayor), and Beaumont (GOP Mayor)
You made the "In every single one. Period." comment and then doubled down on it but somehow it's stupid for us to point that out to you? Ok. Sure. Makes total sense.
And, again, no one is defending criminals. You keep using that word for people who haven't actually been convicted of a crime. We just believe in the idea of due process. You don't seem to. Why do you hate the Constitutionally protected rights of U.S. citizens?
If you're so convinced that the idea that police only shoot unarmed citizens when they're resisting arrest is "dang near close" to absolute, I'm assuming you can back that up. If you're sure that police reforms lead to an increase in crime, I'm assuming you can back that up. Some study or report? Any amount of data that proves you're correct and that you're not just parroting radical right wing talking points that have no basis in fact? You've made these claims - and even went so far as to say "Anybody can tell you" - so you should be able to provide legitimate supporting evidence.
Last edited:
And here's the thing. If it's so dang rare then why the resistance to reforms? Why is it so hard to set down some simple guidelines on use of force with repercussions if not followed? I have to follow some complicated rules for my taxes, I have to follow complicated rules to drive a car, why the hell can't a professional cop follow some simple rules on when it's ok to draw a gun and shoot someone? What is the motivating factor to make yourself look like a total moron to stand against reforms designed to reduce the unjustified shootings of (in part) black americans......oh wait. Makes sense when you think of it that way. Or maybe you're just dumb. But it has to he one or the other. Period.
I don't need to show you proof. We all see it, in all the videos. We all know the truth, the ones of us without brain damage, anyway.
I'm pretty skeptical of a study that acknowledges the impact of proactive policing on violent crime but claims to find that arrest rates don't matter. I suspect there is maybe a confounding factor that pushes arrest rates up in response to higher crime, which also results in higher rates of homicide. WOuld like to see an ungated version to see their methodology and what they found.
This doesn't address the referenced study, but is a common sense look at the Ferguson effect that the study seemingly admits is real.
ETA: This study seems to disagree with the 2019 study you cited, at least based on the abstract of the 2019 study.
Public Scrutiny, Police Behavior, and Crime Consequences: Evidence from High-Profile Police Killings
After a spate of protests touched off by high-profile incidents of police use of force, there has been a renewed focus on whether public scrutiny shapes policin
papers.ssrn.com
Also, this doesn't look at exactly the same thing. But it does find that police arrests decreased as murders went up.
Last edited:
Because they aren't needed? We don't need expensive, additional rules for the exception to the rule.
Do you understand how nonsensical your point is? Why reform for anything that is extremely rare, and nearly nonexistent? It's ridiculous.
So, the answer is no. You have no proof of anything, then. You're an unserious person who is just running off at the mouth because that is easier for you than dealing in actual fact and supporting evidence. That's not terribly surprising. And, as usual, when you can't make a coherent argument, you just resort to exceptionally lazy ad hominem retorts.
You make some good points and add relevant arguments to most discussions. This wasn't one of your best.
It is peer reviewed. I don't pretend to be a social science expert, so I trust those that do published peer reviewed research.I'm pretty skeptical of a study that acknowledges the impact of proactive policing on violent crime but claims to find that arrest rates don't matter. I suspect there is maybe a confounding factor that pushes arrest rates up in response to higher crime, which also results in higher rates of homicide. WOuld like to see an ungated version to see their methodology and what they found.
This doesn't address the referenced study, but is a common sense look at the Ferguson effect that the study seemingly admits is real.
ETA: This study seems to disagree with the 2019 study you cited, at least based on the abstract of the 2019 study.
Public Scrutiny, Police Behavior, and Crime Consequences: Evidence from High-Profile Police Killings
After a spate of protests touched off by high-profile incidents of police use of force, there has been a renewed focus on whether public scrutiny shapes policinpapers.ssrn.com
Also, this doesn't look at exactly the same thing. But it does find that police arrests decreased as murders went up.
one of your links a some rando's substack page. Might as well be a facebook post.
Your article is a study of how policing decreased as the distrust of the police movement became more vocal and does not make a correlation to the impact of increased violence.
I agree with your last cite
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
Kirk Cousins with 500 yards passing tonight.
- Latest: DesotoCountyDawg
-
-
Get unlimited access today.