Sidney1st wrote:Over here or over there?
Sidney1st wrote:Problem the police have is they're pre programmed to think that certain sections of society are up to no good, even before they join the police.
Those sections of society probably don't help themselves though, but they don't see that they should.
Its like anything else in life really.Paul Waine wrote:Hi Sidney,
If the police are recruiting people who are pre-programmed in the way you describe shouldn't they look at who they are recruiting as well as provide training that eliminates these "inappropriate" police actions?
I've got a lot of support for good police, btw. My concern is with those who don't make good decisions when they are interacting with the public.
They're facing people of a similar age who've grown up to think its the norm to run around with their guns in gangs.Imploding Turtle wrote:The problem the U.S. police have is that they're giving guns to people with only high school diplomas and telling them to go out and be heroes.
This is what i don't understand. Why is it that you're more concerned that the police are being treated unfairly when the complaint against them is the lack of accountability?NCClaret wrote:Decisions in Policing, particularly around sensitive or life and death matters are on a knife edge. What is a good or bad decision?? My concern is how the Police are treated, internally and externally, when their actions, often having to be made in what can literally be a split second, appear to violate a politically/socially driven ideologue. We need to take this into account before we accuse or point the finger - Policing is not an exact science, determined by a policy.
Sidney1st wrote:They're facing people of a similar age who've grown up to think its the norm to run around with their guns in gangs.
We all know the solution, but it won't happen because they're so backward about it.
They'd lose too many police officers then, just like we would in the UK.Imploding Turtle wrote:Getting rid of guns isn't going to happen but there's no reason not to get rid of stupid or incompetent police.
Hi Sidney, I used to live in Moss Side, a long time ago. We shouldn't stereotype places or the people who live in those places (just as we don't like journalists to write that "Burnley fans are racists"). I agree there are (some) bad people in the world - the majority are good people.Sidney1st wrote:Its like anything else in life really.
If all you see on the local news is reports of certain areas being rife with guns and drugs then people from those areas are the ones you'll view with suspicion.
That's before you join the police, so you're pre-programmed in advance to expect certain things from certain people.
When I was growing up, Moss side was always spoken about as some sort of dodgy place where you didn't go unless you knew someone.
Same with Liverpool, a city full of thieves apparently, so you develop a pre-conception that every scouser you meet is a thief or dodgy.
Same thing will happen in the US, if its mainly reported that parts of society are busy shooting each other and/or selling drugs, or are involved in gang wars then eventually you just assume they're all at it.
Those parts of society have had a bad hand dealt to them and they do need help sorting out their issues, but they need to start helping themselves too.
Hi NC, you are in US aren't you?NCClaret wrote:Decisions in Policing, particularly around sensitive or life and death matters are on a knife edge. What is a good or bad decision?? My concern is how the Police are treated, internally and externally, when their actions, often having to be made in what can literally be a split second, appear to violate a politically/socially driven ideologue. We need to take this into account before we accuse or point the finger - Policing is not an exact science, determined by a policy.
Imploding Turtle wrote:How am i supposed to know if a) you're telling the truth, and b) your newsfeed isn't fully of false stories?
You know what to do.
ClaretMoffitt wrote:https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/ ... 194273644/
https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/ ... 104237853/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://twitter.com/MrTrunney/status/822580347409932290" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.reuters.com/video/2017/01/21 ... =370966639" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And plenty of more of destruction of property. Also plenty of reports of similar incidents off camera with pictures but no actual footage so I won't post.
Already more here than all the supposed nazi "assaults" that happened after brexit.
Imploding Turtle wrote:In order, links 1, 3 and 4 show Black bloc anarchists commiting violence. Not protesters. You can tell because they're all outfitted the same. And i've no reason to believe the assault on the guy in link #2 wasn't commited by one of these people rather than just a protester.
Not only that, but the video in the first link, you know the one where the Trump supporter is "bravely" putting out a fire while surrounded by protesters? Well when two of these anarchists attack him and steal his hat it is one of those protesters that come to his assistance.
You snidely called these people "ambassadors of peace and tolerance" and proudly shared videos you think vindicates your snark, yet it turns out you're either ignorant or full of ****. Which is it? And why does this keep happening to you?
Why don't you think for one second whether the narrative you're being fed is an accurate one? This has happened far too often with you where you've barrelled into a conversation with what you think is catagorical proof of something only to be embarrassed by your own evidence. Why not do a bit of fact-checking for yourself the next time before you get ambarrassed like this again?
Sidney1st wrote:They'd lose too many police officers then, just like we would in the UK.
ClaretMoffitt wrote:They are left wingers protesting Trump. These type of idiots are at every left-wing protest you ever see, anywhere in the western world. You never see them at UKIP events or outside parliament protesting for article 50 to be triggered. Yet apparently it's these former people who are the evil, violent fascists.
Imploding Turtle wrote:No you don't. You implied that ordinary anti-Trump protesters were commiting this violence when you snarkily called them "ambassadors of peace and tolerance".
Or were you saying that black bloc anarchists are pretending to be "ambassadors of peace and tolerance"?
And no, you don't see them at every left-wing protest, anywhere in the western world. You're just making bullshit up now to try and rescue some kind of credibility for your argument which is that liberal protesters are hateful and intolerant when not a single protester in the videos you linked can be seen commiting any violence - except that one guy who comes to the aid of the Trump supporter.
ClaretMoffitt wrote:Erm, yeh you do? I seem to remember these exact types of thugs during the anti-tory riots a few years ago, also the riots over Mark Duggan getting shot, then theres the ones in the Occupy movement. Thats only off the top of my head as well.
It's also funny how you assume the guy who jumped in to protect him was a a protester, not another Trump supporter.
Are you going to brand every single piece of violence that comes out over the next few days (and it will last days) on these so called "black clads" and nobody else?
Paul,Paul Waine wrote:Hi NC, you are in US aren't you? I doubt you have seen report of Bristol (UK) police officer using a tazer on a 60 year old man who'd declined to give the police his name. The thing with this guy was he was a police advisor. I don't even think it was in a "bad neighbourhood."
IT has listed a few examples where US police have been judged to have shot first... There are too many shootings in the US - which has got a direct link to too many guns.
Agree, there will be police who have been judged to have made the wrong decision afterwards - and that can be tough.
stupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronracistidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotImploding Turtle wrote:Are you really this stupid? "anti-tory riots", "riots over Mark Duggan getting shot". Do you think "rioters" and "protesters" are synonyms? Is it possible you're that ******* stupid?
And why shouldn't i believe he's a protester when he comes from a crowd of protesters and isn't in any other way distinguishing himself from those other protesters? If he was wearing a red MAGA hat then i'd assume he's a Trump supporter. If he was dresses all in black with a black backpach and with black scarves and a black hoodie protecting his identity then i'd think he was neither a protester nor a Trump supporter. In fact it was your stupid link that said the Trump supporters was surreounded by protesters, which you were fine with believing until just now when it became inconvenient.
Vegas Claret wrote:I'm watching it, I'll not pass my opinion but this picture paints more than a thousand words
Not my President
You probably typed all that because you don't know how to copy-paste.ClaretMoffitt wrote:stupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronraciststupididiotmoronracistidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiotidiot
ClaretMoffitt wrote:Speaking of stupid IT, i noticed you liked this post. Taken very early on, while most were still at work. This is how it really looked.
Being so smart, I thought you would have been aware of such things.
Oh damn, you sure got me there man. Wow, that burn, gonna need some ointment after that, jeez.Imploding Turtle wrote:You probably typed all that because you don't know how to copy-paste.
Taken at two totally different times if day as well, but let's not mention that part, right? Wow, youre so ******* dumb lol what is wrong with you??? Why do you keep saying these things Charlie boy??Imploding Turtle wrote:That's a completely different photo taken from a completely different vantage point. It's taken from above the Capitol building looking towards the Washington Monument. The two photos being compared to each other are both taken from the opposite direction. What the **** is wrong with you? Why do you keep doing this to yourself?
ClaretMoffitt wrote:Taken at two totally different times if day as well, but let's not mention that part, right? Wow, youre so ******* dumb lol what is wrong with you??? Why do you keep saying these things Charlie boy??
Yes. If only he hadn't just spend 18 months telling everyone what his policies will be. How can anyone possibly know what he's going to try and do?ontario claret wrote:If you're protesting against his policies, then OK. But he's been in power just 24 hours, and really hasn't done anything yet. When he starts taking away benefits from widows and orphans (which he WILL do), then get on your high horse. Otherwise, you're just acting like a bunch of self-entitled fools. (Yes, that's you, IT.)
Imploding Turtle wrote:Here's another comparison with times.
Do you think it suddenly filled up in the 26 minutes difference?
Do you think they all turned up between 11:04am and 12:00pm and then left before his speech? If not then explain this picture taken during trump's speech.ClaretMoffitt wrote:Well, considering one is half an hour before an oath and the other is an hour then yeh, i'd say it would make a big difference.
Besides, nobody is saying Obama didn't bring way more people. Of course he did, he was the first black president of the US, it was symbolic, iconic, a piece of history opened up to an entire segment of people who felt they were limited, not just from America, but all over the world. That is always going to draw massive crowds, and rightly so.
My issue, as you more than well know is with the implication that Trump has no popularity, he clearly does. That's why so many attended his rallies an so few attended your beloved Clintons.
Proof of your stupidity is this right here. You think i actually like the Clinton's purely because i despise Trump.ClaretMoffitt wrote:
...your beloved Clintons.
Imploding Turtle wrote:Proof of your stupidity is this right here. You think i actually like the Clinton's purely because i despise Trump.
Now you get to complain that i'm calling you stupid yet again. And yet again it's for good reason.
ClaretMoffitt wrote: you call everyone stupid.
you will say wrote: OK, well you call everyone who disagrees with you stupid.
And i'll reply wrote: No i don't.
Imploding Turtle wrote:No i don't.
To save us some time i'll responded to your next post
Did you really need to make a post detailing that your "like" was a mistake, could you not have simply "unliked" the post? Seems a little stupid to me.Imploding Turtle wrote:That "like" was a mistake. Even if you did feel stupid i wouldn't like it that you felt that way. I'd want you to stop feeling like you could only be stupid. It doesn't take a genius to fact check something you've been told. It doesn't take a genius to be sceptical that someone as ultra-partisan as Milo Yiannopolous might not be presenting you with all the facts. You don't even have to be smart to check and be skeptical, you just have to not be lazy.
You're not really supposed to call those with whom you disagree with actually "the enemies" though.ontario claret wrote:All of this just shows the importance of being informed from a number of different opinions. There's an old saying. "Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer". In other words, always know what those that oppose you are doing.
No, you can't simply "unlike" a post.ClaretMoffitt wrote:Did you really need to make a post detailing that your "like" was a mistake, could you not have simply "unliked" the post? Seems a little stupid to me.
You can, I just did it.Imploding Turtle wrote:No, you can't simply "unlike" a post.
I simply didn't want you to think i liked it if you felt stupid. Is that a bad thing?
ClaretMoffitt wrote:You can, I just did it.
An it was a joke to be honest. You know... the whole stupid thing?
Trump literally refers to his "enemies" being his critics. That's the point i was making. It was aside your point, not in contrast to it.ontario claret wrote:The use of "your enemies" is from a direct quotation, and so it can't be changed, despite what a certain newspaper thinks.
Once you've pressed it the 'like' button changes to 'unlike'. Or it moves to the little menu in the top right of each post if you're on mobile.Imploding Turtle wrote:Well, apparently you're aware of a forum function that i am not. Good for you. Not that i believe you.
quoonbeatz wrote:Once you've pressed it the 'like' button changes to 'unlike'. Or it moves to the little menu in the top right of each post if you're on mobile.
