not really. just i've seen others post similar here....i don't care if you have an agenda against me, i just say as i please.
question about police
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
Care to share?
That was interesting, thanks!
not really. though as a smart man/woman, you should know this....
Just stop. You are making a fool out of yourself.
Huh?
We just agreed that generalizing is common. Are you now suggesting that the tendency to make (or not make) generalizations has something to do with where one is on the liberal-conservative spectrum? Or what? Or are you just throwing out nonsensical comments to get your post count up?
I would advise people whose only defense for what they say is "it's my opinion" to come up with at least one additional reason before posting. Yes, yes, we all have opinions... but if you're going to share them, at least make it worth the time of those who will be reading them.
We all have the right to the opinion that your opinion is dumb, you are just trying to manipulate us into saying your opinion isn't dumb, when actually, in our opinion, it is. Please stop trying to suppress others' opinions, we just say what we please round these parts, and we DO NOT back it up with any facts or evidence, so don't even start with me on THAT.
OK?
OK???
Tin foil hats will be arriving shortly
Can you really trust tinfoil you didn't make yourself?
No, not really but installing an aluminum press and roller is a little outside my budget right now.
It's obvious from all these pointless one-liners derailing the thread that you have no actual intention to engage in a real discussion or post anything of substance, but instead just want to drive up your post count and cause trouble by being contrary and rude for the sake of it. Improve the quality or reduce the quantity of your posting, quickly, or you'll receive infractions for spamming and/or trolling.
In regards to opinions and facts, a fact can be proven, while an opinion cannot be proven.
@elamigodemiamiga said "Most police are only in it to look cool and bad." This is stated as though it is an opinion. However, the word "most" is used. This indicates that an official study, survey or other resource can be used to back up this claim. Yet none has been provided.
I know several police officers and I can say that literally every one that I know joined the force as a way of public service or as a way of keeping order in this country. I'm sure that there is people even in my city's force who joined for the reasons that @elamigodemiamiga stated. Also, I realize that it's a small sample size, but I think similar numbers would be produced if I went with a larger sample size.
Based on all of that, I would say that @elamigodemiamiga's claim is false.
@elamigodemiamiga said "Most police are only in it to look cool and bad." This is stated as though it is an opinion. However, the word "most" is used. This indicates that an official study, survey or other resource can be used to back up this claim. Yet none has been provided.
I know several police officers and I can say that literally every one that I know joined the force as a way of public service or as a way of keeping order in this country. I'm sure that there is people even in my city's force who joined for the reasons that @elamigodemiamiga stated. Also, I realize that it's a small sample size, but I think similar numbers would be produced if I went with a larger sample size.
Based on all of that, I would say that @elamigodemiamiga's claim is false.
Last edited:
Besides that, what city wants to hire power-hungry jerks who will end up costing them tons of money in lawsuits when they abuse their power?
There's no question that some cops are abusive, power-hungry, and corrupt, same as you'll find in any field. Cops obviously have a lot more opportunity to exercise those tendencies, though, and by virtue of the work they do it's more likely for people to be injured or killed in the process. A disgruntled fast food worker or DMV clerk is limited in their ability to visit harm on people who displease them in the course of their work.
First, I don't think police should be blamed for anything in a vacuum. Police power draws from civil authorities. When police run amok, it is because the local government has failed to leash them--or worse, has actively encouraged their abuses. The Justice Department's report on Ferguson, Missouri provides a textbook example of this, in which police are employed almost like an organized criminal syndicate to shake down the city's residents for the sake of filling the city's coffers. Is that the fault of police? At least partially, but it's also the fault of the city government for enabling and encouraging such behavior.
Second, we should distinguish between individual and institutional culpability. Any institution (such as a police force) is susceptible to bad apples. When a cop wrongfully injures or kills someone, is it because the police force failed to identify a dangerous, rogue element, or because the police force actively encouraged such elements? Our responses should be informed by the answers to those questions. Police forces that refuse to acknowledge they have cultivated a dangerous environment and refuse to mitigate their abuses are, of course, wholly culpable for their crimes. Particularly bad police departments should be disbanded and rebuilt from scratch, as some American cities are already doing. (As an aside, it appears to be more effective and expedient to do this than to attempt to reform an abusive police force. But we have very few examples to go by at this point; more data is needed.)
There's no question that some cops are abusive, power-hungry, and corrupt, same as you'll find in any field. Cops obviously have a lot more opportunity to exercise those tendencies, though, and by virtue of the work they do it's more likely for people to be injured or killed in the process. A disgruntled fast food worker or DMV clerk is limited in their ability to visit harm on people who displease them in the course of their work.
First, I don't think police should be blamed for anything in a vacuum. Police power draws from civil authorities. When police run amok, it is because the local government has failed to leash them--or worse, has actively encouraged their abuses. The Justice Department's report on Ferguson, Missouri provides a textbook example of this, in which police are employed almost like an organized criminal syndicate to shake down the city's residents for the sake of filling the city's coffers. Is that the fault of police? At least partially, but it's also the fault of the city government for enabling and encouraging such behavior.
Second, we should distinguish between individual and institutional culpability. Any institution (such as a police force) is susceptible to bad apples. When a cop wrongfully injures or kills someone, is it because the police force failed to identify a dangerous, rogue element, or because the police force actively encouraged such elements? Our responses should be informed by the answers to those questions. Police forces that refuse to acknowledge they have cultivated a dangerous environment and refuse to mitigate their abuses are, of course, wholly culpable for their crimes. Particularly bad police departments should be disbanded and rebuilt from scratch, as some American cities are already doing. (As an aside, it appears to be more effective and expedient to do this than to attempt to reform an abusive police force. But we have very few examples to go by at this point; more data is needed.)
Dude, you joined a few days ago, it's a bit of a stretch to imagine people have developed some sort of agenda against you that quick.
Back to the point, surely the role of the police here is to support and protect the vulnerable person, not coerce her into a dangerous and potentially traumatic situation
Because you;re projecting the norms of your community onto me, some random Web stranger. I don't care really, but that's cool.Huh?
stop what? i like how you silence me on command, am i your robot? haha..ok..
Similar threads
