• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Philly Mayor: ‘You Have Some Police Officers Who Are Increasingly Afraid...."

Henrin said:
This is real unconstitutional **** that is going on. The government expanding the commerce clause to controlling the operations of business is unconstitutional, it is real, and it is ****.
Click to expand...

no, congress passing a law requiring cameras isn't "real unconstitutional." "real unconstitutional" is forfeiture, the patriot act, and the NSA. THAT'S "real unconstitutional." this is a boring libertarian hissy fit.

just put the ****ing cameras on the cops.
 
Cephus said:
These people don't care about evidence. The people who riot couldn't care less what's true and we all know Sharpton doesn't care, he'll just twist the situation so it makes his side look good, regardless of the facts.
Click to expand...

i give zero ****s about Sharpton one way or the other.
 
I've always found it funny... how the fears of cops are taken into consideration when new laws, policies, etc. are made.... do we have this same concern for soldiers? It's simple, if you're too scared to be a cop, don't become one. However, don't expect the rest of us to take pity on you after your unions fought for the right to not protect people or after they've given themselves massive benefits (legal and material), and have militarized yourselves in every community of America whether crime is on the rise or not.
 
Hatuey said:
I've always found it funny... how the fears of cops are taken into consideration when new laws, policies, etc. are made.... do we have this same concern for soldiers? It's simple, if you're too scared to be a cop, don't become one. However, don't expect the rest of us to take pity on you after your unions fought for the right to not protect people or after they've given themselves massive benefits (legal and material), and have militarized yourselves in every community of America whether crime is on the rise or not.
Click to expand...

On the rise or not?

Communities like Ferguson have been war zones for years. South Chicago has more fatal shootings per year than our troops in Afghanistan. Many cops will not dispatch to these neighborhoods without one or more backup vehicles.

Many of these protesters are people who are tired of having to circumvent the police on a daily basis.
 
Erod said:
On the rise or not?
Click to expand...

It isn't. Want to make a wager on the matter?

Communities like Ferguson have been war zones for years. South Chicago has more fatal shootings per year than our troops in Afghanistan. Many cops will not dispatch to these neighborhoods without one or more backup vehicles.

Many of these protesters are people who are tired of having to circumvent the police on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

We can make this easy Erod, we can have a debate where we present evidence for both sides. I can present evidence that crime has been dropping for nearly 30 years, and you can present evidence that crime has been on the rise for those 30 years. :) You down for it?
 
joko104 said:
What needs to happen is that the government is not liable for the criminal actions of police officers. Because the government is liable for the massive lawsuits, there is equal massive economic incentive to defend the officer for obvious reason.

I see no reason why the government - meaning taxpayers - should be liable for criminal conduct of police officers UNLESS the government entity told the officer to commit the crime.

For example, in NYC that officer violated specific, known police policy. Therefore, why would NYC be liable in a civil suit over what that officer did?

With a threatened $75 million dollar lawsuit, NYC has a $75,000,000 reason to NOT indict or convict the officer - as guilt in a criminal case inherently proves guilt in the civil case.

So one of the problems is the sue-em lawyers - making such as Al Sharpston part of the cause and the problem. The lawyers having laws allowing them to go after deep pockets, when the NYPD and NYC had specifically told that officer to NEVER do a chockhold.

The civil liability should ONLY be against the officer. If it was, there would be no economic motive either way to protect or prosecute that officer.
Click to expand...

The problem with your theory is that NYC almost always settles out of court. Additionally while your correct that a criminal conviction strongly indicates civil success, given the burden of proof in civil cases an acquittal criminally doesn't mean much.
 
clownboy said:
That's nice, he's also the one who took the power for the court not provided in the Constitution. He's the one who raped states rights and grew the federal. But that's beside the point, the power you are looking for over local cops is not one of the implied powers of the federal either.
Click to expand...
John Marshall had witnessed first hand the spectacular failure of the Articles Of The Confederation. You don't get to say one of the founding father's doesn't understand the limitations of state's rights.
 
clownboy said:
Is Santa going to bring them all cameras for Christmas? The magical fairies going to pay for and authorize the system for every county in the US? You know the cops aren't federal, right?
Click to expand...

The camera cost would be a tiny percentage - not 1% of what an officer costs just for 1 year - and if it avoided one lawsuit the cameras would pay for themselves many times over. Maybe you should raise the issue of how much bullets cost to argue police really should only have 1 bullet because who's going to pay for all those bullets?
 
Last edited:
Gaius46 said:
The problem with your theory is that NYC almost always settles out of court. Additionally while your correct that a criminal conviction strongly indicates civil success, given the burden of proof in civil cases an acquittal criminally doesn't mean much.
Click to expand...

Settling out of court isn't free. Nor are the lawyer fees to settle out of court.

A criminal conviction doesn't just give a strong indication, it is considered absolute and indisputable proof in a civil case. If final conviction of guilt is not even disputable then in civil court. Civil judgments, however, are not even admissible to be mentioned in criminal court.
 
Hatuey said:
It isn't. Want to make a wager on the matter?



We can make this easy Erod, we can have a debate where we present evidence for both sides. I can present evidence that crime has been dropping for nearly 30 years, and you can present evidence that crime has been on the rise for those 30 years. :) You down for it?
Click to expand...

General crime has been dropping in some neighborhoods, and rising in others. Just like educational disparity is increasing as well because of the complete obliteration of the family unit in those same communities.
 
Erod said:
General crime has been dropping in some neighborhoods, and rising in others.
Click to expand...

No, no, I stated violent crime has generally been on the drop. Meanwhile, police departments have generally increased their funding. Do you want to address that yes or no? For example, I can show crime in Chicago (one of your favorites) has been dropping. I can show crime in major cities has been on the drop for 30 years, and yet police funding has increased when the crime rate has been dropped. Can you refute that somehow? ;) C'man Erod. I'm challenging you to a debate on the police state. You can argue why police fears are justified and I can argue why they're unjustified.

Just like educational disparity is increasing as well because of the complete obliteration of the family unit in those same communities.
Click to expand...

So I'm guessing you won't be up for that debate? Figures.
 
Last edited:
Crovax said:
That cant happen until we get rid of those unions
Click to expand...

In "protecting" us the legal system... police and prosecutors have been adversarial to the general public. The process has shifted from the public to the state.

The state first protects the state, then the people. This also needs to change. The system, the state, can not be an unaccountable entity onto itself.
 
Hatuey said:
No, no, I stated violent crime has generally been on the drop. Meanwhile, police departments have generally increased their funding. Do you want to address that yes or no? For example, I can show crime in Chicago (one of your favorites) has been dropping. I can show crime in major cities has been on the drop for 30 years, and yet police funding has increased when the crime rate has been dropped. Can you refute that somehow? ;) C'man Erod. I'm challenging you to a debate on the police state. You can argue why police fears are justified and I can argue why they're unjustified.



So I'm guessing you won't be up for that debate? Figures.
Click to expand...

Chicago as a whole has less violent crime, but are you seriously going to say that the south side is lessening?
 
Erod said:
Chicago as a whole has less violent crime, but are you seriously going to say that the south side is lessening?
Click to expand...

So yes or no on that debate, Erod? C'man prove to us all you've got the skills to debate me.
 
joko104 said:
Settling out of court isn't free. Nor are the lawyer fees to settle out of court.

A criminal conviction doesn't just give a strong indication, it is considered absolute and indisputable proof in a civil case. If final conviction of guilt is not even disputable then in civil court. Civil judgments, however, are not even admissible to be mentioned in criminal court.
Click to expand...

Facts determined in a criminal case are general binding in a civil case - yes that's true. So if the criminal court finds guilt of criminally negligent homicide that fact doesn't have to be re-established. Issues like amount of damages would however still need to be determined.

On the other side of the coin as you state civil judgments mean nothing in criminal cases because of the higher standard of proof.

I also believe that the city did not pay for the officer's defense, rather the union paid for it. I'm not even sure the city can pay for it since the city would also be bringing the charges against him.

In any case the city is his employer and, like any other, should be liable for the employees actions in discharging his employment duties. In a wrongful death suit the city victim's family should be compensated and should get more than the cop's house and savings. Instead of disavowing liability what the city should do is a better job of policing the police.
 
Hatuey said:
I've always found it funny... how the fears of cops are taken into consideration when new laws, policies, etc. are made.... do we have this same concern for soldiers? It's simple, if you're too scared to be a cop, don't become one. However, don't expect the rest of us to take pity on you after your unions fought for the right to not protect people or after they've given themselves massive benefits (legal and material), and have militarized yourselves in every community of America whether crime is on the rise or not.
Click to expand...



When I joined it was understood the job was dangerous, and if you couldn't run with the big dogs you needed to stay on the porch.
 
Hatuey said:
So yes or no on that debate, Erod? C'man prove to us all you've got the skills to debate me.
Click to expand...

You haven't engaged in a real debate here....ever.

And probably unlike you, most of my day is dedicated to work.
 
Erod said:
You haven't engaged in a real debate here....ever.
Click to expand...

I can prove you wrong though. ;)

And probably unlike you, most of my day is dedicated to work.
Click to expand...

Lol, Erod, I have a lot of patience. How about this, I'll set it up (4 posts a piece) and I'll give you a month to respond. I'm sure a month will be more than enough, or are you admitting your opinion is full of nonsense? ;)
 
Helix said:
no, congress passing a law requiring cameras isn't "real unconstitutional." "real unconstitutional" is forfeiture, the patriot act, and the NSA. THAT'S "real unconstitutional." this is a boring libertarian hissy fit.

just put the ****ing cameras on the cops.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you keep saying this. Yes, some things are worse than others, but if something is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.
 
Goshin said:
When I joined it was understood the job was dangerous, and if you couldn't run with the big dogs you needed to stay on the porch.
Click to expand...

That's the thing though isn't it? We're all supposed to be concerned that a policeman's job is dangerous and then we're told that soldiers don't have a right to complain about where they are sent because they signed up for it. What's different about police officers? They signed up to join too.... or are they there by force? If they're there by choice, then don't expect us to be concerned about whether the law bothers them. That's not what their job description entails.

The way it stands, every time a policeman is killed it was because they chose to put themselves in the line of danger. Police unions in an attempt to defend themselves have ironically downgraded the role of a police officer to a glorified samaritan.
 
Erod said:
Philly Mayor: ‘You Have Some Police Officers Who are Increasingly Afraid of the Community’ « CBS St. Louis



This discussion hints at the REAL source of the problem, which CNN and the msm wouldn't dare touch with a 10-foot pole.

Is this an issue about trusting the police, or is this about resentment for repeatedly getting caught by the police? Do many of these folks want better police enforcement, or do they want no police enforcement? It smells of "my teacher hates me."

We're headed for a situation where cops will refuse to police these neighborhoods altogether for fear of being singled out like the Ferguson police officer. Rough areas will be left to fend for themselves.

That, or black officer will be assigned to black neighborhoods, and whites to white neighborhoods. How racially divided does that sound?
Click to expand...

I keep getting the impression that Sharpton, Jackson that that lot won't be happy until none of the laws are enforced against black suspects.

A black guy kills your white mother to steal her SS check? Oh well. Better luck next time.

Fundamentally, if you don't want to be arrested, don't do the crime. Is this because some people aren't being taught the difference between right and wrong?
 
Hatuey said:
I can prove you wrong though. ;)



Lol, Erod, I have a lot of patience. How about this, I'll set it up (4 posts a piece) and I'll give you a month to respond. I'm sure a month will be more than enough, or are you admitting your opinion is full of nonsense? ;)
Click to expand...

You derailed the thread, and now you want to"debate" another issue altogether.

Just keep hating the police, Mr. Sharpton. You win whatever it is you are obsessed with here.
 
Erod said:
You derailed the thread, and now you want to"debate" another issue altogether.
Click to expand...

Not at all, I have been on point since the beginning. I stated that the opinions of cops should be taken with a grain of salt just like those of the military. :shrug: You seem to have taken issue with the part that crime wasn't rising. I challenged you to step up like a man and debate your ideas. You've been running every post since.

Just keep hating the police, Mr. Sharpton. You win whatever it is you are obsessed with here.
Click to expand...

So, no debate? ;)
 
Flamethrower said:
What one will end up with is a whole city like Detroit---where most good people have fled, and the survivors live in fear. Shoddy or non-exsistant police. A broken fire department.

From there, whole areas will become crapholes---like Mexico, Haiti, Lybia, Nigeria and so forth.
Click to expand...

Detroit?
Visit East St. Louis sometime, see what it looks like after the manufacturing plants shuttered.

East St. Louis is a city in St. Clair County, Illinois, United States, directly across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, Missouri in the Metro-East region of Southern Illinois. As of the 2010 census, the city had a total population of 27,006, less than one-third of its peak of 82,366 in 1950. Like many larger industrial cities, it has been severely affected by loss of jobs in the restructuring of the railroad industry and de-industrialization of the Rust Belt in the second half of the 20th century. In 1950, East St. Louis was the 4th largest city in Illinois.
Click to expand...

East St. Louis, Illinois - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


East St. Louis crime rates and statistics - NeighborhoodScout
 
Henrin said:
I have no idea why you keep saying this. Yes, some things are worse than others, but if something is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

ok. let's unconstitutionally put the ****ing cameras on the ****ing cops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom