• 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!

Man tries to run over Pa. police, shot dead

US Conservative said:
No, and in fact AA's have improved themselves much faster than other groups. However-you must realize that many of these problems are more recent innovations, since the war on poverty. Blacks had higher rates of employment and even higher marriage rates than whites until the war on poverty.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that?
Why would the war on poverty adversely affect blacks more than it did poor whites?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Are you sure about that?
Why would the war on poverty adversely affect blacks more than it did poor whites?
Click to expand...

Because welfare enslaves the AA community for their voting block for one. All they did with demo's is trade one plantation for another.
 
US Conservative said:
But even you admit these are personal decisions, and therefore wont change unless the individual does. With that hard truth established, thats where the progress will be made-and yet we have posters who call this fact "offensive" when its the only thing that will substantively help.
Click to expand...

The issues have to be talked about. We will agree on that. You can stuff things down into a hole, but they'll always come back up. On the idea of personal decisions, on person-by-person basis, yes they have to be accountable for their actions. However, as a society, learning how closely nature and nurture are tied (and how they can affect each other), we have to acknowledge that cycles of abuse have got to be intervened or they likely won't heal on their own.
 
whysoserious said:
The issues have to be talked about. We will agree on that. You can stuff things down into a hole, but they'll always come back up. On the idea of personal decisions, on person-by-person basis, yes they have to be accountable for their actions. However, as a society, learning how closely nature and nurture are tied (and how they can affect each other), we have to acknowledge that cycles of abuse have got to be intervened or they likely won't heal on their own.
Click to expand...

Society isn't able to do this, and it never has. Central planning does not work. Until the individual changes (by being willing to change) nothing will improve. All the while we are making them more comfortable in this tormented state.

This is why lefties crying about how hard things are aren't doing anyone any favors. Its like a mother who babies her teenager-at some point its actually harmful.
 
Last edited:
US Conservative said:
Nothing will change until personal responsibility and accountability is achieved. Thats the truth you are running from.
Click to expand...
I am advocating responsibility -- our responsibility to increase equal opportunity.
Dittohead not! said:
Are you sure about that?
Why would the war on poverty adversely affect blacks more than it did poor whites?
Click to expand...
I only sound outrageous until you read the positions opposed to increasing equality.
 
US Conservative said:
Society isn't able to do this, and it never has. Central planning does not work. Until the individual changes (by being willing to change) nothing will improve. All the while we are making them more comfortable in this tormented state.

This is why lefties crying about how hard things are aren't doing anyone any favors. Its like a mother who babies her teenager-at some point its actually harmful.
Click to expand...

So that's obviously where we disagree. Could be worse.
 
Caine said:
OMFG. I lol at the ignorant irony of that statement.

Tell me, genius.... what is the difference between stopping and attempting to arrest someone.... and approaching and detaining them?
Click to expand...

You can make this a semantic circle jerk all you want.

Fact is that tactically all most cops have is a hammer so they necessarily see every problem as a nail.

Due to a little thought policing (understand that he made no specific, credible threat, just spouted off generally on the Internet a little) they identified this guy as a potential criminal and went after him like he was an existential threat to the future of America.

If the idiots had actually put any thought at all into what they were doing they would have easily identified this guy as a very mentally sick person and addressed the situation from a medical perspective.

Instead they rallied up the SWAT team in preparation for serving a no-knock warrant and while the "operators" were masturbating over the thought of blasting in of this guy's door at 0300, the guy decided to go out for a drive.

The cops saw their opportunity to act like jack booted thugs going up in smoke they took the show on the road.

Now, I won't pretend to know the absolute best way to deal with that situation, but as an educated and generally pretty intelligent person I can surmise that there have to be better options than the route they went.

Like, they could have maybe stopped him while he was walking down the street, brought some paramedics along with them, and approached him/the situation as being one of medical concern, rather than acting like it was the second raid on Abbottabad.
 
Not good...
 
US Conservative said:
You can't have collective responsibility without individual responsibility. That house wont stand.
Click to expand...
Why should a minority of the population have to individually shoulder the collective responsibility?
 
soot said:
You can make this a semantic circle jerk all you want.

Fact is that tactically all most cops have is a hammer so they necessarily see every problem as a nail.

Due to a little thought policing (understand that he made no specific, credible threat, just spouted off generally on the Internet a little) they identified this guy as a potential criminal and went after him like he was an existential threat to the future of America.

If the idiots had actually put any thought at all into what they were doing they would have easily identified this guy as a very mentally sick person and addressed the situation from a medical perspective.

Instead they rallied up the SWAT team in preparation for serving a no-knock warrant and while the "operators" were masturbating over the thought of blasting in of this guy's door at 0300, the guy decided to go out for a drive.

The cops saw their opportunity to act like jack booted thugs going up in smoke they took the show on the road.

Now, I won't pretend to know the absolute best way to deal with that situation, but as an educated and generally pretty intelligent person I can surmise that there have to be better options than the route they went.

Like, they could have maybe stopped him while he was walking down the street, brought some paramedics along with them, and approached him/the situation as being one of medical concern, rather than acting like it was the second raid on Abbottabad.
Click to expand...

As I said....

b8be3a306b404835fbfb18d48aaa1a2b.jpg
 
US Conservative said:
Im sure. And I'd speculate because of cultural differences.
Click to expand...

I can't find any stats on unemployment of blacks back before the war on poverty, but I'm sure that black unemployment is a lot higher than that of whites today. Yes, that's no doubt because of cultural differences. If it's due to discrimination in the workplace, then logic dictates that fewer blacks should be unemployed today, fifty years after the civil rights act.

I'm also quite sure we're way off the subject of a white nutter having (allegedly) tried to run over cops and having been shot for his troubles.
 
US Conservative said:
You seem to think collective means individual. Thats not what Im talking about-nothing will change until these people step up.
Click to expand...
The two are linked: the individual dependent on the collective and the collective dependent on the individual.

You're asking the individual to shoulder the burden of a collective issue.
 
Unrepresented said:
The two are linked: the individual dependent on the collective and the collective dependent on the individual.

You're asking the individual to shoulder the burden of a collective issue.
Click to expand...

but what makes it a collective issue?
 
Dittohead not! said:
but what makes it a collective issue?
Click to expand...
We don't like poverty. We don't like instability. We don't like crime. We don't like law enforcement being killed. We don't like civilians being killed by law enforcement. We don't like schools failing our students. We don't like racism. We don't like looking racist. We don't want to limit social mobility to platitudes. We don't like having the world's highest percentage of our population in prison. Etc.

The idea that this isn't a collective issue is like the idea of being diagnosed with cancer and responding to it with "that's not me, that's just my lung."
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm also quite sure we're way off the subject of a white nutter having (allegedly) tried to run over cops and having been shot for his troubles.
Click to expand...

Seems maybe you have forgotten also...

Here read this from the OP...

"WTXF reported that police had identified the man as Joseph Pacini, 52, of Clifton Heights, Pa. Authorities said that Pacini had posted a video on social media threatening to kill police and FBI agents. The station reported that police had obtained an arrest warrant in relation to the threats and SWAT teams were en route to Pacini's apartment to serve it when he left in his car at around 4 p.m. local time.

Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood said that officers stopped Pacini at an intersection in the town and ordered him out of his car. Instead of complying, Pacini backed into the Clifton Heights police chief's car and then prepared to run over other officers.

Chitwood said the officers feared Pacini would kill them and they "did what they had to do." He said five officers fired at the man and no officers were injured. Pacini did not fire at police, and Chitwood said he did not know if the man had a weapon. The officers involved in the shooting are being interviewed by the local District Attorney's office and the incident is still under investigation."

Pennsylvania police kill man whom they say tried to run them over | Fox News

This wasn't a "white nutter" as you describe him, nor is it "alleged".... You have that backwards...Pacini is dead BECAUSE of the actions he took trying to run over cops when they tried to effect an arrest warrant on him. That is a fact. What you are trying to do is place scrutiny on the police by flipping the tables as if they were the ones in the wrong....
 
j-mac said:
Seems maybe you have forgotten also...

Here read this from the OP...

"WTXF reported that police had identified the man as Joseph Pacini, 52, of Clifton Heights, Pa. Authorities said that Pacini had posted a video on social media threatening to kill police and FBI agents. The station reported that police had obtained an arrest warrant in relation to the threats and SWAT teams were en route to Pacini's apartment to serve it when he left in his car at around 4 p.m. local time.

Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood said that officers stopped Pacini at an intersection in the town and ordered him out of his car. Instead of complying, Pacini backed into the Clifton Heights police chief's car and then prepared to run over other officers.

Chitwood said the officers feared Pacini would kill them and they "did what they had to do." He said five officers fired at the man and no officers were injured. Pacini did not fire at police, and Chitwood said he did not know if the man had a weapon. The officers involved in the shooting are being interviewed by the local District Attorney's office and the incident is still under investigation."

Pennsylvania police kill man whom they say tried to run them over | Fox News

This wasn't a "white nutter" as you describe him, nor is it "alleged".... You have that backwards...Pacini is dead BECAUSE of the actions he took trying to run over cops when they tried to effect an arrest warrant on him. That is a fact. What you are trying to do is place scrutiny on the police by flipping the tables as if they were the ones in the wrong....
Click to expand...

Not at all. Firstly, any crime is "alleged" until there has been a jury trial. Secondly, what in the above shows Pacini to be anything but a white nutter? I don't see any mention of race, but his picture looks like a white guy to me. If he wasn't a nutter, then why did he threaten the cops and allegedly try to run them over?

And, if we're now discussing black/white issues, aren't we way off of the subject?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Not at all. Firstly, any crime is "alleged" until there has been a jury trial. Secondly, what in the above shows Pacini to be anything but a white nutter? I don't see any mention of race, but his picture looks like a white guy to me. If he wasn't a nutter, then why did he threaten the cops and allegedly try to run them over?

And, if we're now discussing black/white issues, aren't we way off of the subject?
Click to expand...

Taking the actions that Pacini took aren't that of a mentally ill person, but rather that of a criminal trying to allude arrest. His mental state is debatable...Do you have any evidence that Pacini was under mental care? Also, your sentence structure that I responded to seems to point to something that you think police did wrong in that situation, is that the case in your mind? And what do you think they should have done differently?
 
soot said:
You can make this a semantic circle jerk all you want.

Fact is that tactically all most cops have is a hammer so they necessarily see every problem as a nail.

Due to a little thought policing (understand that he made no specific, credible threat, just spouted off generally on the Internet a little) they identified this guy as a potential criminal and went after him like he was an existential threat to the future of America.

If the idiots had actually put any thought at all into what they were doing they would have easily identified this guy as a very mentally sick person and addressed the situation from a medical perspective.

Instead they rallied up the SWAT team in preparation for serving a no-knock warrant and while the "operators" were masturbating over the thought of blasting in of this guy's door at 0300, the guy decided to go out for a drive.

The cops saw their opportunity to act like jack booted thugs going up in smoke they took the show on the road.

Now, I won't pretend to know the absolute best way to deal with that situation, but as an educated and generally pretty intelligent person I can surmise that there have to be better options than the route they went.

Like, they could have maybe stopped him while he was walking down the street, brought some paramedics along with them, and approached him/the situation as being one of medical concern, rather than acting like it was the second raid on Abbottabad.
Click to expand...

?? A better way? That did not put the officers or the public at more risk? Certainly their safety was more important than a man who had *made threats* and was in control of a lethal weapon and had already used THAT to threaten officers.

If he had succeeded in leaving the area, he would have continued to be a danger to the next officers who attempted to arrest him and any innocent bystanders he crossed paths/streets with.

Why on EARTH should the cops place themselves and the public at more risk than a proven threat?
 
Dittohead not! said:
I can't find any stats on unemployment of blacks back before the war on poverty, but I'm sure that black unemployment is a lot higher than that of whites today. Yes, that's no doubt because of cultural differences. If it's due to discrimination in the workplace, then logic dictates that fewer blacks should be unemployed today, fifty years after the civil rights act.

I'm also quite sure we're way off the subject of a white nutter having (allegedly) tried to run over cops and having been shot for his troubles.
Click to expand...

In deference to the thread topic I wont discuss it further but blacks had lower unemployment before the war on poverty.
 
Unrepresented said:
The two are linked: the individual dependent on the collective and the collective dependent on the individual.

You're asking the individual to shoulder the burden of a collective issue.
Click to expand...

No, Im asking the individual to rectify an individual issue. Without it he's nothing but a drain on society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom