• 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!

NYPD Cop Indicted in Fatal Shooting

Hatuey said:
No one has branded anyone anything. What has been asked is whether you are or have been a police officer. This is now the 3rd post on the matter. You could save yourself the shuffling by simply saying: "No, I have never been a police officer". Or "Yes, I am/have been a police officer".
Click to expand...

He's absurdly trying to equate having been a low ranker in the military LONG ago to that of being a beat police officer. It is offensive to all police and shameful conduct.

I'll answer for him. No, he was never a police officer and never should have been one because he doesn't understand what being a police officer really is about.
 
joko104 said:
Yes, they do. Elected officials being assassinated is not all that rare.

Of course, you are arguing that police should never put themselves in a position to lay their lives on the line to protect anyone. Rather, they should summarily eliminate anyone who may possibly poise danger. Police exist to serve the people, not the other way around.

To make it clear in response to your comments, you're having been a low level grunt in the military has NO relevancy to being a police officer. It is insulting to all police and a lie for you to assert your CLAIMED military ancient past history has ANY relevancy to being a police officer.
Click to expand...

Who protects them from assassination?

How's the view from your armchair, that someone else risks their life to keep safe for you?
 
apdst said:
How many shootouts have you been in? How many times have you placed your life on the line in the interest of public safety?
Click to expand...

There was no shootout.
 
joko104 said:
He's absurdly trying to equate having been a low ranker in the military LONG ago to that of being a beat police officer. It is offensive to all police and shameful conduct.

I'll answer for him. No, he was never a police officer and never should have been one because he doesn't understand what being a police officer really is about.
Click to expand...

Can't resist posting insults? When were you a cop?
 
apdst said:
No one?
Click to expand...

Your lack of reading comprehension is impressive. However, it takes a lot more than that to evade a simple question regarding our conversation. What has been asked of you is whether you are or have been a cop. Have you ever been a cop, apdst? Last time I ask. :)
 
apdst said:
Can't resist posting insults? When were you a cop?
Click to expand...

I've posted the answer to that numerous times in the past, but no longer post about my personal life.

The premise of what you are trying to argue is absurd on its face, that only those with direct personal experience should have any opinion. Obviously, in you logic, all juries are incompetent unless every juror 1.) has been a victim of the crime that is at issue and 2.) was also in law enforcement. Nor should anyone ever vote since no one has experience at every issue.

Mostly, since you were not and are not a police officer your messages are pure hypocrisy.

There are others on this forum who often have discussed being police officers including career officers - and NONE of them agree with your view that the only opinions that matter are those who are or have been police officers.
 
joko104 said:
I've posted the answer to that numerous times in the past, but no longer post about my personal life.

The premise of what you are trying to argue is absurd on its face, that only those with direct personal experience should have any opinion. Obviously, in you logic, all juries are incompetent unless every juror 1.) has been a victim of the crime that is at issue and 2.) was also in law enforcement. Nor should anyone ever vote since no one has experience at every issue.

Mostly, since you were not and are not a police officer your messages are pure hypocrisy.

There are others on this forum who often have discussed being police officers including career officers - and NONE of them agree with your view that the only opinions that matter are those who are or have been police officers.
Click to expand...

This is what ruins apdst's argument. In order to meet apdst's standards of topic discussion, every single member of a grand jury would need to have been a police officer. The reality of course is that such a standard is unrealistic. As such, the overwhelming majority of people discussing these topics have never been police officers, that includes apdst.
 
Paschendale said:
No, I make sure that cops can't do this kind thing.
Click to expand...

What if they were saving your ass in the process? I bet you wouldn't care who they capped, as long as you stayed safe. Yes?
 
joko104 said:
I've posted the answer to that numerous times in the past, but no longer post about my personal life.

The premise of what you are trying to argue is absurd on its face, that only those with direct personal experience should have any opinion. Obviously, in you logic, all juries are incompetent unless every juror 1.) has been a victim of the crime that is at issue and 2.) was also in law enforcement. Nor should anyone ever vote since no one has experience at every issue.

Mostly, since you were not and are not a police officer your messages are pure hypocrisy.

There are others on this forum who often have discussed being police officers including career officers - and NONE of them agree with your view that the only opinions that matter are those who are or have been police officers.
Click to expand...

It makes perfect since, because I don't condemn every cop that is caught up in a questionable incident.

You folks on the other hand? Y'all are like, "that mother ****er's guilty! ****'um!". Never, ever any benefit of the doubt. Even after they're cleared of any wrong doing, y'all still insist that they're murdering racists.
 
apdst said:
What if they were saving your ass in the process? I bet you wouldn't care who they capped, as long as you stayed safe. Yes?
Click to expand...

Ummmmm.... According to the SCOTUS police are under NO obligation to protect us as citizens.

Now drop the "were you a cop" nonsense. It is just that.
 
The Garner and Brown incidents and the GJ hearings in each are irrelevant to the issues and GJ hearing in this case. Just as irrelevant, are the protests that have taken place regarding Garner and Brown. Different fact base, different GJs, different outcome, all equally respectable and acceptable to those who don't have an agenda and need scapegoats to push it.
 
apdst said:
What if they were saving your ass in the process? I bet you wouldn't care who they capped, as long as you stayed safe. Yes?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what kind of weird hypotheticals you're entertaining in your mind, but this is about when police don't act to protect anyone, but kill people who aren't committing a crime, aren't dangerous, and aren't threatening anyone. When that happens, there should be indictment and prosecution, because that's murder. I'm also not sure what kind of life you lead where you need police to kill someone to protect you. I certainly don't.
 
rather than this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality that has resulted in so many deaths.
Click to expand...

A major problem is today's mentality that even citizens can shot first and ask questions later thanks to vigilante type laws being put on the books.
 
apdst said:
Those are elected officials and certainly don't lay their lives on the line to protect our communities.
Click to expand...

So, according to you, only cops are the only ones allowed to criticize the police. What a crock!
 
`
Before reporting this incident to his superiors, he texted his union first. Sounds suspicious to me.
 
Texmex said:
So, according to you, only cops are the only ones allowed to criticize the police. What a crock!
Click to expand...

No, I'm simply pointing out that most--all?--of the folks who automatically condemn every single accused police officer, have never been a cop, nor will they ever be. That fact leads them to make unfair and unjust condemnation that smacks of cowardice and hypocrisy.
 
apdst said:
No, I'm simply pointing out that most--all?--of the folks who automatically condemn every single accused police officer, have never been a cop, nor will they ever be. That fact leads them to make unfair and unjust condemnation that smacks of cowardice and hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

I don't think we condemn every single accused police officer, but this one was indicted.
 
apdst said:
I'm not one of the folks armchair quarterbacking the incident, passing judgement on the cop from the comfort of their recliner, safe in the knowledge that they'll never have to make that call.
Click to expand...

"Never question authority unless you are authority!"
A conservative, 2015.
 
Black Dog said:
Ummmmm.... According to the SCOTUS police are under NO obligation to protect us as citizens.

Now drop the "were you a cop" nonsense. It is just that.
Click to expand...

You're saying that cops do their jobs in accordance with their own principles and sense of responsibility?
 
apdst said:
You're saying that cops do their jobs in accordance with their own principles and sense of responsibility?
Click to expand...

I am saying exactly what I said without you making a fallacy statement.
 
Paschendale said:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...ooting-akai-gurley-indicted-article-1.2109892
Source: NYPD officer indicted in stairwell death of unarmed man - CNN.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/nyregion/akai-gurley-shooting-death-arraignment.html

Perhaps the public outcry over the killings of Eric Garner and Michael Brown have resulted in a change in policy. Perhaps now cops who kill innocent people will start to face the consequences for their actions and at least be charged and tried in court, where their guilt or innocence can actually be determined, instead of summarily never even charging them and almost never indicting them.

Gurley did nothing more than walk into the stairwell of the building where he lived, and a man with a gun murdered him. Anyone who can't handle that and reacts with lethal force to the mere presence of another person has no place being tasked with protecting peace anywhere in this country and has no place at all being trusted with lethal force. Cops like this need to be pruned from the profession and it needs to be taught how to operate like adults, rather than this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality that has resulted in so many deaths.
Click to expand...

At some point, we're really going to have to reign in the government and properly punishment transgressions against the People. We'll see where this goes, I'd be surprised if they got a conviction, though any normal citizen certainly would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom