• 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!

Baltimore police stopped noticing crime after Freddie Gray's death. A wave of killings followed.

Mason66 said:
Mass is an accepted way to shorten Massachusetts.

Is it too early for a joke for you?
Click to expand...

I knew what you were saying, but did not realize it was a joke. Their are enough members on this board that are stupid enough to actually think what you posted (not that I think you are one of those stupid posters
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
So because you don't want to know about it, you will ignore the fact the BPD officers were instructed to carry toy guns to plant on people they have shot?

That sort of thing must make life easy. Ignore things and they never happened.
Click to expand...

Because you want to listen to Mother Jones means you are incapable of seeing the big picture.

Am I aware that the Baltimore PD has had its share of shady police and issues? Certainly.

Does that mean the rank and file Blue should be treated like they are suspects and held to an impossible standard while doing their jobs?

No.

Your entire premise is "The PD has had some issues, ergo all the cops are rotten".

And people wonder why they quit risking their lives and careers...
 
Renae said:
Because you want to listen to Mother Jones means you are incapable of seeing the big picture.

Am I aware that the Baltimore PD has had its share of shady police and issues? Certainly.

Does that mean the rank and file Blue should be treated like they are suspects and held to an impossible standard while doing their jobs?

No.

Your entire premise is "The PD has had some issues, ergo all the cops are rotten".

And people wonder why they quit risking their lives and careers...
Click to expand...

No

Some members of the BPD were corrupt, I expect that a lot of regular BPD officers knew about the corrupt officers, that many were carrying toy guns to drop on people they shot. Yet they did not do their jobs as police officers and report those cops or their suspicions to IA. As the police are paid to enforce the law, even against other police, the failure to do so, makes the trust for those that are good go down. It makes the believe that if one does shoot a suspect, that it was a good shoot, very questionable.

The police have to enforce their own to a very high standard as trust of the public they serve is dependent on it. Without that trust the police will find doing their jobs more difficult, and once that trust is lost it take a long time to gain it back
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
No

Some members of the BPD were corrupt, I expect that a lot of regular BPD officers knew about the corrupt officers, that many were carrying toy guns to drop on people they shot. Yet they did not do their jobs as police officers and report those cops or their suspicions to IA. As the police are paid to enforce the law, even against other police, the failure to do so, makes the trust for those that are good go down. It makes the believe that if one does shoot a suspect, that it was a good shoot, very questionable.

The police have to enforce their own to a very high standard as trust of the public they serve is dependent on it. Without that trust the police will find doing their jobs more difficult, and once that trust is lost it take a long time to gain it back
Click to expand...

You would have a story if a toy gun was found at the scene of a police involved shooting.

A gun in a glove box with rumors surrounding it is not a story.

Were there any cases where this tactic was employed?
 
Mason66 said:
You would have a story if a toy gun was found at the scene of a police involved shooting.

A gun in a glove box with rumors surrounding it is not a story.

Were there any cases where this tactic was employed?
Click to expand...

No idea, but it certainly will call into question any BPD shooting that takes place and was not recorded on video as to whether or not a gun toy or real was planted
 
Renae said:
They can't quit, they get sued, they do their jobs and they get investigated, harassed, attacked. The police in Baltimore are under siege in the streets, in the court of public opinion and from their own politicians.

That's a lot to ask people to deal with and also put their lives on the line. I don't blame them for being scared to DO their jobs.
Click to expand...

Right.. so you are saying the police cannot do their jobs unless they are allowed to transport prisoners and bounce them around and cause their death?

Please explain how police cannot do their jobs if they are not allowed to violate procedures and not secure people they transport?
 
jaeger19 said:
Right.. so you are saying the police cannot do their jobs unless they are allowed to transport prisoners and bounce them around and cause their death?

Please explain how police cannot do their jobs if they are not allowed to violate procedures and not secure people they transport?
Click to expand...

Nice Strawman, did you think this entire line of fail on your own or did you have help?
 
jaeger19 said:
Right.. so you are saying the police cannot do their jobs unless they are allowed to transport prisoners and bounce them around and cause their death?

Please explain how police cannot do their jobs if they are not allowed to violate procedures and not secure people they transport?
Click to expand...

That was a cover up he broke his neck when the cop tazed him off his bike. You can see him screaming when they put him onto the transport and his legs are having trouble working like he has brain/spine damage. They threw him in the truck so noone would know who to blame when in fact it was the one cop that tazerd him off of his bike.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Not an unusual clause considering the training requirement. Baltimore does not want to front the training just to see the cop take a job in the next city once training is done
Click to expand...

Well now they're paying police to do nothing. Does that seem better?
 
CLAX1911 said:
Well now they're paying police to do nothing. Does that seem better?
Click to expand...

No, which is why they should be fired, with cause, have their pensions revoked and be sued to repay for their training if they have put in the required number of years of service.

Pull a Reagan on their candy butts
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
No, which is why they should be fired, with cause, have their pensions revoked and be sued to repay for their training if they have put in the required number of years of service.
Click to expand...
if you fire them you can't sue them for breaking the contract because you did. I think getting fired is exactly what they want.

Pull a Reagan on their candy butts
Click to expand...
yeah I'm but Reagan didn't come back and demand money from them you can't you breach the contract not the employees.
 
The law of unintended consequences in action here.
 
ALL police in big cities should avoid going into majority minority communities. Just...you know...to keep them safe. Because black lives matter.
 
Renae said:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...reddie-gray-wave-killings-followed/744741002/

Gee who would have thought this could happen? I don't blame the officers frankly. Sad, but true.
Click to expand...

You never have.

:shrug:

Still, nobody has any business calling themselves a "patriot" or even an "American" if they have no problem with the police responding to criticism of themselves when someone dies in their custody by simply not doing their jobs anymore. Why? Simple. Because if you don't have a problem with it, you support authoritarianism. You support a police force that makes sure it is never questioned by taking retribution when it feels it has been questioned; that leads to unrestricted power, which in turn always leads to abuse of a given citizenry.

Shameful.
 
Mr Person said:
You never have.

:shrug:

Still, nobody has any business calling themselves a "patriot" or even an "American" if they have no problem with the police responding to criticism of themselves when someone dies in their custody by simply not doing their jobs anymore. Why? Simple. Because if you don't have a problem with it, you support authoritarianism. You support a police force that makes sure it is never questioned by taking retribution when it feels it has been questioned; that leads to unrestricted power, which in turn always leads to abuse of a given citizenry.

Shameful.
Click to expand...

No True Scotsman fallacy. You really are failing here in your attempts to make any viable point whatsoever. You start with a falsehood, and go into a fallacy argument better left to middle school lunch tables than a debate site. Please don't bother responding to my posts if you are so shallow.
 
Renae said:
No True Scotsman fallacy. You really are failing here in your attempts to make any viable point whatsoever. You start with a falsehood, and go into a fallacy argument better left to middle school lunch tables than a debate site. Please don't bother responding to my posts if you are so shallow.
Click to expand...

^^
When you have to say something that sounds like a disagreement but don't have the slightest clue how to respond to the substantive point.
 
Mr Person said:
^^
When you have to say something that sounds like a disagreement but don't have the slightest clue how to respond to the substantive point.
Click to expand...

Respond to what? You start with lying about my position then throw in a true scotsman fallacy and double down with a slippery slope on top of your lie about my position.
 
Renae said:
Respond to what? You start with lying about my position then throw in a true scotsman fallacy and double down with a slippery slope on top of your lie about my position.
Click to expand...

Remind me: when did you finally get around to blaming the police for misbehavior?

The core principle of the constitution is limits on government power. Police are government agents. And there you are, saying you have no problem with a police force that looked the other way in retaliation against protests over the fact that someone died of a broken neck whilst in their custody. ("the number of potential violations they reported seeing themselves dropped by nearly half. It has largely stayed that way ever since.“What officers are doing is they’re just driving looking forward. They’ve got horse blinders on,” says Kevin Forrester, a retired Baltimore detective.")

The substance is here, if you want to get over your misdirection and faux outrage, then actually talk about something substantive:

Mr Person said:
You never have.

:shrug:

Still, nobody has any business calling themselves a "patriot" or even an "American" if they have no problem with the police responding to criticism of themselves when someone dies in their custody by simply not doing their jobs anymore. Why? Simple. Because if you don't have a problem with it, you support authoritarianism. You support a police force that makes sure it is never questioned by taking retribution when it feels it has been questioned; that leads to unrestricted power, which in turn always leads to abuse of a given citizenry.

Shameful.
Click to expand...





Anyway, you don't seem to know what a "true scotsman fallacy" is.


"No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.[1][2] Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I rejected the original claim and explained why: your stance is fundamentally in contradiction to founding principles. That's called "rejecting the original claim" and explaining why it is a crap claim.

:shrug:




Say.... you haven't ever suggested that you're a patriot but someone you disagree with isn't, have you?
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
Remind me: when did you finally get around to blaming the police for misbehavior?

The core principle of the constitution is limits on government power. Police are government agents. And there you are, saying you have no problem with a police force that looked the other way in retaliation against protests over the fact that someone died of a broken neck whilst in their custody. ("the number of potential violations they reported seeing themselves dropped by nearly half. It has largely stayed that way ever since.“What officers are doing is they’re just driving looking forward. They’ve got horse blinders on,” says Kevin Forrester, a retired Baltimore detective.")

The substance is here, if you want to get over your misdirection and faux outrage, then actually talk about something substantive:







Anyway, you don't seem to know what a "true scotsman fallacy" is.


"No true Scotsman or appeal to purity is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.[1][2] Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I rejected the original claim and explained why: your stance is fundamentally in contradiction to founding principles. That's called "rejecting the original claim" and explaining why it is a crap claim.

:shrug:




Say.... you haven't ever suggested that you're a patriot but someone you disagree with isn't, have you?
Click to expand...

I have many times said "The police were in the wrong" I don't blindly support the police just because.

I do:
Give them the benefit of the doubt
Trust the verdict of the courts
Watch the dash/body cam evidence to make up my own mind
Believe police officers have incredibly tough jobs


See, we differ because I remember at the end of the day, those who serve our society as police officers, are the good guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom