Has BLM gone too far?

Author: BearMan ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 153
  • Intelligence_06
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 391
    0
    3
    10
    Intelligence_06 avatar
    Intelligence_06
    --> @Crocodile
    excuse me what
    But honestly, the whites taste better in my stew.

    I like eating all tho
    Are you a cannibal?

  • SupaDudz
    SupaDudz avatar
    Debates: 26
    Forum posts: 9,314
    4
    8
    11
    SupaDudz avatar
    SupaDudz
    --> @Crocodile
    WTF lol
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,574
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Crocodile
    Spoken like a true apex reptile.
  • Crocodile
    Crocodile avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 589
    2
    3
    9
    Crocodile avatar
    Crocodile
    --> @Intelligence_06
    Is eating people of you same species being a cannibal?

    it's not is it?
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @ILikePie5
    Hint: Shooting anyone in the back, even if they are carrying a loaded weapon, is a WAR CRIME.
    Where’s your source?

  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @ILikePie5
    Actually, we have FEWER rights than an "enemy combatant".
    Really? Would you rather be in a federal prison or Guantanamo Bay?
    Would you rather be shot in cold blood, or held in violation of the Geneva conventions?
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,697
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @3RU7AL

    Which page? I’m not reading through all of that. Not to mention those rules of engagement are outdated now

    Would you rather be shot in cold blood, or held in violation of the Geneva conventions?
    That makes no sense lol. Americans have more rights than enemy combatants.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @ILikePie5
    Are you aware that violent crime is in a long term down-trend?
    And how does that correlate with police funding?
    Police are armed in order to deal with violent criminals.

    Police only face violent criminals on roughly 4% of their calls.

    Therefore, it stands to reason, the armed police should get roughly 4% of current police funding, with the rest (96%) distributed to unarmed civil servants.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,697
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @3RU7AL
    Police are armed in order to deal with violent criminals.

    Police only face violent criminals on roughly 4% of their calls.

    Therefore, it stands to reason, the armed police should get roughly 4% of current police funding, with the rest (96%) distributed to unarmed civil servants.
    That doesn’t answer my question. Crime has gone down but police funding has gone up. Crime is already up in cities because there are less police officers. And I mean violent crime.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @ILikePie5
    Which page?
    Scenario #9Your convoy is on the outskirts of a city and approaching an overpass. A crowd isgathering in the area just beneath the overpass. You see a man running in an alleytoward the overpass with an AK-47. What do you do?Possible reaction points and EOF considerations:• Increase the aggressiveness of your posture.• Use EOF to negate the potential threat.• Remember that locals may legally have small arms for the protection oftheir homes.• Attempt to identify the individual with the weapon.• Do not engage unless there are further indications of hostile intent or ahostile act. [LINK]

    OPENING FIRE.a. You may open fire only if you, friendly forces or persons or property under yourprotection are threatened with deadly force. [LINK]
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @ILikePie5
    That makes no sense lol. Americans have more rights than enemy combatants.
    no they do not.

    Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody [INDEFINITELY AND WITHOUT TRIAL OR CHARGES], and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war. [LINK]
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @ILikePie5
    That doesn’t answer my question. Crime has gone down but police funding has gone up. Crime is already up in cities because there are less police officers. And I mean violent crime.
    Citation please.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,697
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @3RU7AL
    Scenario #9Your convoy is on the outskirts of a city and approaching an overpass. A crowd isgathering in the area just beneath the overpass. You see a man running in an alleytoward the overpass with an AK-47. What do you do?Possible reaction points and EOF considerations:• Increase the aggressiveness of your posture.• Use EOF to negate the potential threat.• Remember that locals may legally have small arms for the protection oftheir homes.• Attempt to identify the individual with the weapon.• Do not engageunless there are further indications of hostile intent or ahostile act. [LINK]

    OPENING FIRE.a. You may open fire only if you, friendly forces or persons or property under yourprotection are threatened with deadly force. [LINK]
    Where does it say anything about the back? Also what does this mean: “Use EOF to negate the potential threat.“
    And how is this relevant at all? Rayshard Brooks turned around and aimed and shot a weapon at the officer, which any person in the military would’ve shot instantly.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,697
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @3RU7AL
    Citation please.
    Police funding has gone up 


    Crime going up in NYC after police defunding


  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @ILikePie5
    Domestic police can act with impunity because of a special law called "QUALIFIED IMMUNITY".
    How many cops do you think would be cops without this?
    The correct number.

    Soldiers don't get "qualified immunity" and we certainly employ quite a few of them.

    Qualified immunity doesn’t stand in the way of clear cut cases like George Floyd does it?
    It certainly increased court costs.  And judges are often swayed by community outrage.

    And anyways the Supreme Court has found it legal.
    I guess they're infallible, even if their conclusions are incoherent.

    In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), the Supreme Court held that federal government officials are entitled to qualified immunity. The Court reasoned that "the need to protect officials who are required to exercise discretion and the related public interest in encouraging the vigorous exercise of official authority."
    Do you realize that "qualified immunity" is literally "if the perpetrator (cop) thought they were doing the right thing at the time, then they are immune to legal consequences".

    If that same standard were applied GENERALLY, nobody could ever be charged for a speeding ticket if "they didn't see the sign".

    It rewards incompetence (specifically ignorance).  If you didn't know it was illegal, then you can't be charged.  Imagine what a utopia that would be.

    I thought it was perfectly legal to shoot a woman through a locked living-room window, while she was sitting in her own home, playing video games with her family.

    CIVIL RIGHTS YOU SAY??
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @ILikePie5
    Where does it say anything about the back?
    That specific detail is from a convoy security gunner deployed to Iraq,


    The quoted portion of the handbook that I provided made it perfectly clear that you can't shoot someone simply because they're running and carrying an AK-47.

    Carrying a loaded firearm is not illegal in the united states.

    Just because an officer thinks that someone might have a weapon, doesn't give them carte-blanche to kill them.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,697
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @3RU7AL
    The correct number.
    Laughable. There are already cops mass retiring because of the lack of proper funding.

    It certainly increased court costs. And judges are often swayed by community outrage.
    This could be applied to any case lol.

    I guess they're infallible, even if their conclusions are incoherent.
    It’s the law of the land whether you like it or not.

    Do you realize that "qualified immunity" is literally "if the perpetrator (cop) thought they were doing the right thing at the time, then they are immune to legal consequences".
    Clearly not true because a lot of cops have been prosecuted and convicted in a court of law.

    If that same standard were applied GENERALLY, nobody could ever be charged for a speeding ticket if "they didn't see the sign".

    It rewards incompetence (specifically ignorance).  If you didn't know it was illegal, then you can't be charged.  Imagine what a utopia that would be.

    I thought it was perfectly legal to shoot a woman through a locked living-room window, while she was sitting in her own home, playing video games with her family.

    CIVIL RIGHTS YOU SAY??
    Being a cop is nothing like speeding. That’s a false equivalency fallacy. The job of a cop is difficult and they protect us day and night while you sleep peacefully at night. Unjustified killings are never ok. The death of George Floyd was not ok because he violated protocol even if he thought he was doing the right thing.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,697
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @3RU7AL
    The quoted portion of the handbook that I provided made it perfectly clear that you can't shoot someone simply because they're running and carrying an AK-47.

    Carrying a loaded firearm is not illegal in the united states.

    Just because an officer thinks that someone might have a weapon, doesn't give them carte-blanche to kill them.
    I never said they could. They can only shoot if the weapon moves if the perpetrator suddenly moves to grab it and point it at a soldier. Rayshard Brooks would’ve been fine if he never turned around aimed and fired the weapon.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @ILikePie5

    Laughable. There are already cops mass retiring because of the lack of proper funding.
    It's called supply and demand.

    Perhaps we should privatize them.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @ILikePie5
    It certainly increased court costs. And judges are often swayed by community outrage.
    This could be applied to any case lol.
    And it does.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @ILikePie5
    I guess they're infallible, even if their conclusions are incoherent.
    It’s the law of the land whether you like it or not.
    Law is codified mob rule.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @ILikePie5
    Do you realize that "qualified immunity" is literally "if the perpetrator (cop) thought they were doing the right thing at the time, then they are immune to legal consequences".
    Clearly not true because a lot of cops have been prosecuted and convicted in a court of law.
    Clearly true because a lot of cops have had charges dropped by prosecutors who refuse to take cases against them or placed on "administrative leave" or received reduced or suspended sentences.

    The precious few who are actually held accountable are only in "trouble" because of community outrage.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,697
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @3RU7AL
    It's called supply and demand.

    Perhaps we should privatize them.
    I already showed crime is increasing without them lol. Now you want to hire new cops who have zero experience and are more likely to be killed or kill?

    And it does.
    So what’s your point? Judges and the community can be swayed by anything if it’s persuadable.

    Law is codified mob rule.
    So you’re an anarchist? Makes sense lol

    Clearly true because a lot of cops have had charges dropped by prosecutors who refuse to take cases against them or placed on "administrative leave" or received reduced or suspended sentences.

    The precious few who are actually held accountable are only in "trouble" because of community outrage.
    You just proved my point. Qualified immunity isn’t absolute immunity. If you want to bring a case you Can but it’s your job to convince the jury that you yourself wouldn’t have done what that cop did if you were the cop in the scenario. Where ever the jury is convinced and cop gets convicted whether that be in the case of George Floyd or in the case of an Oklahoma cop. Being a cop is hard dude. You see stuff that you can’t forget. You go to work everyday knowing you May never Come back to see your wife and kids. It’s arguably one of the hardest jobs that even doesn’t pay as much.
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @ILikePie5
    Just because an officer thinks that someone might have a weapon, doesn't give them carte-blanche to kill them.
    I never said they could.
    Qualified Immunity allows police to shoot anyone they "suspect".  Officers regularly testify that they genuinely "feared for their lives" in order to be exonerated.

    They can only shoot if the weapon moves if the perpetrator suddenly moves to grab it and point it at a soldier.
    Are you switching between police and soldiers now?

    Rayshard Brooks would’ve been fine if he never turned around aimed and fired the weapon.
    Brooks scuffled with the officers, got hold of Brosnan's taser, punched Rolfe, and ran. With Rolfe pursuing him, Brooks half-turned and fired the taser toward Rolfe, who then shot Brooks twice from behind while a third shot struck an occupied car. Brooks died after surgery.

    Footage of the incident, recorded from the officers' bodycams, a witness's phone and the restaurant's security system, was widely broadcast. Police chief Erika Shields resigned one day later; that same day, Rolfe was fired and Brosnan was placed on administrative duty.

    Based on these videos and witness reports, prosecutors claimed that after Brooks was shot, Rolfe kicked Brooks and Brosnan stood on his shoulder. Rolfe was charged with felony murder and ten other offenses; Brosnan with aggravated assault and two counts of violation of oath. [LINK]

    In the EOF handbook, it's called "proportional force".  You can't kill someone (by shooting them in the back while they're fleeing) who fires a (non lethal) taser at you.

    Community Outrage > Qualified Immunity
  • 3RU7AL
    3RU7AL avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,180
    2
    3
    7
    3RU7AL avatar
    3RU7AL
    --> @ILikePie5
    Perhaps you posted the wrong link.

    From YOUR LINK,

    Members of the NYPD’s anti-crime unit were reassigned to uniformed patrol duties on Monday — part of what Police Commissioner Dermot Shea called a “seismic” shift affecting some 600 cops.

    SO, they were not "fired" or "defunded" they simply put on UNIFORMS.

    By all accounts this INCREASED the number of UNIFORMED police officers by about 600.