Send in the social workers.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I was unaware that lefty cunts are sworn to uphold the law and protect citizens. My mistake.

Boru

You want the cops to maintain order with slogans, cheers and kind words.

...

Send in the social workers......

No, I want them to be better trained in the use of force, and their applicants to be better screened.

You’re continually misrepresenting the role of social workers as an adjunct to law enforcement. The idea is to send social workers on calls that don’t require armed police. No one - and I mean no one - has ever suggested sending social workers to deal with a riot. As for ‘slogans, cheers and kind words’, you obviously still haven’t read the law in question. Instead, you’ve chosen to use an op-ed from a right-wing rag to bolster your position.

When you use one straw man argument to support another straw man argument, you’re going backwards.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

You want the cops to maintain order with slogans, cheers and kind words.

...

Send in the social workers......

No, I want them to be better trained in the use of force, and their applicants to be better screened.

You’re continually misrepresenting the role of social workers as an adjunct to law enforcement. The idea is to send social workers on calls that don’t require armed police. No one - and I mean no one - has ever suggested sending social workers to deal with a riot. As for ‘slogans, cheers and kind words’, you obviously still haven’t read the law in question. Instead, you’ve chosen to use an op-ed from a right-wing rag to bolster your position.

When you use one straw man argument to support another straw man argument, you’re going backwards.

Boru

OLB doesn't need to read the law to get mad about it. Remember the "For the People Act" fiasco?

[Rev. Rye]

The American conservative point-of-view on police is so bizarre. Because they're anti-government and don't want the government to tell them what to do or control them, yet they also blindly worship police and bend over backwards to justify their killings. You do know that police are the government, right? They are agents of the state. They are literally law enforcement. Can't think of anything more pathetic than rushing to defense of law enforcement, that operate under an authoritarian government and enforce the laws of that authoritarian government, and take the side of LE rather than the people who are powerless against them. Really, conservatives end up being so unabashedly pro-police because liberals are criticizing the police, and they can't help but be contrarian to liberals no matter what. That's the stupid truth of it.

The US is a police state, to a certain degree. No other free democracy allows their police officers to murder with such impunity. They need more controls.

Honestly, it makes much more sense when you see their unyielding support of police brutality as support of violence done by the powerful against people who at least aren’t them. As long as they’re not the ones suffering under the jackboot, literally any atrocity done by them can easily be brushed off as people just doing their job. When Derek Chauvin strangled George Floyd for 9 1/2 minutes last year, I can remember Biker decrying the outcry against it, saying anyone who objected to George Floyd being forced to sing of the hardness of tarmac was denying the cops their right to self-defense. Even though not only was he not a physical threat (and even his resisting arrest, if the body cam footage is any indication, mostly consisted of his freaking out at the possibility of getting in the paddy wagon and no actual violence), but for a good-sized portion, he wasn’t even responsive. And, yes, I know he was a felon. No, it doesn’t really make what happened to him any more justifiable, especially since, as far as I can tell, there’s no real way Chauvin and company could have even known about his rap sheet.

Frankly, at this point, more than anyone else, Biker’s stance on this sort of violence reminds me the most of a Hannah Reloaded video about a guy who went out of his way to deride a video about how precarious a situation that Twitch streamer SweetAnita was in due to a stalker that her local authorities were ignoring. After giving out traditional bromides about how she should get a dog, learn a martial art, or get into a relationship with a man so he could protect her, and after all those ideas were shown to be flawed, and after we’re treated to a case where a stalking victim fled her home, was found by her stalker, and killed, he just says “what can I say? That’s the way it goes. The N—-a just lost mortal combat.” I get the feeling that whenever Biker hears of someone killed by police, this is basically what he’s thinking. Admittedly, most likely without the N-word, even with the soft a, and the fact that the guy Hannah’s responding to is one of those black guys who casually drops N-bombs is why I’m not going to post it here, but if you want to find it, it’s called “Guy Disgustingly Uses #stopstalking to Defend Stalkers and Murderers || Chud Watch”.

---

BrianSoddingBoru4
It does nothing of the sort. Read the law. They can still spray people, club people, and shoot people. The reason they ‘won’t play’ is that they want to be able to spray people, club people and shoot people wherever and whenever they want, with or without cause, and with no recriminations or consequences.

Buncha thug babies.

Boru

Last year 54 people died because of lefty protestors.


Where' s THEIR Congressional investigation?


Why aren' t the murderers all over the news like one guy with a silly horned hat with his feet on a desk???

Why does the Capitol Riot deserve a congressional investigation but not the 54 people who died during left-wing protests? Well, the fact that the Capitol Rioters directly targeted and threatened members of Congress is a good enough reason to start with. And since I know you balk at the prospect of holding people accountable for crimes they tried to commit but failed to pull off, at least one of them stole the computer from Nancy Pelosi’s office.

[Divinity]

More cop bootlicking from the usual suspect. "If we can't shoot people, then how are we supposed to do our jobs?!" Civilized countries seem to be doing just fine.

[onlinebiker]

You want the cops to maintain order with slogans, cheers and kind words.

...

Send in the social workers......

No, I want them to be better trained in the use of force, and their applicants to be better screened.

You’re continually misrepresenting the role of social workers as an adjunct to law enforcement. The idea is to send social workers on calls that don’t require armed police. No one - and I mean no one - has ever suggested sending social workers to deal with a riot. As for ‘slogans, cheers and kind words’, you obviously still haven’t read the law in question. Instead, you’ve chosen to use an op-ed from a right-wing rag to bolster your position.

When you use one straw man argument to support another straw man argument, you’re going backwards.

Boru

So are you the one with a crystal ball that is going to dispatch who goes on what call?  You just " know" which calls are going to need an armed response?

Fine - send the social worker to the " cat in a tree" calls.

And cops on the scene are the ones that need to make the call of what degree of force is needed - not some empty headed stuffed suit in city hall who is going to make his decisions on use of force based on upcoming election projections.

[The Architect Of Fate]

So are you the one with a crystal ball that is going to dispatch who goes on what call?  You just " know" which calls are going to need an armed response?

So OLB thinks you need a crystal ball to reasonably assess what situations will require an armed response? Is he for real?

Fine - send the social worker to the " cat in a tree" calls.

Or instance where there might be a mental patient involved who can be talked down without a need to escalate things with the presence of armed men.Which has been proven to work.

And cops on the scene are the ones that need to make the call of what degree of force is needed - not some empty-headed stuffed suit in city hall who is going to make his decisions on use of force based on upcoming election projections

And that's bullshit

---

More cop bootlicking from the usual suspect. "If we can't shoot people, then how are we supposed to do our jobs?!" Civilized countries seem to be doing just fine.

How dare we demand cops not engage in needless brutality 

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No, I want them to be better trained in the use of force, and their applicants to be better screened.

You’re continually misrepresenting the role of social workers as an adjunct to law enforcement. The idea is to send social workers on calls that don’t require armed police. No one - and I mean no one - has ever suggested sending social workers to deal with a riot. As for ‘slogans, cheers and kind words’, you obviously still haven’t read the law in question. Instead, you’ve chosen to use an op-ed from a right-wing rag to bolster your position.

When you use one straw man argument to support another straw man argument, you’re going backwards.

Boru

So are you the one with a crystal ball that is going to dispatch who goes on what call?  You just " know" which calls are going to need an armed response?

Fine - send the social worker to the " cat in a tree" calls.

And cops on the scene are the ones that need to make the call of what degree of force is needed - not some empty headed stuffed suit in city hall who is going to make his decisions on use of force based on upcoming election projections.

Not me, certainly, but this doesn’t seem to be a difficult chore. Can you tell me why police - you know, the guys with guns, tasers, pepper spray, riot batons and so on - need to be sent out on a welfare check or a missing juvenile?

If cops on-scene are the best judges of the amount of force required, explain the story I linked about the in-scene cop who beat the crap out of an unarmed, unresisting, manacled teenager.

Boru

[onlinebiker]

So are you the one with a crystal ball that is going to dispatch who goes on what call?  You just " know" which calls are going to need an armed response?

Fine - send the social worker to the " cat in a tree" calls.

And cops on the scene are the ones that need to make the call of what degree of force is needed - not some empty headed stuffed suit in city hall who is going to make his decisions on use of force based on upcoming election projections.

Not me, certainly, but this doesn’t seem to be a difficult chore. Can you tell me why police - you know, the guys with guns, tasers, pepper spray, riot batons and so on - need to be sent out on a welfare check or a missing juvenile?

If cops on-scene are the best judges of the amount of force required, explain the story I linked about the in-scene cop who beat the crap out of an unarmed, unresisting, manacled teenager.

Boru

Because cops are human.

They are just as prone to violence, irrationality, prejudice and general assholedness as any other human being.

You are not going to " train that out of them".

If we could - it would make more sense to train the rest of the population into not being cunts - that need policing.

[Spongebob]

Because cops are human.

They are just as prone to violence, irrationality, prejudice and general assholedness as any other human being.

You are not going to " train that out of them".

If we could - it would make more sense to train the rest of the population into not being cunts - that need policing.

I feel that's a baloney excuse and you know it.  You could use that excuse for just about anyone.  

Teachers are humans, too and sometimes they like to have sex with their students.  Apparently we can't train that out of them, but we can prosecute them and we do.  It is not tolerated and excuses are not made for them.

Another case in point.  Bosses are human and sometimes they like to sexually harass their young female (or male) employees.  I know for a fact that 30 years of training has made a difference from my own experience working with such people.  Every business puts their employees through harassment awareness training and makes it clear that if they do these things, they will pay a price.  And we now see plenty of those who abuse their power get fired and even prosecuted.  It is not tolerated.  And there's no reason we should tolerate police brutality either.  It doesn't matter what color the victim is.

---

No, I want them to be better trained in the use of force, and their applicants to be better screened.

You’re continually misrepresenting the role of social workers as an adjunct to law enforcement. The idea is to send social workers on calls that don’t require armed police. No one - and I mean no one - has ever suggested sending social workers to deal with a riot. As for ‘slogans, cheers and kind words’, you obviously still haven’t read the law in question. Instead, you’ve chosen to use an op-ed from a right-wing rag to bolster your position.

When you use one straw man argument to support another straw man argument, you’re going backwards.

Boru

So are you the one with a crystal ball that is going to dispatch who goes on what call?  You just " know" which calls are going to need an armed response?

Fine - send the social worker to the " cat in a tree" calls.

And cops on the scene are the ones that need to make the call of what degree of force is needed - not some empty headed stuffed suit in city hall who is going to make his decisions on use of force based on upcoming election projections.

You seem to intentionally misrepresent the comments of others and willfully distort the topic.  Of course there are cases where an armed police officer is not needed.  There all sorts of calls and all sorts of data available.  This isn't someone just winging it.  You seem to think that no one has been paying attention to these sort of things.  Well they have and I'm pretty sure they know a lot more about the subject than you and I or anyone on this forum.

---

No, I want them to be better trained in the use of force, and their applicants to be better screened.

I want to address this post specifically.  In my town, not far from my own home, a few years ago there was a case of police brutality.  A young police officer was sent out to investigate a suspicious person in a nice neighborhood.  This officer was assigned a rookie to tag along and train.  They arrived at the reported address and found an elderly Indian man walking on the sidewalk.  He may have weighed 90 pounds soaking wet.  The lead officer questioned him, but the man did not speak a word of English.  Turns out he was only here visiting his son & family, but decided to go walking in the neighborhood.  Some overzealous Karen called the cops and reported him as suspicious.  The man, not understanding the cop, turned to walk away from him, was grabbed by the cop and flipped onto to ground, breaking his back and severing his spine.  He suffered permanent paralysis and is now a paraplegic.

Now I know at least 3 people personally (one is a cop and another was fire chief) who also knew this cop and all of them have told me the same thing.  He was a hothead and was just showing off for the rookie he was training.  In fact, he was not supposed to be training anyone but the department was short staffed and so he was chosen to do the training.  The cop was eventually let go.  He was charged but of course was found not guilty and spent no time in jail.  He moved to another city in the same state and resumed his career as a police officer.  Every bit of this is fact and a matter of public record.  Do you really want a guy like this wearing a badge and carrying a gun?

[onlinebiker]

Where did you EVER hear me say I wanted hothead cops on the job you bastard?


Kindly go frig yourself.