4 Cops abandon security posts at basketball pregame when players come out wearing BLM t-shirts - Polidicks

[QUOTE=27X;50699189]The core of the problem is that "protect and serve" does not mean "I protect and therefore you serve". Whether something offends you or not should have no bearing on your ability to abide by the principles you agree to set yourself to when you when don the uniform, whether you agree or not politically. If the Lynx players had harassed the cops you would have a case. They did not, and the cops didn't bother to ask for context, they simply assumed this was a statement against them directly, or they're just authoritarian assholes to begin with.[/QUOTE] Protect and serve is part of their job as cops. They were off-duty, they had no obligation to be there, they volunteered because of a choice, then chose to withdraw their offering.

[QUOTE=27X;50699189]The core of the problem is that "protect and serve" does not mean "I protect and therefore you serve". Whether something offends you or not should have no bearing on your ability to abide by the principles you agree to set yourself to when you when don the uniform, whether you agree or not politically. If the Lynx players had harassed the cops you would have a case. They did not, and the cops didn't bother to ask for context, they simply assumed this was a statement against them directly, or they're just authoritarian assholes to begin with.[/QUOTE] I think being offended has very little to do with it. If someone attacked those cops, what do you honestly believe would have happened? Do you think they could have dealt with it and not faced backlash? They took the high road, stepped out of the picture, and made sure that they would not inadvertently be put back in it by removing themselves from the rotation to go back. They have very valid and real reasons to fear for their own safety, and to fear that they will not be protected when they justifiably defend themselves from bodily harm. Walking away from a situation like that is entirely justified. They didn't throw a fit. They didn't try to extort cushy severance packages. They didn't attempt to incite violence. They just said, fuck this, I quit. Even if their reasons were purely political, the fact that they quit in a non-confrontational manner is deserving of praise, rather than ridicule.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50699224] If someone attacked those cops, what do you honestly believe would have happened?[/QUOTE] Who would have attacked them? [QUOTE=Zephyrs;50699224]Even if their reasons were purely political, the fact that they quit in a non-confrontational manner is deserving of praise, rather than ridicule.[/QUOTE] I don't think it necessarily deserves either.

[QUOTE=27X;50699189]The core of the problem is that "protect and serve" does not mean "I protect and therefore you serve". Whether something offends you or not should have no bearing on your ability to abide by the principles you agree to set yourself to when you when don the uniform, whether you agree or not politically. If the Lynx players had harassed the cops you would have a case. They did not, and the cops didn't bother to ask for context, they simply assumed this was a statement against them directly, or they're just authoritarian assholes to begin with.[/QUOTE] You're judging off duty cops like they're on duty. They weren't, so you can't quite do that in this situation because the context doesn't work.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;50699333]Who would have attacked them? [/QUOTE] The same type of people that have been attacking cops in the name of BLM for the past year? Sports stadiums are already a place where tensions run high. Mobs mentality is rife with poor decision making. Is it really unthinkable that some dipshit would see a team endorsing BLM and attack a cop? A cop that would face [I]severe[/I] backlash for any action they did, no matter how justified. The team threw those cops under the bus and put them in a situation where even if their lives weren't in real danger, their future careers very well could have been, no matter how trivial of a scuffle they got involved in. Is it any wonder why someone would not want to allow themselves to be in that position when they weren't absolutely forced to be?

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50698333]So if people were wearing NRA shirts, you'd be okay with the cops abandoning their paid positions? You're okay with cops choosing not to defend people because of the political opinions they express? Sure, they had a right to leave, since they were working off-duty security, but it's still incredibly immature.[/QUOTE] They weren't getting paid so ye.

All of you guys who are mad at them, or have a problem with them, seem to forget that the BLM has habit of drawing people who want to cause violence against cops. The cops felt that they didn't want to be there? I can't blame them. Did you guys forget what happened in Dallas? Who knows, maybe they did the right thing leaving. You guys are acting like they did this with racial hatred in mind. As a white male, I don't want anything to do with the BLM, I have no problem with someone because of their skin, but to associate with a group, that not only doesn't try to stop the hatred within their group, they go out of their way to cause problems for people, let any tom, dick, or hairy claim their name, without even saying "Hey we don't promote riots, or acts of violence against police or white people, those who do this are not apart of the message that the BLM is trying to make." What would be so hard about that? These cops didn't feel safe, I don't blame them for wanting to leave, but to all of you, you all see "cops left their posts" you don't see "a father" "a husband" left his post. These men aren't just automatons whose only purpose is to protect. Also just because you sign up for law enforcement doesn't mean you signed up to die.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50695925]Maybe they left because they don't want to risk getting shot. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling, just banned" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight][/QUOTE] How exactly is this trolling? I mean he's kinda right that protests associated with the group did lead to a police killing spree. [editline]12th July 2016[/editline] I mean if you disagree with him go ahead and be mad, but this looks more like trying to control discussion [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Derailing" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=orgornot;50695925]Maybe they left because they don't want to risk getting shot. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling, just banned" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50696149]Do you reckon that the Minnesota Lynx players were intending to shoot the police officers?[/QUOTE] That's a little unfair isn't it Big? I mean you basically said the same smart ass thing he did, just with more words. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Derailing" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;50699467]How exactly is this trolling? I mean he's kinda right that protests associated with the group did lead to a police killing spree. [editline]12th July 2016[/editline] I mean if you disagree with him go ahead and be mad, but this looks more like trying to control discussion[/QUOTE] People wearing a shirt doesn't mean you're going to get shot. A basketball game is a very different context than a protest on the streets. There was never any danger - they disagreed with the political opinion, so they left. That's their right. But it doesn't deserve applause, because it's immature. I would say the exact same thing about someone refusing to serve a customer wearing a Trump hat. Stop being a baby, if you take issue with it, go quit at the end of the day instead of walking out in "protest" that people wore [I]an article of clothing[/I] you disliked.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50699395]The same type of people that have been attacking cops in the name of BLM for the past year? Sports stadiums are already a place where tensions run high. Mobs mentality is rife with poor decision making. Is it really unthinkable that some dipshit would see a team endorsing BLM and attack a cop? A cop that would face [I]severe[/I] backlash for any action they did, no matter how justified. The team threw those cops under the bus and put them in a situation where even if their lives weren't in real danger, their future careers very well could have been, no matter how trivial of a scuffle they got involved in. Is it any wonder why someone would not want to allow themselves to be in that position when they weren't absolutely forced to be?[/QUOTE] During a basketball game though? And how would they know they were cops? I just don't find your scenario believable in the least bit. I don't even have a problem with them walking off, it just seems a tad ridiculous to me that people (the players? people in the stands?) would apparently get riled up by the game (not even the game, the pregame) and start attacking security who they don't know are cops because they are really mad at cops? Yeah it is kind of unthinkable that people seeing mildly provocative BLM shirts during the pregame warm up would fly into a rage.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50699142]This is the same logic people use to paint all cops as bad. If five cops brutalize and abuse someone, and they get cleared by the in-house investigation, then all other cops are guilty. It's backwards thinking. If you say "I support BLM," and then someone assumes you want to kill all cops, it's conflating a minority view with a majority one. If you say "I am a cop," and then someone assumes you want to brutalize and kill black people, they're doing the exact same thing. Neither are fair. Don't do that.[/QUOTE] Being a policeman is an occupation, BLM is a political movement.

[QUOTE=Megadave;50695863]If you are going to be that salty about BLM then maybe you don't need to be a police officer.[/QUOTE] not reading much news lately? [editline]12th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;50699531]Yeah it is kind of unthinkable that people seeing mildly provocative BLM shirts during the pregame warm up would fly into a rage.[/QUOTE] Volunteer guards leaving isn't rage

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50699755] Volunteer guards leaving isn't rage[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about the guards I'm talking about [QUOTE=Zephyrs;50699395]The same type of people that have been attacking cops in the name of BLM for the past year?[/QUOTE]

I personally interpreted it as a stance when I first read the title, not an actual fear of being attacked in that moment. Like refusing to work for someone who doesn't appreciate them or even hates them.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50698495]The official BLM website organization openly denounced the Dallas shooting and all violence against police on all their social media sites. Is that not good enough for you? Does everyone who's ever used the hashtag need to agree that violence is unacceptable to satisfy you?[/QUOTE] Correct me if im wrong but doesnt the official BLM website also say some crazy shit like black women are used as currency or something? I saw it in an image of one of the things from it i think.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50699922]Correct me if im wrong but doesnt the official BLM website also say some crazy shit like black women are used as currency or something? I saw it in an image of one of the things from it i think.[/QUOTE] It's from the "official" blm page created by the founders of blm, which apparently isn't the official page of blm for some reason.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50695874]Yes, the idea that we should stop systemically exploiting minorities is deeply offensive to me, too.[/QUOTE] Oh come on - we both know that BLM has strongly shifted narrative into protesting the police rather than the underlying problems. They're protesting an overworked police which is forced to contend with incredibly high amounts of crime from a minority ethnic of the population. To top it off, it's the same police that has a kill rate for blacks that's only half that of the white ethnic, being protested by the same ethnic that has the majority of killings related to internecine crime. The same police that is being actively targeted by individuals from the BLM movement and where violent actions against the police are widely celebrated by the very same movement. Yeah, while I can see an official reprimand happening as what they did is against rules and regulations (if they were there in an official capacity, which they apparently were not), morally I'd be inclined to support the cops. BLM needs to get it's shit together and actually target the causes rather than one of the less relevant effects. [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50695942]Hmm. Yeah, I suppose I can see where you are coming from to a point. That's not something I'd really considered before, though I honestly couldn't say that I've heard of instances where it has become a problem. I wonder what restrictions there are in the type of work that an officer can perform outside of duty hours, if any? I know that at least some state-governed, licensed positions do you have pretty strict criteria on extracurricular work activities. Real estate licensees, for example, have a hefty list of conditions.[/QUOTE] The police is in an odd position in regards to this. While there isn't a conflict of interest in any way (the job is generally completely different) as the police usually doesn't provide active premise security unless called upon in a few limited cases, in a lot of countries the police is actively barred from doing any other job. Likewise they generally are disallowed to strike and have a couple of other limitations. In the US this is likely quite different, in part due to the sheer amount of difference between state, local and federal police.

[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;50696031]Terrorists 'win' when you give in to them like these four did. Standing your ground and [B]doing your job[/B] is where you don't let them win. It's disappointing to see anyone commend them over abandoning their responsibility to provide security, even in the face of perceived danger.[/QUOTE] Another totally lame "if you do x terrorists win!" statement. I wish there was a Godwin equivalent for these because they're equally as cliched and equally as awful No, I don't think cops walking away from an event where its stars just professed their allegiance to a racist movement that just resulted in the death of multiple other officers is "disappointing" and I'm glad people are finally getting over their reservations about showing their disapproval for this dumb movement in spite of the risk of being deemed a big nasty ol' white supremacist. Cops aren't expected to support Black Panthers, nor should they be expected to support BLM. It'd be one thing if they were actually on the clock for their police force, but during off-hours volunteer work they have just as much say in who they cast their lot in with as any other private citizen. Besides, its not like the people at the event had much to worry about. Usually its BLM doing the shooting.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50698836]If they associate themselves with a group they should expect to represent [I]all[/I] the things that group stands for, not just cherry pick whatever they want while not specifying the meaning of their affiliation.[/QUOTE] You could use this mindset to say that all all cops support shooting black kids, that all people who are anti-abortion support shooting abortion facilities up, and that all NRA members support shooting cops in self-defence.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50699930]It's from the "official" blm page created by the founders of blm, which apparently isn't the official page of blm for some reason.[/QUOTE] Didn't the "founder" of BLM end up being a kid diddler or something? I recall something pedo related with victims anyway [editline]12th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=MaximLaHaxim;50700135]You could use this mindset to say that all all cops support shooting black kids, that all people who are anti-abortion support shooting abortion facilities up, and that all NRA members support shooting cops in self-defence.[/QUOTE] Cops don't support shooting black kids though? What major cop community is like "yeah haha shot me some black kids for being black today" and saying we should have racial genocide on police department sites and social media?

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50700153]Didn't the "founder" of BLM end up being a kid diddler or something? I recall something pedo related with victims anyway[/QUOTE] No. The founders are 3 black women.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50698472]And at-will employment is fucking terrible. If I hire security I don't want them leaving because someone wore a shirt they found offensive. Unbelievably immature.[/QUOTE] Lmao almost nearly every post I've read from you recently about police is pretty much anti-police. Here is an idea, you have people who are working for your venue. They're providing you a service, yes you are paying them to work there but THEY are doing you the favor of working it instead of some regular joe. Disrespect them and make them feel unwanted and they leave. Simple as that, guess standing up for what you believe in is immature. [QUOTE=.Isak.;50698482]Nope - but neither does BLM. It's like saying that bank security should feel free to leave their jobs because someone wearing a shirt that said "#OccupyWallStreet" walked into their bank. Oh no, some of them are anarchistic terrorists who want to blow up Chase bank! I don't feel safe as security, so I'm abandoning my job and my contract with my employer because this man's shirt offends me![/QUOTE] Uh yes, BLM protests have BEEN documented chanting death threats to police. It has been documented that BLM protests have involved rocks being thrown at police, and even Molotovs. You really need to face the facts, its a little IMMATURE don't you think to ignore such things? Educate yourself before you try to tell others "Facts" BLM protesters have never been violent - [url]http://lawofficer.com/2016/07/man-fires-17-shots-into-police-car-wearing-blm-shirt/[/url] oh wait

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50700183]No. The founders are 3 black women.[/QUOTE] Doesn't mean they couldn't have been kid diddlers.

[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;50699467]How exactly is this trolling? I mean he's kinda right that protests associated with the group did lead to a police killing spree. [editline]12th July 2016[/editline] I mean if you disagree with him go ahead and be mad, but this looks more like trying to control discussion[/QUOTE] Wow are people still trying to pin the Dallas shooting on BLM? The protest there was completely peaceful. The shooter was an unstable loner who tried to join actual black supremacist groups and was [I]turned away for being too unstable.[/I] The only reason BLM is related is because the protest at the time meant there were a lot of cops around which is the opportunity the shooter wanted. [editline]12th July 2016[/editline] And orgornot is an actual troll and terrible poster and his ban was way overdue.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50700183]No. The founders are 3 black women.[/QUOTE] Maybe I'm thinking of the person who originated the notion and not the people that founded the title? [editline]12th July 2016[/editline] I highly doubt orgonot is a legitimate troll you're just fucking saying that because you think his views align with your idea of bad

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50700153]Didn't the "founder" of BLM end up being a kid diddler or something? I recall something pedo related with victims anyway[/QUOTE] He was an organizer or someshit. Iirc he setup hotel rooms for protesters and was pimping girls on the side. Some of those girls turned out to be underage.

That sounds like it

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50699795]refusing to work for someone who doesn't appreciate them or even hates them.[/QUOTE] Lets step back for a moment here. Even if this is the case and they aren't afraid, so what? They aren't required to work there.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;50700183]No. The founders are 3 black women.[/QUOTE] Women can't be child molesters...?