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

[QUOTE=geel9;50700643]Women can't be child molesters...?[/QUOTE] The person he's talking about wasn't a founder of BLM, but someone who had helped to organize a protest or two. He's talking about the guy that got busted in the hotel.

[QUOTE=Combin0wnage;50695867]Why do Officers think BLM = You are personally a shit cop, and all officers are responsible. They should agree, excessive force is something never to be used on suspects.[/QUOTE] its basic "in group" or "blue shield" mentality. We are police, they are "against" police, therefore they are against me. Whenever police acts like this is very strongly reinforces the idea that certiain groups of police in the US are just gangs with authority.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;50702330]its basic "in group" or "blue shield" mentality. We are police, they are "against" police, therefore they are against me. Whenever police acts like this is very strongly reinforces the idea that certiain groups of police in the US are just gangs with authority.[/QUOTE] The brilliant book on social psychology, [U]Influence: Science and Practice[/U], has an extremely interesting chapter on social proof and groupthink as it applies to tightly knit organizations and "brotherhoods." It posits that, once your personal identity has become strongly linked to your group identity, that you will go to farther and farther lengths to justify your position within the group, and the actions of the group as a whole; and that the more suffering or criticism that you have to go through in order to become an accepted member of the group, the more zealously you will defend it. It references college fraternities with intense hazing as one of its many examples. Essentially, members who belonged to fraternities with intense, humiliating, and even painful hazing sessions felt a much tighter bond with the members of their fraternity than did those who belonged to fraternities with no or minimal hazing. They felt that the horrible things they had undergone, and the horrible things that they had done to people, made their membership more meaningful and personal-- earned rather than given. Embracing the ugly shit that they had done as being necessary to group cohesion or influence was the only way that they could morally absolve themselves and their "brothers" of wrongdoing. I suspect a similar trend among police officers. The deaths of Philando Castile, Alton Sterling, Tamir Rice, and so many others were [I]disgusting[/I]. They were totally reprehensible, completely unnecessary, and grossly unprofessional. However, so many police jump to the defense of these incidents. Many officers rush in to justify the killings regardless of the circumstances, because law enforcement is a brotherhood, and officers are subjected to many horrible and dangerous things as the price of membership. They claim, "you just don't understand. We do what we feel like we have to do, and the ends always justify the means." [i]"Alton Sterling? He could have broken free from the two officers sitting on him, wrestled his arms away, grabbed his gun, pulled it out, and shot somebody. He's just some fucking criminal anyway." "Philando Castile? He may have been legally carrying his firearm, he may have given the officer fair warning that he was armed before going for the paperwork the officer had asked for, but he just didn't comply with the officer's demands quickly enough when the officer got spooked. He should have put his hands up faster and maybe he wouldn't have had to have been shot. He could have been grabbing for his gun." "Tamir Rice? He brought it on himself. Nevermind that his 'gun' wasn't in his hands when the officers arrived, nevermind that they didn't give him any warning whatsoever before killing him, nevermind that the car hadn't even stopped [I]rolling[/I] when they fired their shots at him; he shouldn't have been playing with a toy gun." "Eric Garner? He was just some thug selling cigarettes. Probably was just going to buy drugs with them anyway. If he had just stopped and let himself be strangled, the officers would have eased up before he died." "Chase Sherman? He was high! When the officers crushed his torso with their body weight, preventing him from breathing, and repeatedly tased him for five minutes, he should have just relaxed and let it happen. Fucker's only dead because he kept bucking for air. It's his own fault." "John Crawford? It was a pretty real looking BB gun, and the hysterical woman who called the police said he was trying to shoot people. Nevermind that he got the BB gun off the shelf, nevermind that there were a dozen more just like it being sold just a few aisles over, nevermind that he wasn't actually brandishing it, nevermind that he wasn't even facing the officers' direction when they rounded the corner and fired several shots into him. It was in his hand, so we had no choice but to assume it was real and to gun him down without warning." "Walter Scott? He shouldn't have ran." "The hundreds of other people killed by police every year? The 1-in-5 shooting victims who are unarmed? We had no choice. They either deserved it, or didn't listen well enough. A police officer should be able to do anything he feels like he needs to in order to feel safe. You just don't understand what it's like. If you criticize one of us, you criticize us all. You're either with us, or against us."[/I] It's a club. Officers stand together, even when one of them has done something horrible, because each one knows, "that could be me one day. I could make the wrong call."

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50702460]The brilliant book on social psychology, [U]Influence: Science and Practice[/U], has an extremely interesting chapter on social proof and groupthink as it applies to tightly knit organizations and "brotherhoods." It posits that, once your personal identity has become strongly linked to your group identity, that you will go to farther and farther lengths to justify your position within the group, and the actions of the group as a whole; and that the more suffering or criticism that you have to go through in order to become an accepted member of the group, the more zealously you will defend it. It references college fraternities with intense hazing as one of its many examples. Essentially, members who belonged to fraternities with intense, humiliating, and even painful hazing sessions felt a much tighter bond with the members of their fraternity than did those who belonged to fraternities with no or minimal hazing. They felt that the horrible things they had undergone, and the horrible things that they had done to people, made their membership more meaningful and personal-- earned rather than given. Embracing the ugly shit that they had done as being necessary to group cohesion or influence was the only way that they could morally absolve themselves and their "brothers" of wrongdoing. I suspect a similar trend among police officers. The deaths of Philando Castile, Alton Sterling, Tamir Rice, and so many others were [I]disgusting[/I]. They were totally reprehensible, completely unnecessary, and grossly unprofessional. However, so many police jump to the defense of these incidents. Many officers rush in to justify the killings regardless of the circumstances, because law enforcement is a brotherhood, and officers are subjected to many horrible and dangerous things as the price of membership. They claim, "you just don't understand. We do what we feel like we have to do, and the ends always justify the means." [i]"Alton Sterling? He could have broken free from the two officers sitting on him, wrestled his arms away, grabbed his gun, pulled it out, and shot somebody. He's just some fucking criminal anyway." "Philando Castile? He may have been legally carrying his firearm, he may have given the officer fair warning that he was armed before going for the paperwork the officer had asked for, but he just didn't comply with the officer's demands quickly enough when the officer got spooked. He should have put his hands up faster and maybe he wouldn't have had to have been shot. He could have been grabbing for his gun." "Tamir Rice? He brought it on himself. Nevermind that his 'gun' wasn't in his hands when the officers arrived, nevermind that they didn't give him any warning whatsoever before killing him, nevermind that the car hadn't even stopped [I]rolling[/I] when they fired their shots at him; he shouldn't have been playing with a toy gun." "Eric Garner? He was just some thug selling cigarettes. Probably was just going to buy drugs with them anyway. If he had just stopped and let himself be strangled, the officers would have eased up before he died." "Chase Sherman? He was high! When the officers crushed his torso with their body weight, preventing him from breathing, and repeatedly tased him for five minutes, he should have just relaxed and let it happen. Fucker's only dead because he kept bucking for air. It's his own fault." "John Crawford? It was a pretty real looking BB gun, and the hysterical woman who called the police said he was trying to shoot people. Nevermind that he got the BB gun off the shelf, nevermind that there were a dozen more just like it being sold just a few aisles over, nevermind that he wasn't actually brandishing it, nevermind that he wasn't even facing the officers' direction when they rounded the corner and fired several shots into him. It was in his hand, so we had no choice but to assume it was real and to gun him down without warning." "Walter Scott? He shouldn't have ran." "The hundreds of other people killed by police every year? The 1-in-5 shooting victims who are unarmed? We had no choice. They either deserved it, or didn't listen well enough. A police officer should be able to do anything he feels like he needs to in order to feel safe. You just don't understand what it's like. If you criticize one of us, you criticize us all. You're either with us, or against us."[/I] It's a club. Officers stand together, even when one of them has done something horrible, because each one knows, "that could be me one day. I could make the wrong call."[/QUOTE] Crazy because I see people coming out of the wet work to defend known criminals who should have just complied but didn't. Guess it can happen on both sides huh. Of course police are going to be tight with one another....you know they got through the same things and deal with a lot of the same stuff. They all have to go through the same thing to get in so the ones that pass felt like they earned their place. You know what that sounds like....wow like every other hard job out there.

[QUOTE]"The hundreds of other people killed by police every year? The 1-in-5 shooting victims who are unarmed? We had no choice. They either deserved it, or didn't listen well enough. A police officer should be able to do anything he feels like he needs to in order to feel safe. You just don't understand what it's like. If you criticize one of us, you criticize us all. You're either with us, or against us."[/QUOTE] Yet the majority of those shootings are found to be warranted... Generally speaking - yes often enough the general reaction is defense and deflection. Similar to how doctors will defend a colleague claiming that there is no malpractice as an example. Though part of this stems from the relatively incessant attacks against these groups. It's a much better metric to look at the reaction afterwards once the actually news starts to disseminate as well as the things that were uncovered.

[QUOTE=MR-X;50702589]Crazy because I see people coming out of the wet work to defend known criminals who should have just complied but didn't. Guess it can happen on both sides huh.[/quote] ...yes? [QUOTE]Of course police are going to be tight with one another....you know they got through the same things and deal with a lot of the same stuff. They all have to go through the same thing to get in so the ones that pass felt like they earned their place. You know what that sounds like....wow like every other hard job out there.[/QUOTE] The difference being that were not just talking about a club, here. This isn't "just like any other job," because in this line of work people are literally DYING.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50702460][i]"Alton Sterling? He could have broken free from the two officers sitting on him, wrestled his arms away, grabbed his gun, pulled it out, and shot somebody. He's just some fucking criminal anyway." [/i][/QUOTE] I'm sorry, what? Has any additional footage surfaced besides the two blurry-ass videos we had until now? Those were taken at an angle and have a resolution which don't really allow for a definitive conclusion to be drawn. Heck, his shoulder moving could suggest he indeed intended to reach for his weapon. Yet here you are already assuming the cops were in the wrong for reacting the way they did, despite the investigation not having even begun yet. This is the shit I've been talking about since the beginning of this thread but everyone conveniently ignore my posts. People form their own uninformed opinions and don't remain open to the possibility that it is wrong, and if I were a cop myself I would indeed be offended by how quick people are to assume guilt without evidence as long as the suspect wears a badge, which seems to be the MO of BLM from what I've seen. I find it rather ironic that you denounce group mentality in your post while at the same time being so categorical in your judgement in order to stick to the beliefs of the BLM movement, namely claiming that lethal action against Alton Sterling was unjustified.

[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] Reposting because it's true [QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50695874]Yes, the idea that we should stop systemically exploiting minorities is deeply offensive to me, too.[/QUOTE] Get over yourself. Police arrest minorities at rates correlating to crime rate. The problem isn't race, it's class, but the Democrats can and will never solve that problem so they become race-obsessed. There are millions of arrests each year, with only a couple hundred shooting deaths that, as videos show us, are hardly examples of racism. They get picked apart. Meanwhile the #1 killer of black men, other black men, is ignored. The war on drugs, globalization and import of cheap labor, and foreign interventions are all things that disproportionately hurt the underclass, but they are ignored and people still vote for those who push it, like Clinton. This has nothing to do with exploitation and oppression, frankly it doesn't exist except for ex-colonials, not first world 'people of color' residents of a liberal-democracy who all have white admixture and receive 'revolutionary' political education from parts of the establishment like a) a major party b) schools and books and c) mass media. This has to do with institutions as battlegrounds and America's escalating culture wars. Nothing changed recently in regards to black men and the police, except for politics, internet, and media. It's enabled a kind of 'justified' tribalism that is irrational and proceeds onwards despite the facts.

[QUOTE=Conscript;50702791]Get over yourself. Police arrest minorities at rates correlating to crime rate. [B]The problem isn't race, it's class[/B], but the Democrats can and will never solve that problem so they become race-obsessed. [/quote] I agree with this. The problem is that race and class are inextricably linked in the United States. Black ghettos did not happen by accident. Black people didn't just get together and decide to be poor and crime things up. Urban poverty, specifically [I]black[/I] urban poverty, occurred very deliberately as a result of discriminatory housing and lending policies combined with white migration from urban areas, largely to get away from black people. Massive local economic collapse leading to a self-sustaining cycle of poverty. [quote]There are millions of arrests each year, with only a couple hundred shooting deaths that, as videos show us, are hardly examples of racism. [/quote] The problem is not [I]just[/I] shootings, however. Studies pretty conclusively prove that force escalates more quickly, and to much higher levels, in incidents involving black men, even when accounting for variations in class and circumstance. In general, police are more willing to use force against black men, and to escalate that force more quickly. This is a problem with prejudice. While the figures surrounding actual [I]shootings[/I] are open to argumentation, the fact that police use excessive force more frequently when dealing with minorities is not. [quote]Meanwhile the #1 killer of black men, other black men, is ignored.[/quote] No, it's not. Everybody knows the problems that people face in areas of urban poverty. Nobody is overlooking the dangers posed by gang and drug violence. However, the police are the people who we are [I]supposed[/I] to be able to rely on to help with these kinds of things, and yet minorities have ample reason to outright fear police. How are minorities to help fight gang and drug violence while also being actively predated on by law enforcement? [quote]This has nothing to do with exploitation and oppression, this has to do with institutions as battlegrounds and America's escalating culture wars. Nothing changed in regards to black men and the police, except for politics, internet, and media.[/QUOTE] Again, patently untrue. The DOJ report in Ferguson showed that this has [I]everything[/I] to do with exploitation and oppression, from the very origins of black urban poverty to the corruptions of a modern day justice system that milks poor minority areas for profit. To deny this isn't just irresponsible, it's outright offensive in its ignorance. Ferguson is not a unique snowflake, the conditions here are mirrored in every major city in the country. Investigations of the same depth seen in Ferguson would reveal similar corruption in countless districts in nearly every other major metropolitan area, and yet because such sweeping investigations are not realistic, people can pull down their caps and pretend that it isn't a problem. Isolated incident, nothing to see here. Just an entire city intentionally predating on minorities.

I don't think you're going to get much anywhere constantly harping on cops about how some of them escalate force inappropriately or make poor judgement calls in addition to other failures or errors and constantly call for "accountability" and lay blame solely on them. At the end of the day a lot of these men and women are actually trying to do their job and improve their communities. It's one thing to call for body cameras and proper punishment for those that try to hide everything under the rug, but you're going to have to give back something to the rest of the men and women that aren't doing anything wrong and are getting caught in the crossfire. Maybe serving on the force is considered a brotherhood in the same way that college fraternities are because they have to deal with a bunch of awful shit, and maybe they are more inclined to defend one another because the stakes are high and peoples lives are often on the line. The question that immediately jumps to my mind isn't "why are cops defending each other for these poor judgement calls?" but "why are we putting cops in situations where they aren't equipped to handle these situations?". If you actually want to solve these problems and get cooperation from police I think you're going to have to push just as hard for expanding the size of our police forces and you're going to have to compensate them for the higher standards you want to hold them to. If hiring more cops and paying them better isn't high on your list of priorities I don't see how you can be serious about fixing the way cops interact with their communities. We need [I]skilled[/I] cops capable of handling situations effectively and with tact. You can't overwork someone or pay them dogshit and expect them to perform well. No matter how well you're trained, everyone is going to make a mistake eventually, and maybe making sure someone authorized to use lethal force has someone there with them on the ground to help keep them in check and help calm them down if things get hairy would you know, prevent some incidents from spiraling out of control.

this title is really misleading. i thought it were cops on duty who were tasked to protect a crowded area. instead, its 4 people who are off duty and did this voluntarily.

[quote]Urban poverty, specifically black urban poverty, occurred very deliberately as a result of discriminatory housing and lending policies combined with white migration from urban areas, largely to get away from black people. [/quote] This creates segregation, 50 years ago, but this neither keeps people impoverished nor explains the failure of subsequent generations to change anything despite more opportunity, equality, and overall liberalization of attitudes and laws over the years. White people moving away doesn't make anyone poor. More women and minorities than ever are going to college, but they aren't picking the majors that'll make them successful. Individual agency is a thing and thus the culture individuals produce and adhere to can have a feedback effect that reinforces the status quo. What you described with frats is the exact same phenomenon with gangs. [quote]The problem is not just shootings, however. Studies pretty conclusively prove that force escalates more quickly, and to much higher levels, in incidents involving black men, even when accounting for variations in class and circumstance. In general, police are more willing to use force against black men, and to escalate that force more quickly. This is a problem with prejudice. While the figures surrounding actual shootings are open to argumentation, the fact that police use excessive force more frequently when dealing with minorities is not.[/quote] This is not prejudice, this is pattern recognition, the foundation of consciousness. This isn't even unique to white cops. This is a reality of state enforcers dealing with shitty lower class communities, such a thing is ancient and doesn't even have a racial character. Are statistics racist? [quote]Nobody is overlooking the dangers posed by gang and drug violence.[/quote] Yea because it's cops holding back people from calling 911 on these things, not an aspect of local culture like 'snitching'. Another issue is it's all intertwined, e.g. my weed dealer got mugged for his wallet, compared this to a burglary on a middle class suburb family and you can see where any cop, regardless of race, stands. [quote]Again, patently untrue. The DOJ report in Ferguson showed that this has everything to do with exploitation and oppression, from the very origins of black urban poverty to the corruptions of a modern day justice system that milks poor minority areas for profit. [/quote] This is the reality of the war on drugs, not the white supremacist patriarchy or whatever.

[QUOTE=Conscript;50703109]This creates segregation, 50 years ago, but this neither keeps people impoverished nor explains the failure of subsequent generations to change anything despite more opportunity, equality, and overall liberalization of attitudes and laws over the years.[/QUOTE] Economically the country has been getting further and further to the right. Laws have been passed in the past 15 years like No Child Left Behind that defund already poor, failing schools. You said it yourself that it's a class issue, not a race issue, and while attitudes on race are getting better, things like economic disparity are getting worse.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;50702330]its basic "in group" or "blue shield" mentality. We are police, they are "against" police, therefore they are against me. Whenever police acts like this is very strongly reinforces the idea that certain groups of police in the US are just gangs with authority.[/QUOTE] That's a really stupid thing to say. If someone says they hate 'group_x', it's common sense for members of 'group_x' to assume they're included in that statement, unless stated otherwise.

[QUOTE=Conscript;50703109]This creates segregation, 50 years ago, but this neither keeps people impoverished nor explains the failure of subsequent generations to change anything despite more opportunity, equality, and overall liberalization of attitudes and laws over the years. White people moving away doesn't make anyone poor.[/quote] Yes, it does. It absolutely does. White people leaving these areas is important because it was white who owned the means of production, the businesses, and controlled the money. When they left, it created it created economic pits. Massive unprecented collapses of the local economies as a result of widespread business closure and plummeting housing values as a result of it. All that was left in these pits were people of color. We then funneled other people of color into these neighborhoods through intentionally discriminatory housing and lending policies, and used those same policies to wall them in. We then gutted the services to these areas, refusing to invest in education, infrastructure, and security. It remained this way for an entire generation, a generation of people who came from nothing and had no wealth to begin with. There was no hope of economic recovery under those conditions. None. By the time these policies were finally outlawed, the damage was done. Gangs took root, as they ALWAYS DO in areas of urban poverty, regardless of race, creating a self-sustaining cycle of poverty and crime. The problem with your assessment here is that you are completely failing to understand how and why ghettos came to be, and why they continue to exist. More[Quote] women and minorities than ever are going to college, but they aren't picking the majors that'll make them successful. Individual agency is a thing and thus the culture individuals produce and adhere to can have a feedback effect that reinforces the status quo. What you described with frats is the exact same phenomenon with gangs.[/quote] I agree. Gangs create a self-sustaining culture of desperstion and violence. However, the point I'm trying to make is that gangs are a product of poverty, not race. Gangs don't exist because of black people, they exist because of the conditions that America made for black people. A forest fire continues to burn long after the ignition source has been taken away. Just because we no longer have deliberately Discriminatory housing policies does not mean that the impacts of those policies aren't still being felt. [Quote]This is not prejudice, this is pattern recognition, the foundation of consciousness. This isn't even unique to white cops.[/quote] What you call "pattern recognition," everybody else in the world calls "racial profiling." [Quote] This is a reality of state enforcers dealing with shitty lower class communities, such a thing is ancient and doesn't even have a racial character. Are statistics racist? [/Quote] Statistics aren't racist, but the conclusions that are drawn from them and the actions taken in the name of them sure as hell can be. [quote] because it's cops holding back people from calling 911 on these things, not an aspect of local culture like 'snitching'. [/Quote] I mean, you realize where and how that fear distrust of the police originated, right? You realize that predatory, heavy-handed policing feeds directly into that fear and distrust? You are acting like black people just decided, "hey, let's hate police," which is absurd. [Quote]Another issue is it's all intertwined, e.g. my weed dealer got mugged for his wallet, compared this to a burglary on a middle class suburb family and you can see where any cop, regardless of race, stands. [/Quote] This is a problem, yes, and a serious one. The notion that police should are less about crime occurring in low income income areas, and crime affecting people with criminal records, directly fuels the distrust and contempt that many minorities feel towards law enforcement. How the hell are they supposed to have more faith and respect in police when police interactions are disinterested, or even outright hostile? [Quote]This is the reality of the war on drugs, not the white supremacist patriarchy or whatever.[/QUOTE] Ironic statement, considering that the war on drugs was deliberately targeted towards minorities. It is, itself, a product of the racism you are pretending doesn't exist. Please, do some research into the historical relevance of this shit. You are refusing to acknowledge the role that racism has played in all this, while simultaneously blaming institutions and scenarios that were created with the express intention of exploiting and oppressing minorities. It's incredibly frustrating.

I still don't understand how t-shirts at a basketball game are enough of a threat that these guys leave their posts. The argument people were making that they "could have been shot" or were in any danger at all makes no sense - it was a basketball game. Were the players going to open fire on them? I understand that the protests get violent and I very much dislike that. But this wasn't a protest - it was an entertainment venue. If they honestly felt threatened that people wore shirts, and they got triggered with cop-PTSD because someone wore a t-shirt, they should be embarrassed. This wasn't about them avoiding violence. This was about them disagreeing with a political message and leaving their posts in protest. Yes, they had a right to do that, but that doesn't mean it wasn't immature. If I'm working at a volunteer event and the manager comes out wearing a Trump hat, I won't just quit instantly, even if I might suggest to the guy not to wear it because it might turn away future volunteers.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50703475]I still don't understand how t-shirts at a basketball game are enough of a threat that these guys leave their posts. The argument people were making that they "could have been shot" or were in any danger at all makes no sense - it was a basketball game. Were the players going to open fire on them? I understand that the protests get violent and I very much dislike that. But this wasn't a protest - it was an entertainment venue. If they honestly felt threatened that people wore shirts, and they got triggered with cop-PTSD because someone wore a t-shirt, they should be embarrassed. This wasn't about them avoiding violence. This was about them disagreeing with a political message and leaving their posts in protest. Yes, they had a right to do that, but that doesn't mean it wasn't immature. If I'm working at a volunteer event and the manager comes out wearing a Trump hat, I won't just quit instantly, even if I might suggest to the guy not to wear it because it might turn away future volunteers.[/QUOTE] It's a group that has been caught more than a few times doing very scummy shit to cops on camera, chanting for their deaths, throwing things from shit to bricks to molotovs at them, and has actively blocked other groups rights to freedom of speech in the recent past, blocked off highways, I could go on, but you probably know all of this considering you closely follow the group. You can say that the higher ups in the organization don't support this (and you'd be right), but the group is only as good as its members, and if they're calling for things like that and taking those actions, well, it speaks volumes about what the actual people at the rallies want. I don't see why someone should want to provide a private service for a bunch of people that are flaunting support for a movement that despises them and isn't exactly shy about it. I don't see that as immature, I see that as not wanting to be around or take money from people who seem to hate you.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50703475]I still don't understand how t-shirts at a basketball game are enough of a threat that these guys leave their posts. The argument people were making that they "could have been shot" or were in any danger at all makes no sense - it was a basketball game. Were the players going to open fire on them? I understand that the protests get violent and I very much dislike that. But this wasn't a protest - it was an entertainment venue. If they honestly felt threatened that people wore shirts, and they got triggered with cop-PTSD because someone wore a t-shirt, they should be embarrassed. This wasn't about them avoiding violence. This was about them disagreeing with a political message and leaving their posts in protest. Yes, they had a right to do that, but that doesn't mean it wasn't immature. If I'm working at a volunteer event and the manager comes out wearing a Trump hat, I won't just quit instantly, even if I might suggest to the guy not to wear it because it might turn away future volunteers.[/QUOTE] Youre terrible at comparisons.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;50703592]It's a group that has been caught more than a few times doing very scummy shit to cops on camera, chanting for their deaths, throwing things from shit to bricks to molotovs at them, and has actively blocked other groups rights to freedom of speech in the recent past, blocked off highways, I could go on, but you probably know all of this considering you closely follow the group. You can say that the higher ups in the organization don't support this (and you'd be right), but the group is only as good as its members, and if they're calling for things like that and taking those actions, well, it speaks volumes about what the actual people at the rallies want. I don't see why someone should want to provide a private service for a bunch of people that are flaunting support for a movement that despises them and isn't exactly shy about it. I don't see that as immature, I see that as not wanting to be around or take money from people who seem to hate you.[/QUOTE] So it was a political statement? People here don't actually think they were in danger? I can understand why they'd want to leave, even if I disagree, but the idea that they were in danger because of t-shirts is just unreasonable. I just want to make sure nobody here (other than orgornot who's an idiot) thinks that they were actually in danger of being killed at a basketball game. If it was a political statement, fine, I disagree and I think it was immature, but that's fine. But implying that they were scared for their lives because of t-shirts is more demeaning to police than the actual t-shirts were.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50703475]I still don't understand how t-shirts at a basketball game are enough of a threat that these guys leave their posts. The argument people were making that they "could have been shot" or were in any danger at all makes no sense - it was a basketball game. Were the players going to open fire on them?[/QUOTE] Since you dislike Trump supporters this much. If a guy with a "Make America Great Again" cap shoots up some place filled with, say Muslims, then a week after some muslims attend an event where some people suddenly put on those caps. Do you think those muslims would feel comfortable there? Wasn't it supposed to be a peaceful rally too?

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50703626]So it was a political statement? People here don't actually think they were in danger? I can understand why they'd want to leave, even if I disagree, but the idea that they were in danger because of t-shirts is just unreasonable. I just want to make sure nobody here (other than orgornot who's an idiot) thinks that they were actually in danger of being killed at a basketball game. If it was a political statement, fine, I disagree and I think it was immature, but that's fine. But implying that they were scared for their lives because of t-shirts is more demeaning to police than the actual t-shirts were.[/QUOTE] Are you as willing to call the players' political statement immature as you are the officers walking off? Keep in mind that BLM's protest shutting down the I-94 the same night as the game ended up with 21 officers injured.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50703475]I still don't understand how t-shirts at a basketball game are enough of a threat that these guys leave their posts. The argument people were making that they "could have been shot" or were in any danger at all makes no sense - it was a basketball game. Were the players going to open fire on them? I understand that the protests get violent and I very much dislike that. But this wasn't a protest - it was an entertainment venue. If they honestly felt threatened that people wore shirts, and they got triggered with cop-PTSD because someone wore a t-shirt, they should be embarrassed. This wasn't about them avoiding violence. This was about them disagreeing with a political message and leaving their posts in protest. Yes, they had a right to do that, but that doesn't mean it wasn't immature. If I'm working at a volunteer event and the manager comes out wearing a Trump hat, I won't just quit instantly, even if I might suggest to the guy not to wear it because it might turn away future volunteers.[/QUOTE] Why do you keep calling their actions immature when I already explained [I]several times[/I] why BLM's MO could be deemed offensive towards the police? Do you not read the thread or do you deliberately ignore my posts? Either way that's not a very constructive way of debating.

[QUOTE=_Axel;50704180]Why do you keep calling their actions immature when I already explained [I]several times[/I] why BLM's MO could be deemed offensive towards the police? Do you not read the thread or do you deliberately ignore my posts? Either way that's not a very constructive way of debating.[/QUOTE] But it's obviously different! The actual BLM movement is not intended to be offensive towards police officers, there's just a few bad apples...

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50695874]Yes, the idea that we should stop systemically exploiting minorities is deeply offensive to me, too.[/QUOTE] I'm sick of people over simplifying complex issues like you are right now. It isn't "systemic", there may be pockets of racism, but the whole system isn't racist. Our police force is overfunded and too militarized(which makes it very open to being abusive).

[QUOTE=space1;50704480]I'm sick of people over simplifying complex issues like you are right now. It isn't "systemic", there may be pockets of racism, but the whole system isn't racist. Our police force is overfunded and too militarized(which makes it very open to being abusive).[/QUOTE] I don't think I would agree that overfunding is the issue here. If anything, I might argue in favor of [I]increasing[/I] funding to police to pursue better training, better equipment, and even additional officers. The end goal here is not anarchy, just an effective, responsible, and equitable justice system. The exploitation certainly is systemic, however. Look to the war on drugs, look to Ferguson. Horrible things have been done on a massive scale that very deliberately target minorities. Local law enforcement in areas of urban poverty are operating on a foundation of predatory policies and procedures. This needs to be changed.

[QUOTE=space1;50704480]I'm sick of people over simplifying complex issues like you are right now. It isn't "systemic", there may be pockets of racism, but the whole system isn't racist. Our police force is overfunded and too militarized(which makes it very open to being abusive).[/QUOTE] It's also the exact type of rhetoric that plays into some people's aversion to the police. I've said it over and over again, I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks that, reasonably, there are no racist police officers. Or judges. Or whatever. But, in the big picture, that's neither here nor there. I think we're at an awkward point right now where we have two sides pointing the finger at each other. On one side, you have folks with an aversion to the police. What happens when you mix folks who don't like cops and folks who are cops? I imagine that officers exert much more caution, which, as we see, can sometimes lead to rash decisions. Rash decisions that can fuel the aversion. Which makes police officers more cautious. Et cetera. We're starting to see the cycle a bit more prominently now, I think. And what's worse is people from both sides are pointing the finger at each other and saying the other guy's the problem. And, in a way, they're both right, but they've lost sight of what got them in that situation in the first place. Can we do better to filter out the racists in the police nationwide? You know, probably. But anyone with a brain can tell that this is a class problem, not a race problem, despite the overlap from the two groups. BLM is honestly just a way for them to say to the nation, "we need help." And they do. But we aren't going to get anywhere blaming any group of people. Addressing the police "problem" alone won't fix anything.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50697742]As an officer yourself, I fear that you carrying on with that mindset could ultimately lead to [I]you[/I] being the one on the news in a controversial use of force situation.[/QUOTE]What the fuck is this bullshit? So because he thinks BLM has some anti-cop bias (hint: it does, the narrative has always and consistently been about cop on black shooting) and that he would walk away if he felt personally offended that means he's going to [I]shoot a black kid?[/I] What hypocrisy, both in this thread and in others. I've seen you argue hard against such baseless, and frankly belligerent, conjecture leveled against other people and you've banned them for it as well. [QUOTE=.Isak.;50698472]at-will employment is fucking terrible[/QUOTE]Hahaha, yes, let's hold guns to people's heads and force them to work because slavery is awesome.

If you want people to stop distrusting the police, then it's time that the institution of policing is used to serve a legitimate purpose, as opposed to being a tool of revenue generation for the state (as we saw with Ferguson's PD being essentially a for-profit criminal syndicate) and the repression of groups considered unruly by state power (as we saw with the assassination of Fred Hampton in the 60s). Some problems are so complex that it may be impossible to find solutions. This is not one of them.

[QUOTE=daschnek;50705212]If you want people to stop distrusting the police, then it's time that the institution of policing is used to serve a legitimate purpose, as opposed to being a tool of revenue generation for the state[/QUOTE] "The Police dont serve a legitimate purpose" Friendo did you proofread this at all? [editline]13th July 2016[/editline] Like, even then, the Ferguson shit is not representative of every department in the whole country. And citing something that happened [b]50 years ago[/b] in relation to current ongoing events as an example of current ongoing problems is just bizarre.

[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] Since when is attacking government officials terrorism?