VIDEO: Ferguson cop points tacticool CoD-cosplay AR-15 at protesters/media, screams "I will fucking
79 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;45751130]Ok so when am I allowed to criticize the police force? How many cops have to fuck up before you grant me your permission? One? Two? Ten? A hundred? Please tell me.[/QUOTE]
If you want to make an argument about an all-encompassing national problem with the police, then you need to present evidence that supports that claim. No number of anecdotal examples will do that.
[QUOTE=sgman91;45751147]If you want to make an argument about an all-encompassing national problem with the police, then you need to present evidence that supports that claim. No number of anecdotal examples will do that.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you know what "anecdotal" means.
[QUOTE=StickyWicket;45751128]Nearly all police, especially in the case of those with an affinity for this kind of work, are at their roots basically just thugs. Regardless of social connotation, the very nature of the police is identical any other group of enforcers throughout history. Just because we're not ruled by warlords and kept in line by their retainers doesn't mean the situation isn't similar. The only thing holding these men back from being analogous to Himmler's gestapo is the fact that it is much harder to get away with these things in this day and age, what with the internet, the media, and their masters scrutinizing them so much (as it should). It is a sad fact that you would have to be foolish to believe that policemen are generally of good character.[/QUOTE]
You're gonna cut yourself on that edge if you're not careful.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;45751164]I don't think you know what "anecdotal" means.[/QUOTE]
I'm running under this definition:
"a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person." ([url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdote[/url])
[QUOTE=sgman91;45751176]I'm running under this definition:
"a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person." ([url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdote[/url])[/QUOTE]
so at what point does an event become an anecdote and there for of significantly less value to an argument?
How can we accumulate statistics if no individual event is a description of the problem as a whole?
Why are you so quick to just ignore that there may be problems with the justice system?
Funny how it was being argued that we should stick to the topic at hand and not battle semantics but now that's all that is happening. SH threads fall in the shitter so fucking fast I'm surprised the splashback isn't getting my keyboard wet.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45751212]so at what point does an event become an anecdote and there for of significantly less value to an argument?
How can we accumulate statistics if no individual event is a description of the problem as a whole?[/QUOTE]
It's just a simple fallacy of composition. Just because something is true for an individual part, or a small part, of something doesn't necessarily mean that it is true for the entire thing. You would need statistics of a size that makes them relevant to the size of the police force across the nation if you wanted to make a point that applied to the police force across the nation.
[QUOTE]Why are you so quick to just ignore that there may be problems with the justice system?[/QUOTE]
I'm quick to point out any fallacy. If real evidence was presented, then we could have a real discussion.
[QUOTE=hippowombat;45751235]Funny how it was being argued that we should stick to the topic at hand and not battle semantics but now that's all that is happening. SH threads fall in the shitter so fucking fast I'm surprised the splashback isn't getting my keyboard wet.[/QUOTE]
and posts like these are highly predictable and also add absolutely nothing but more piss to the sea of piss that we call the internet
I'll never understand comments like these. Both trying to seem above the bullshit, while not contributing anything.
[editline]20th August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;45751245]It's just a simple fallacy of composition. Just because something is true for an individual part, or a small part, of something doesn't necessarily mean that it is true for the entire thing. You would need statistics of a size that makes them relevant to the size of the police force across the nation if you wanted to make a point that applied to the police force across the nation.
I'm quick to point out any fallacy. If real evidence was presented, then we could have a real discussion.[/QUOTE]
Real evidence? What counts as real? According to you, what is the right size statistic to make a judgement off of?
It's also hard to know exactly what's what when there's not as much oversight of the police as we might need to get proper statistics.
[QUOTE=StickyWicket;45751128]Nearly all police, especially in the case of those with an affinity for this kind of work, are at their roots basically just thugs. Regardless of social connotation, the very nature of the police is identical any other group of enforcers throughout history. Just because we're not ruled by warlords and kept in line by their retainers doesn't mean the situation isn't similar. The only thing holding these men back from being analogous to Himmler's gestapo is the fact that it is much harder to get away with these things in this day and age, what with the internet, the media, and their masters scrutinizing them so much (as it should). It is a sad fact that you would have to be foolish to believe that policemen are generally of good character.[/QUOTE]
Yawnman's back?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45751247]and posts like these are highly predictable and also add absolutely nothing but more piss to the sea of piss that we call the internet
I'll never understand comments like these. Both trying to seem above the bullshit, while not contributing anything.[/QUOTE]
I tried to take part, not trying to be above anything, just hoping it'd serve as a wake-up-call to everyone who's contradicting themselves. Sorry, I'll stop posting here now.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45751212]so at what point does an event become an anecdote and there for of significantly less value to an argument?
How can we accumulate statistics if no individual event is a description of the problem as a whole?
Why are you so quick to just ignore that there may be problems with the justice system?[/QUOTE]
The nature of an anecdote is that it must be taken as a story, like the definition. It may or may not be real, true or distorted. As such, it cannot be used as evidence or taken as fact.
Statistics take facts, not stories into account.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45751247] Real evidence? What counts as real? According to you, what is the right size statistic to make a judgement off of?[/QUOTE]
I'm no statistician, but I've done enough statistics to know that there a way to figure that out mathematically. Sample size and statistical certainty have nothing to do with my opinion.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;45750880]How come we can never discuss the glaring issues of law enforcement in America without people jumping in and shouting about "good cops"? As if the fact that there are good cops is some kind of urban legend.[/QUOTE]
Because of dumb stuff like this:
[QUOTE=StickyWicket;45751128]Nearly all police, especially in the case of those with an affinity for this kind of work, are at their roots basically just thugs. [/QUOTE]
And on another note-
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;45751164]I don't think you know what "anecdotal" means.[/QUOTE]
'Anecdote' is not the singular form of 'data'. You can't point to just one example and say that it shows a systematic problem. If it's widespread then you shouldn't have any problem finding substantial data to start a discussion with, but using a story about a bad cop to say that there's a problem with cops isn't any more valid than using a story about a good cop to say that there's no problem with cops. It's not useful and it's not an argument.
[QUOTE=sgman91;45751296]I'm no statistician, but I've done enough statistics to know that there a way to figure that out mathematically.[/QUOTE]
I agree, I'm just wondering if that number might vary between yourself and I and how much it might vary.
I'm not against cops, I generally think they're good people, but I also think they need to be kept in check and that it's a hard thing to do that. We know that cops protect other cops and supresses events from ever becoming statistics thus skewing the whole argument from statistics.
I think it's all together too often brushed aside that we might not even be able to have accurate statistics until we take the argument that cops might not be 100% trustworthy as truth.
Just to be clear: I'm no fanboy of the police. My personal experience is that they are often petty and power hungry, more likely to give tickets in order to make the city money than keep the streets safe. I'm happy when I don't see any police while driving because I feel like I'm more likely to be hurt than helped. They've also shown absolute indifference to real problems that have existed within my community.
With all of that said: anecdotes still aren't a good starting point for making generalized claims about the entire police force across the nation.
[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;45750332]What ever happened to "protect and serve"? Why do we let these people into our country's police forces?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales[/url]
Police have no legal duty to protect you.
[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;45750332]What ever happened to "protect and serve"? Why do we let these people into our country's police forces?[/QUOTE]
Well the Fergusson PD did say they were hiring whereever they could for the past few years. It might be they reduced their standards significantly and started hiring in the local psych wards. :)
It's like police are their own faction in the US.
Oh boy rant mode activated:
Just replying to some posts about the whole "protect and serve" ideal.
[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;45750332]What ever happened to "protect and serve"? Why do we let these people into our country's police forces?[/QUOTE]
It was struck down in a supreme court ruling stating that police officers do not have a legal obligation specifically to protect people. Some officers may still go above and beyond this, but legally they don't have to.
People need to realize that the police's primary goal has shifted more towards enforcing the law rather than protecting individuals. When you combine this with the fact that the police community shields themselves from prosecution for wrong doings, you get a very ugly situation like the one in Ferguson.
[QUOTE=Lf751;45751869]It's like police are their own faction in the US.[/QUOTE]
The fact that some police departments have distanced themselves from the community rather than being a part of it certainly does not help.
I think what caused this whole situation in Ferguson was a result of many things coming to a head. Firstly, the issue of the Blue Shield of Silence. Over time I'm guessing the people were getting sick of that shit and probably was one of the things which started the protests. The facts at the time were an unarmed man was shot and the police weren't saying anything. People in that community in particular have made it very clear now that they do not have faith in their department.
After that happened, the community protested in anger at how the police were trying to play down the situation. Some asshats started looting and a store was burned down. Keeping up with the status quot, the police department used the increasing violence to take off the gloves and really bear down on the protesters instead of the looters in an effort to make the whole thing go away. After things got really bad, the feds stepped in and tried to deescalate the situation, but by that time it was too late. Everyone just got more pissed off and now they have the fucking national guard in there trying to maintain order. All of this because some department tried to make an unpleasant situation go away one too many times. Regardless of weather or not the shooting was actually warranted, I think it was the way cases against officers are being handled which caused this to happen.
I think the underlying issue here is that accountability has become almost non-existent in the nation as a whole and no one has any incentive to change it. Unless agencies as a whole (local, state, and federal) find a way to address the issues of accountability, I suspect no amount of tear gas and rubber bullets will be able to prevent more Fergusons from happening.
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;45750342]Man, this ordeal is really bringing out the scummiest of the police force
Constant verbal abuse and gun threats, tear-gassing families who have nothing to do with it.
Wow.[/QUOTE]
Crooked cops deserve to be called pig cops.
[QUOTE=darunner;45751788][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales[/url]
Police have no legal duty to protect you.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't mean its not wrong or a breach of rights
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales#Subsequent_developments[/url]
[QUOTE=catbarf;45751301]
'Anecdote' is not the singular form of 'data'. You can't point to just one example and say that it shows a systematic problem. If it's widespread then you shouldn't have any problem finding substantial data to start a discussion with, but using a story about a bad cop to say that there's a problem with cops isn't any more valid than using a story about a good cop to say that there's no problem with cops. It's not useful and it's not an argument.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, some things are just hard to find actual data on, because they might as well be hard to gather.
I can't think of any helpful statistic here because misbehavior of serving officers is extremely hard to classify and judge unless there's a statement by the police force itself, and the police disregarding the events is apparently part of the problem.
It's like asking for a statistic that would show how many people in Gaza support Hamas. It's data on obviously real problem, but it is however very hard to capture without bias or one or another kind of skew.
[editline]21st August 2014[/editline]
I think that this isn't as relevant as some people try to make it out to be simply because there can be only so many things done about the situation and the effect is limited.
It's not like the police as a whole can be abolished or severely restrained, and it's not like there's anybody who says "all of Police is perfectly fine and there's no reason to improve it whatsoever", so judging of how much of a problem is there statistically isn't important when the only option is "lets just try a bit harder".
Not very surprising that the cop was from St. Ann, that place is so ghetto that he probably got used to dealing with people by shoving a gun their face. Used to hear gunshots all the time when I went to school there.
Just when things begin to smooth over, here comes Mr. Dickface to fuck it up..
[QUOTE=flamehead5;45752164]That doesn't mean its not wrong or a breach of rights
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales#Subsequent_developments[/url][/QUOTE]
Was determined to be by a group of people with no legal authority.
[QUOTE=coldroll5;45752088]Crooked cops deserve to be called pig cops.[/QUOTE]
This particular guy does. Look at him. Very definition of pig in relation to cops.
[QUOTE=darunner;45753118]Was determined to be by a group of people with no legal authority.[/QUOTE]
The decision is rather screwed up regardless of what the OAS said.
Don't get me wrong I'm not siding with the cop and I definitely think he over-reacted HARD with his rifle but what I wanna know is:
How fucking stupid are you to verbally fuck with ANYONE (not just a cop) who is obviously unhinged enough to point a loaded rifle at you or someone else and threaten to kill them?
What the fuck is going through your mind that makes that seem like a good idea?
"This man has a deadly weapon. He just threatened to kill someone. I am recording the situation and obviously making him uncomfortable with that alone. I know, [i]let's fuck with him[/i] by being a sarcastic twat instead of just saying "Well alright then" and walking the fuck away."
[QUOTE=Telepethi;45753380]Don't get me wrong I'm not siding with the cop and I definitely think he over-reacted HARD with his rifle but what I wanna know is:
How fucking stupid are you to verbally fuck with ANYONE (not just a cop) who is obviously unhinged enough to point a loaded rifle at you or someone else and threaten to kill them?
What the fuck is going through your mind that makes that seem like a good idea?
"This man has a deadly weapon. He just threatened to kill someone. I am recording the situation and obviously making him uncomfortable with that alone. I know, [i]let's fuck with him[/i] by being a sarcastic twat instead of just saying "Well alright then" and walking the fuck away."[/QUOTE]
Backing down to anyone with a gun is the first step toward tyranny.
[QUOTE=Telepethi;45753380]Don't get me wrong I'm not siding with the cop and I definitely think he over-reacted HARD with his rifle but what I wanna know is:
How fucking stupid are you to verbally fuck with ANYONE (not just a cop) who is obviously unhinged enough to point a loaded rifle at you or someone else and threaten to kill them?
What the fuck is going through your mind that makes that seem like a good idea?
"This man has a deadly weapon. He just threatened to kill someone. I am recording the situation and obviously making him uncomfortable with that alone. I know, [I]let's fuck with him[/I] by being a sarcastic twat instead of just saying "Well alright then" and walking the fuck away."[/QUOTE]
It's called "integrity".
[IMG]http://www.2gb.com/sites/default/files/field/image/20140603/tiananmen_square2.jpg[/IMG]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
