This was in no way directed at you specificly. This was directed at the LEO apologists in general. I have no idea who made which statements when. But, look at the latest LEO threads and you will see that in every case, the police have been declared to have acted correctly.
Really? Which threads were these? The RedSox thread? I'm not going to go back and read that, but IIRC, I think that every 'pro cop' poster on that thread said, at one time or another, that the jury was still out on whether the weapon was used in accordance with policy and training. If this is what you call 'declaring the police to have acted correctly', I think we can safely end this conversation immediately. I can't get my mind around 2+2=3.
The same goes for the Tasered Grandma. I can't think of a single poster who said that the police action was proper, without question. They merely said that there was a distinct possibility that it could be, and stated a few compelling reasons why.
I really think you should go back and see 'who said what when'. It might be educational. Compare and contrast the reasonableness of the 'pro-LE' posters with the one-line blanket denunciations.
Adding to my list of things I have learned:
9. If a criminal is arrested and a cop is a hero, he should be applauded immediately
lets face it- in the situations where anyone is applauded as a hero in the media, they
almost always deserve the attention- usually because they did something obviously heroic, in front of lots of witnesses. This goes for people in and out of uniform
10. If a cop does something bad, we should wait until we hear the whole story before making judgement
See? You
are learning something! BTW, this also goes for non-cops, too. How many times have we screeched at the media for portraying a guy defending his home or property as a crazed, wild-eyed vigilante?
11. When someone invades a former employer and shoots people its ok to talk them into leaving
Depends on the situation. Active shooter? No, you go get them. Hostage scenario? Talk.
12. When a 75 year old woman is visiting a friend in a nursing home, the taser is an apropriate way to get them to leave
No, but it is possibly a safe method to effect an arrest of the same woman.
There are three things that can be going on:
The police are always correct
The victims/criminals are always correct
The police are sometimes correct and the victims are sometimes correct
I tend to believe the third option, and you probably do as well/
Thats funny. I do as well. But whenever someone wants to discuss the situation in any manner other than "Wow, those cops are JBTs!" they're a LE apologist and are insisting that the cops are correct. Do you heed you own advice?
Some people are tired of all the stupid oppressive laws in this country. Guess who enforces those laws.
Guess who
makes them.
Does that mean the defendant was a cop too? Oh my, this complicates things.
I guess, one way or the other, the cop is telling the truth in this case! You win.
Nice. Would I like the police to be correct in every instance? Of course I would. Not only does it make me feel good about my profession, but it also means that people are doing the right thing and things are working the way they should. However, are the police right in every instance? Of course not. All I'm ever trying to say is that you usually cannot sift out the right from the wrong in a preliminary news report.
If you were to go back and do follow-ups on most of the 'terrible' LE stories that get posted here, I'm confident that in most of them the cops could be found to have acted correctly. Certainly not all, but most. However, you almost never hear about the outcomes of investigations and lawsuits where the cops did the right thing. Why? The media does not want to hear it. Its not news. Now, a 14 million dollar verdict against a city because some boneheaded cop decided to break the rules? Thats news.
In summary, its not about 'winning.' I want the truth to be known. If an officer steps on his peepee, I want him punished. If an officer does the right thing, I want him honored. And until the facts come out, I want the discussion to be reasonable and not resemble an echo chamber of "THAT JACK BOOTED THUG!"
While I''m on the topic, lets revisit some of the earlier things you 'learned.'
6. Less lethal weapons can actually cause death so you shouldnt be mislead by the name "less lethal"
Well, the reason they are named less lethal is because if you were to name them non-lethal, people would think they are non-lethal. So, they're named less lethal in order to show that they still have some inherent lethality. Non lethal means non lethal. Lethal means lethal. Less lethal means less lethal. I know its hard. You can copy this down and refer to it later if you get confused.
7. If you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you are a target and get what you deserve
Please show me where
ANYONE stated that Snelgrove deserved to be shot in the face and killed. If you cannot, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to dismiss this one as base rhetorical pandering to emotion. I myself stated multiple times that she certainly did not deserve to die.
8. If you have never been a cop, "you wouldn't understand"
Again, I'd like to see the source for this.
I think what might be most beneficial is re-reading the posts made by the pro-LE posters. Take a moment to read what they actually say, and don't immediately dismiss them as blind "the cops are right" arguments. Even if you find a few that are, stack them up against the overwhelming number of "the cops are wrong" posts and see if you can reach a conclusion about which "side" is more reasonable in light of our shared belief that 'sometimes the cops are right and somethimes they are wrong.'
Mike
