1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured 9 cops detain 1 US teen for refusing to use sidewalk (VIDEO)

Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by poncho, Sep 18, 2015.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 3
  1. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Good morning Darrell,

    I ran across this most interesting article while having my coffee and thought you'd be interested in reading it.

    Apparently the NYPD Union President Patrick Lynch is of the same opinion as you about letting the police police the police. He actually uses the same argument (actually a fallacy, appeal to authority) you used earlier in our discussion, if sitting here watching you create one strawman after another to knock down can be called a discussion.

    But anyway here's the article.

    NYPD Union Prez Patrick Lynch: Only Police Are Qualified To Judge The Actions Of Police

    from the lol-no dept

    As you've probably already heard, last week former tennis star James Blake was blitzed by an NYPD plain clothes officer in front of his hotel, tackled to the ground, and left cuffed there bruised and cut. The officer in question thought he was brutalizing someone who had committed credit card fraud. In itself, this would be quite a problem, as credit card fraud isn't the kind of crime that typically results in an NYPD beatdown. Except that James Blake is black. He's also, as it turns out, not even the suspect this officer was supposed to be looking for. He just happened to fit the description. The NYPD has since apologized to him, an apology that one would hope was met with narrowed eyes and a defiant chin.

    But you'll never guess who isn't apologizing. Actually, you probably will, because it's NYPD Patrolemen's Benevolent (hah!) Association President Patrick Lynch, who penned a letter to the media covering the story. Let's just see how much we can get through this before we stop pretending like we're dealing with a sane person, shall we?

    Continue . . . https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150916/05271332270/nypd-union-prez-patrick-lynch-only-police-are-qualified-to-judge-actions-police.shtml

    Before I forget, have you found that evidence to show the success of the 40+ year old policy of drug prohibition yet?
     
    #41 poncho, Sep 20, 2015
  2. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I didn't find it all that interesting, simply more propaganda by someone who apparently despises authority.

    It does not show a balanced reaction to the issue as a whole, because incidents where Police Officers do something stupid, or illegal (and I saw no video so I cannot really judge, though I would agree tackling a guy for fraud could be questioned, though that does not negate the fact that even credit card fraud criminals are no less likely to be violent in trying to escape than any other criminal), there is usually action taken.

    And what your "side of the story" is always lacking are events where Police Officers do give up their lives for the sake of the public welfare, do capture criminals that are dangerous, and do capture them without using excessive or questionable force.

    That is what is always going to put you into a category of a disgruntled citizen lacking the ability to look at both sides apart from the bias you have, and questionably an anti-authoritarian that knows nothing of God's command for submission to the higher powers.

    It renders you useless in judging matters, even secular matters which have some pretty obvious facts which you ignore and never mention.

    And I would suggest that if you want to have a voice that can actually speak on the matter, join the Police Force and after a few years of walking the beat, then...see if you still think the same way.


    I don't apologize for that.

    So present something that would deny that police officers can better judge if their fellow officers have crossed the line.

    You can't possibly know what many of them go through, and if we consider those who have previous experience with either a fellow officer dying or, because they did not immediately take control of a situation, were either the cause or victim of violence on the part of the suspect, then we might have a little more sympathy for a police officer that doesn't even leave room for the suspect to get the upper hand.

    You just don't know how serious it is, apparently.

    Apparently, you have this view that all of the suspects dealt with by the police are poor, downtrodden victims of excessive force.

    Your view is biased and does not reflect all relevant details. Your view discounts the views of those who are actually doing the work.

    So go ahead, armchair quarterback the issue, that is your right.


    It's not an appeal to authority, because it does not leave Police Officers as having the final say, and it is not a situation that can be broad-brushed.

    The simple fact is that every situation that comes under scrutiny by either the Police or the Public is going to be different. In some cases, the Police Officer is guilty of abusing his authority, or going over the line. In some situations, the suspect led to whatever consequences resulted (like being shot for reaching for something instead of complying with the Officer's demand).

    Secondly, In order for me to see corruption I would have to know that the Law was bypassed, and that the Police actually "policed" themselves. If there is suspected abuse or corruption, I expect this to go into the hands of prosecutors, and it be worked out by those placed in positions of judging the events. Consequences should be decided in a court of Law, not in the Public, and not in the squad-room.


    So please don't throw around terms of psycho-babble that you do not really understand.


    You should probably get started now: first showing what is a straw man, then secondly...knocking it down.

    But I guess, judging from your position, making an accusation closes the case, no need for further investigation or examination of all relevant data.

    And that is the same thing you are charging the Police with, SNIP

    Here's another challenge for you: go find the name of those particular logical fallacies.

    ;)


    Right, let's hope it was "was met with narrowed eyes and a defiant chin." lol

    I like this also...

    ...and this...

    Now where is the evidence he "thought he was brutalizing..."?

    Does someone have the officer himself on record saying this? lol

    And since when are credit card frauds made out to be criminals that police officers should know are never violent? That is usually, I am sure, just one of the endeavors of a criminal.


    Or am I wrong to call credit card fraud criminal.

    I can't judge what happened, I didn't see what happened. I don't know the attitudes of either when it took place.

    I can't see that as justification for disgruntled citizens thinking they have the ability to better know how a police officer should respond to a situation where violence or possibly death is a very real possibility.

    And all I see is a consistent diminishing of the fact that many of these people are in fact criminals who will in fact cause violence or death if they are able to control the situation.

    The bottom line, Justice must be sought for both sides, and that means both prosecuting corrupt police officers as well as laying responsibility on criminals when they resist the authority of the Police.


    You might get a kick out of this.

    ;)


    How about this.


    You need to understand that the "war on drugs" can no more be "won" than the war on crime can be. It is simply an issue that will continue...until the Lord returns.

    What you and I consider "success" might be two different things, and that because we look at it differently, perhaps. If you think that Law Enforcement is not successful because it has not ended drug use or arrested and imprisoned all those involved then of course you might view the war on drugs as unsuccessful. But the liberal mentality that you present in these posts and your apparent contempt for Law Enforcement is actually helping...

    ...the criminals.

    Do you feel that the Government should start regulating drugs? So they can reap the taxes?

    Some in our country do.

    And I think that is about all for me, for now. Unless you want to actually address the posts and points offered, I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming, with a suggestion that the programming you suffer from is better called self-indoctrination.

    ;)


    God bless.
     
    #42 Darrell C, Sep 20, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 21, 2015
  3. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Here's the problem Darrell. After wading through all your strawman arguments, pejoratives and accusations I'm just to tired and bored to reply to the few rational points you might have made.

    Now if you were to limit your replies to just a few rational responses instead of using all the logical fallacies and accusations to fill up page after page with words we might be able to have an honest and rational debate.

    At this point I just don't see how responding to each and every one of your fallacies, pejoratives and accusations would contribute to that.

    I'm here to debate the facts and evidence. Apparently you're here to fill up page after page with insults and accusations to make yourself feel smart and superior. Like I told you before I'm getting on up into years now and I neither have the time nor inclination to have a long drawn out battle of wits with an unarmed person.

    I like you well enough Darrell but not enough to lower myself to your level of debate. No good could come of that for either of us or the poor readers having to witness the bitter back and forth bickering and name calling that it would quickly descend into.

    Make your point concisely as possible without being insulting or confrontational and I'll gladly respond in kind. If that's a problem for you I'm sure you can find plenty of others here that would be glad to have long winded wordy wrestling matches with you that end in bad feelings but as for me personally I no longer see any point in that type of exchange.
     
    #43 poncho, Sep 20, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 20, 2015
  4. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Okay, here's one: you contradict yourself. lol

    Which is it, a few rational points have been made? Or they are all straw-men?

    Okay, yanking your chain, Poncho, and about out of time. You pick something that you might consider a rational point, and we can thresh it out.

    Agreed?


    God bless.
     
    #44 Darrell C, Sep 20, 2015
  5. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    How many pages will it take for you to respond to just one point?
     
    #45 poncho, Sep 20, 2015
  6. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    our
    What you need to understand are some basic facts about the "war on drugs".

    Here's a guy that will give you those basic facts. "lol"

    Captain Peter Christ (ret.), co-founder of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) brings his powerful yet entertaining critique of the War on Drugs to the St. Albans, VT Rotary.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDCf-Et2_Mc

    Here's another one. "lol"

    A retired State Trooper and a Narcotics Detective tell why they now oppose the War on Drugs

    Retired State Trooper, Jack Cole, co-founder of LEAP, and Russell Jones, a retired narcotics detective, respond to common, hostile questions, asked by Mike Smithson, LEAP's speakers bureau director, who plays the Devil's Advocate.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXA0UusYGL8

    Here's another one. "lol"

    Jack Cole knows about the "war on drugs" from several perspectives. He retired as a Detective Lieutenant after a 26-year career with the New Jersey State Police—fourteen in narcotics, mostly as an undercover officer. His investigations spanned cases from street drug users to international "billion-dollar" drug trafficking organizations. Jack ended his undercover career living nearly two years in Boston and New York City, posing as a fugitive drug dealer wanted for murder, while tracking members of a terrorist organization that robbed banks, planted bombs in corporate headquarters, court-houses, police stations, and airplanes and ultimately murdered a New Jersey State Trooper.
    Jack is a founding member and for eight years was executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, an organization representing 100,000 cops, judges, prosecutors, prison wardens, and supporters from 120 countries, who know a system of legalized regulation of all drugs will remove the violence which is the result of drug prohibition. He is now their Board Chair.

    After retiring, Jack dealt with the emotional residue left from his participation in this failed and destructive war on drugs by working to reform current drug policy. He moved to Boston to continue his education. Jack holds a B.A. in Criminal Justice and a Masters degree in Public Policy. During the seven years he spent in the Public Policy Ph.D. Program at the University of Massachusetts, his major focus was on the issues of race and gender bias, brutality and corruption in law enforcement. Jack believed ending drug prohibition would go a long way toward correcting those problems, so in 2002, when the Marijuana Policy Project offered $50,000 start up money for an organization of police who would call for the decriminalization of one ounce of marijuana, Jack dropped out of his Ph.D. program to found LEAP—and surprised MPP by calling for the legalization and regulation of all drugs.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnV2Imdr00E

    Some Questions: If the "war on drugs" can never be won as you say why should we keep sending police officers into situations where they can be injured and/or killed to fight a lost cause? Is that fair to them or their families? Is that how we honor our police officers, by sending them out to be injured or killed for a lost cause? How many liberties should we give up to fight a lost cause? Should we delete the fourth amendment from the Bill of Rights to make the police officer's job easier in his fight for a lost cause? How many police officers should we be willing to put in dangerous potentially deadly situations to fight a lost cause? How much more should we militarize the police to fight a lost cause? Should we repeal the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 to allow the military to act as a domestic police force to fight a lost cause? How many more prisons should we build and fill to capacity fighting a lost cause? Should we nationalize the police force to fight a lost cause? How much longer should we be asking the police to investigate and arrest non violent drug users when they could be spending their time and our tax dollars investigating and arresting murderers, rapists and other criminals that cause serious harm to society? Until the Lord returns? How much more power should we give the government to fight a lost cause? How much bigger should we allow government to grow to fight a lost cause? How much more intrusive should we allow the government to become to fight a lost cause? If I am correct to assume that you are in favor of continuing to send police officers to fight and possibly die for this lost cause my last question to you would be why should anyone believe you care as much about these police officer's lives and well being as you seem to want us to believe? "lol"
     
    #46 poncho, Sep 20, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 20, 2015
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 3
Loading...