The Law Police

Remove this Banner Ad

ShanDog said:
Because the whole article was posted which is against the site rules, and rather than selectively editing the post as a mod, the poster can re-post what they think is the most important parts. But yeah... Censorship :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I have no problem with it as you have given me the heads up, but what difference does a couple of hundred extra words of text make?

Is this some publishing rights thing?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

ShanDog said:
Because the whole article was posted which is against the site rules, and rather than selectively editing the post as a mod, the poster can re-post what they think is the most important parts. But yeah... Censorship :rolleyes:
Click to expand...



I really don't gaf but I honestly thought the site rules had changed in that regards earlier this year?
 
RonSon said:
I really don't gaf but I honestly thought the site rules had changed in that regards earlier this year?
Click to expand...
It's still up on the site rules:

No illegal content; respect copyright owners.
  • No hacks, torrents, file swapping, or requesting of same from us or other users.
  • No illegal match video or audio streams, or requesting of same from us or other users.
  • Articles from other sites should be limited to a relevant paragraph or two and a link to the source
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/help/terms
 
so we are not allowed to say that the po... lice are granted immunity in regards to personal opinion and that
they sometimes run the gauntlet with what they do...

I am surprised that they are not held to a higher authority in terms of what they do

but I must admit that I am gob smacked... no occasionally it happens..:eek:

these champs of the thin blue line need to be told that they are not as mad as meat axes and can in fact survive on one burger a day...
 
48203731_200957624184018_3463068307274334208_n.jpg
 
Who cares?
'Cops have dominance issues. That is why they are cops.
They will kill you to protect you from yourself...because they can kill you legally.

Cops are the people most likely to follow orders unthinkingly.
Just not quite smart enough for independent thought but with the idea they know how to tell everyone else how to think.
Motivated by delusions of self importance.

Malleable Sheep in simple terms.
 
Last edited:
Pie eyed said:
Who cares?
'Cops have dominance issues. That is why they are cops.
They will kill you to protect from yourself...because they can kill you legally.

Cops are the people most likely to follow orders unthinkingly.
Just not quite smart enough for independent thought but with the idea they know how to tell everyone else how to think.
Motivated by delusions of self importance.

Malleable Sheep in simple terms.
Click to expand...
Sweeping generalisation are sweeping and generalised.

But it's the cops who aren't capable of independent thought...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Pie eyed said:
Who cares?
'Cops have dominance issues. That is why they are cops.
They will kill you to protect from yourself...because they can kill you legally.

Cops are the people most likely to follow orders unthinkingly.
Just not quite smart enough for independent thought but with the idea they know how to tell everyone else how to think.
Motivated by delusions of self importance.

Malleable Sheep in simple terms.
Click to expand...

Statistically
Most cops haven't killed anyone.
Lots of cops are smarter than you.
 
ShanDog said:
/In Kant voice
We're all held to a higher authority Leeda ...
Click to expand...
lol and with that pithy bit of 'higher' authority I will state that each of us are demoted to something every day...

God is not one of them however it may not infringe on God when we say that the police need to look up and learn...

it is the 1984 legend that inspires me to hope that the po.. lice aren't always liking their authority and working along side dubious rules

so it is a rattlesnake lesson I give you.. they will sneak up on you but you can and have the knowledge and ability to strangle it..
 
Pie eyed said:
Who cares?
'Cops have dominance issues. That is why they are cops.
They will kill you to protect from yourself...because they can kill you legally.

Cops are the people most likely to follow orders unthinkingly.
Just not quite smart enough for independent thought but with the idea they know how to tell everyone else how to think.
Motivated by delusions of self importance.

Malleable Sheep in simple terms.
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
ShanDog said:
Sweeping generalisation are sweeping and generalised.

But it's the cops who aren't capable of independent thought...
Click to expand...
it is the attitude that 'authority' of the police badge and uniform gives some dudes a perceived clear and uncompromising
status in terms of dealing with the public..

this is the 'authority' that might be misused... candy can be too sweet..
 
Leeda said:
it is the attitude that 'authority' of the police badge and uniform gives some dudes a perceived clear and uncompromising
status in terms of dealing with the public..

this is the 'authority' that might be misused... candy can be too sweet..
Click to expand...
Yeah a cop with a chip on their shoulder is an asshat. But as long as the asshat doesn't do anything unethical, what can we really complain about? For what it's worth, I have known dozens of cops over the years, and some have been friends. Can't think of one who strikes me as someone like that. But maybe that's because I wouldn't have s**t friends...
 
ShanDog said:
Yeah a cop with a chip on their shoulder is an asshat. But as long as the asshat doesn't do anything unethical, what can we really complain about? For what it's worth, I have known dozens of cops over the years, and some have been friends. Can't think of one who strikes me as someone like that. But maybe that's because I wouldn't have s**t friends...
Click to expand...
I just would like to think that there are more good cops and that as usual it is the duds who crash and get away with crap.

Of course it is the outstanding ones who do the wrong thing who as usual make it a rough ride for everyone else... but that is the point...

Everyone strangely has to deal with situations where the outstanding rough nuts are always going to cause the biggest transaction fail...

AS long as we have everyone calling everyone out about all this.. sorry for the americanisation of it.. but as long as we choose to
turn the knobs full on... I am not sure it is a good metaphor but I am sure you understand...
 
ShanDog said:
I didn't say it was valid. I've said a few times now that he didn't handle that well. If you recall the Bourke St Incident thread, I will call out bad policing and do so here - his attitude was bad and pulling a gun was questionable at best.

But he didn't "manhandle" anyone. That is a word you choose when you're trying to paint something in a negative light. He placed a woman in cuffs, walked her to the car, told he to sit, tried to make her sit when she refused to listen (before deciding that possibly wasn't a good idea and sat down). He then told her he was getting her up, pulled her up with appropriate force when she refused and then walked her away.

A dog bit him. The dog got pepper sprayed (or he prepared to do it - couldn't tell if he did on my phone). That's not animal abuse.

If people choose to see this video in the worst possible light as confirmation bias of hatred for police, that's fine. But it doesn't make them right, just jaded.
Click to expand...
... he's kicked her in the back of the knee to get her to go to ground. He's pulled her up by her wrists when her hands are handcuffed. He's pushed her forwards, he's not allowed her to speak.

I'd argue that constitutes the use of the word 'manhandled', don't you?

First lesson I learnt as a young person; how you treat the police assists how they treat you, as people with more power than you possess. You're polite, you answer their questions as openly and as honestly as you can (if you need to assert your rights, do so with a diffident manner to avoid retaliation, because a cop exercising their right to be petty about minor offenses is as much retaliation as violence is) to try to bring out the good side of police discretion.

I'm not comfortable with police behaving the way that officer behaved, not if that is how he treats people on a regular basis for minor offenses. His behaviour there - right in front of the camera, no less - suggests that he's not suited for the kinds of high stress situations that a police officer will need to undertake; the distance between him and her car at the beginning of that video suggests that it was hardly a high speed chase, and that she, in all probability, didn't even see him. My uncle - before he passed away - was a shocker in that fashion, and should never have been driving after he turned 60, and I'd suggest most people would know at least one elderly person whose vision is not really up to the task of them driving.

I don't begrudge him racing to the garage, his gun on the way out, because - as you've suggested in an earlier post - he has no idea what she has in there. Everything from that point is the precise wrong way to undergo proceedings, and ensured that she should get off. Did she throw her keys away to avoid him getting them, or did she drop them in the effort to get her hands in the air because there's a cop in her garage pointing a gun at her??? Did she refuse to co-operate because said cop refused to listen to her when she tried to leave her dog locked in the garage, because she was scared that there was an angry cop shouting at her? If she truly has a spinal problem, his pulling her up by her wrists could've done considerable damage. If he forced her into the position to handcuff her - as her confused state lead to her refusing to co-operate with him - then that, too, could've added to her fear of him. People do not make good decisions when afraid.

I'm a little surprised, ShanDog. You're a fairly reasonable poster most of the time, and I come into this thread to see you sneering at people who aren't okay with this kind of thing, and I'm surprised you are. That officer behaved in a manner unbecoming, and his attitude reflects poorly on the many good police officers I've known who would have attempted to de-escalate the situation rather than inflame it.
 
Gethelred said:
... he's kicked her in the back of the knee to get her to go to ground. He's pulled her up by her wrists when her hands are handcuffed. He's pushed her forwards, he's not allowed her to speak.

I'd argue that constitutes the use of the word 'manhandled', don't you?

First lesson I learnt as a young person; how you treat the police assists how they treat you, as people with more power than you possess. You're polite, you answer their questions as openly and as honestly as you can (if you need to assert your rights, do so with a diffident manner to avoid retaliation, because a cop exercising their right to be petty about minor offenses is as much retaliation as violence is) to try to bring out the good side of police discretion.

I'm not comfortable with police behaving the way that officer behaved, not if that is how he treats people on a regular basis for minor offenses. His behaviour there - right in front of the camera, no less - suggests that he's not suited for the kinds of high stress situations that a police officer will need to undertake; the distance between him and her car at the beginning of that video suggests that it was hardly a high speed chase, and that she, in all probability, didn't even see him. My uncle - before he passed away - was a shocker in that fashion, and should never have been driving after he turned 60, and I'd suggest most people would know at least one elderly person whose vision is not really up to the task of them driving.

I don't begrudge him racing to the garage, his gun on the way out, because - as you've suggested in an earlier post - he has no idea what she has in there. Everything from that point is the precise wrong way to undergo proceedings, and ensured that she should get off. Did she throw her keys away to avoid him getting them, or did she drop them in the effort to get her hands in the air because there's a cop in her garage pointing a gun at her??? Did she refuse to co-operate because said cop refused to listen to her when she tried to leave her dog locked in the garage, because she was scared that there was an angry cop shouting at her? If she truly has a spinal problem, his pulling her up by her wrists could've done considerable damage. If he forced her into the position to handcuff her - as her confused state lead to her refusing to co-operate with him - then that, too, could've added to her fear of him. People do not make good decisions when afraid.

I'm a little surprised, ShanDog. You're a fairly reasonable poster most of the time, and I come into this thread to see you sneering at people who aren't okay with this kind of thing, and I'm surprised you are. That officer behaved in a manner unbecoming, and his attitude reflects poorly on the many good police officers I've known who would have attempted to de-escalate the situation rather than inflame it.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. I'm a good poster all the time :)

It's covering the same old ground, but again, one person's 'manhandling' is another person's 'arrested'. The word choice is based on bias for or against the cop. That's what I was trying to point out. No doubt it was being described as manhandling to make it negative, but in reality, nothing he physically did to that woman is legally unacceptable when arresting someone. Having said that, it certainly wasn't completely necessary. There's a big difference between the two.

I acknowledged in a later post that I was being a bit antagonistic in a few responses - I think I was having a bad week. Overall, the cop didn't handle things well. I am more that happy to call out bad policing, but I may be guilty of cracking the shits when people who don't really know the first thing about policing start getting on their high horse for a chance to kick some dirt at police.
 
ShanDog said:
Rubbish. I'm a good poster all the time :)

It's covering the same old ground, but again, one person's 'manhandling' is another person's 'arrested'. The word choice is based on bias for or against the cop. That's what I was trying to point out. No doubt it was being described as manhandling to make it negative, but in reality, nothing he physically did to that woman is legally unacceptable when arresting someone. Having said that, it certainly wasn't completely necessary. There's a big difference between the two.

I acknowledged in a later post that I was being a bit antagonistic in a few responses - I think I was having a bad week. Overall, the cop didn't handle things well. I am more that happy to call out bad policing, but I may be guilty of cracking the shits when people who don't really know the first thing about policing start getting on their high horse for a chance to kick some dirt at police.
Click to expand...
I have huge problems with the bolded, even though I acknowledge the truth of it. Just another manifestation of the state's monopoly on violence.

Fair enough; hadn't read sufficiently long into the thread when I posted.
 
Gethelred said:
I have huge problems with the bolded, even though I acknowledge the truth of it. Just another manifestation of the state's monopoly on violence.

Fair enough; hadn't read sufficiently long into the thread when I posted.
Click to expand...
They do have a monopoly on violence. Is there a better way though?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gethelred
Society/Culture F&%$ the Police - On Philosophical Grounds
Replies
9
Views
876
barreness
barreness
Aristotle Pickett
The Law Australian Police brutality thread.
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
404
Views
12K
TheEscapeClub
T
Alite
Pollies have Police that report to .. the same Pollies
Replies
13
Views
905
spinynorman
spinynorman
Ants
US Police
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Baldur
Baldur

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top