This is seriously troubling

[ateamstupid]

I know the context because I was watching it live you fuc king buffoon. I wasn't sitting in my ivory tower waiting for Fox News to tell me why it's ok to blame poor/black people for the latest issue. There were 20-30 people in the street chanting and that was the police's response. Yay America.

This is why I don't venture into these threads often, because it raises my blood pressure to actually interact with someone as dangerously ignorant and out-of-touch as Rupert. But I'm glad you like the police in America looking like Mubarak's army in Egypt in that video. It should tell everyone never to take any of your libertarian "get big gubmint out of my life" bullshit seriously ever again. Because the militarization of the police is the biggest government overreach there could be and while it was happening you stood there waving your pom pom's for it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I know the context because I was watching it live you fuc king buffoon. I wasn't sitting in my ivory tower waiting for Fox News to tell me why it's ok to blame poor/black people for the latest issue. There were 20-30 people in the street chanting and that was the police's response. Yay America.

This is why I don't venture into these threads often, because it raises my blood pressure to actually interact with someone as dangerously ignorant and out-of-touch as Rupert. But I'm glad you like the police in America looking like Mubarak's army in Egypt in that video. It should tell everyone never to take any of your libertarian "get big gubmint out of my life" bullshit seriously ever again. Because the militarization of the police is the biggest government overreach there could be and while it was happening you stood there waving your pom pom's for it.

What planet do you live on and what are you smoking? If I lived out on some farm in South Dakota then I could be accused of being out of touch. I live in a big city and I go out into the city every day. How would you know any more about what's going on in America than me? In addition, I am highly educated. I have a BA in Political Science from UCLA and I have a MA in Clinical Psychology from Pepperdine. What are your credentials, aside from having a PhD in Narcissism?

You are one of these typical liberals who thinks he knows more than anybody. It is so funny listening to guys like you who think that anyone who has a different opinion from yours is "ignorant".

By the way, I never claimed to be a libertarian but I do have libertarian views on some issues. With regard to the police, they are a "necessary evil" in a civilized society. And unfortunately we need more of them, not less. I hope we get to the point where there is so little crime that we need less of them. When that time comes, I will be the first person to demand that police departments stop hiring. But I highly doubt that will ever happen.

I have to question what country you live in if you think the big problem is the police, rather than the criminals. Anyone listening to you would think you live in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

With regard to Mubarak's army in Egypt, who would you rather have in power in Egypt, Mubarak or the Muslim Brotherhood? I would take Mubarak every day of the week.

Your arguments are so childish saying that I wait for Fox News to tell me what the problem is. First of all, it isn't true that I make my opinions based on any specific news source. I use 30 different news sources and still always form my own conclusions. Second of all, I could make the same accusation to you. I could say that you wait for MSNBC to tell you that the police are to blame for all the problems. Does that sound like an intelligent comment? No. So why do you constantly make comments like this? Anyone who has the opposite viewpoint of you is "ignorant" and gets all their info from Fox News. You won't be winning any debate contests any time soon. In a debate you should always focus on the facts. But if the facts don't support your case, you can always tell people how much smarter and how much more well informed you are than they are. That wins a lot of points.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

What planet do you live on and what are you smoking? If I lived out on some farm in South Dakota then I could be accused of being out of touch. I live in a big city and I go out into the city every day. How would you know any more about what's going on in America than me? In addition, I am highly educated. I have a BA in Political Science from UCLA and I have a MA in Clinical Psychology from Pepperdine. What are your credentials, aside from having a PhD in Narcissism?

You are one of these typical liberals who thinks he knows more than anybody. It is so funny listening to guys like you who think that anyone who has a different opinion from yours is "ignorant".

By the way, I never claimed to be a libertarian but I do have libertarian views on some issues. With regard to the police, they are a "necessary evil" in a civilized society. And unfortunately we need more of them, not less. I hope we get to the point where there is so little crime that we need less of them. When that time comes, I will be the first person to demand that police departments stop hiring. But I highly doubt that will ever happen.

I have to question what country you live in if you think the big problem is the police, rather than the criminals. Anyone listening to you would think you live in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

With regard to Mubarak's army in Egypt, who would you rather have in power in Egypt, Mubarak or the Muslim Brotherhood? I would take Mubarak every day of the week.

Your arguments are so childish saying that I wait for Fox News to tell me what the problem is. First of all, it isn't true that I make my opinions based on any specific news source. I use 30 different news sources and still always form my own conclusions. Second of all, I could make the same accusation to you. I could say that you wait for MSNBC to tell you that the police are to blame for all the problems. Does that sound like an intelligent comment? No. So why do you constantly make comments like this? Anyone who has the opposite viewpoint of you is "ignorant" and gets all their info from Fox News. You won't be winning any debate contests any time soon. In a debate you should always focus on the facts. But if the facts don't support your case, you can always tell people how much smarter and how much more well informed you are than they are. That wins a lot of points.

These are the facts Rupe

http://justice.gawker.com/nypd-has-a...nto-1684017767

They are setting the table that any Civil disobedience in the future will be met with the potential to charge someone with a felony. Meanwhile the middle class is getting pushed more and more and if at some point in the future they wish to speak out and protest well guess what they do it at the risk of being charged with a felony if a cop with a hard on tells you to leave and you do not. If this doesn't scare the **** out of you, then you are living in LALA land.. Sounds like an Oligarchy to me Rupe. But wait DA's and Cops won't do that because well it is the right thing to do. The current law works just fine.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

These are the facts Rupe

http://justice.gawker.com/nypd-has-a...nto-1684017767

They are setting the table that any Civil disobedience in the future will be met with the potential to charge someone with a felony. Meanwhile the middle class is getting pushed more and more and if at some point in the future they wish to speak out and protest well guess what they do it at the risk of being charged with a felony if a cop with a hard on tells you to leave and you do not. If this doesn't scare the **** out of you, then you are living in LALA land.. Sounds like an Oligarchy to me Rupe. But wait DA's and Cops won't do that because well it is the right thing to do. The current law works just fine.

I read your article. I'm not in favor of anyone being charged with even misdemeanor resisting arrest if they aren't truly resisting. And some cops do lie. We all know that. There have been plenty of cases where police roughed someone up because they claimed they were resisting. Then it turns out someone filmed the whole thing on their phone and it turns out the cop was lying. If I was a juror in a resisting arrest case with no video, I wouldn't necessarily believe the cop.

Anyway, you raised a good point in one of your other posts with regard to assaulting an officer versus resisting arrest. If the police are trying to arrest someone and he punches them, I don't why they couldn't just charge the person with assault on a police officer. If they can, then there may not be a need for the resisting arrest charge to be a felony (especially if assaulting a police officer is a felony. I'm not sure if it is).

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I read your article. I'm not in favor of anyone being charged with even misdemeanor resisting arrest if they aren't truly resisting. And some cops do lie. We all know that. There have been plenty of cases where police roughed someone up because they claimed they were resisting. Then it turns out someone filmed the whole thing on their phone and it turns out the cop was lying. If I was a juror in a resisting arrest case with no video, I wouldn't necessarily believe the cop.

Anyway, you raised a good point in one of your other posts with regard to assaulting an officer versus resisting arrest. If the police are trying to arrest someone and he punches them, I don't why they couldn't just charge the person with assault on a police officer. If they can, then there may not be a need for the resisting arrest charge to be a felony (especially if assaulting a police officer is a felony. I'm not sure if it is).

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...d-assault-laws

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...d-assault-laws

I read your article and then did a little more research. It doesn't sound like there is a difference between assaulting a police officer and assaulting a civilian. Either can be misdemeanors or felonies, depending on the extent of the injury and whether or not a weapon was used. So I guess that means if an officer is trying to arrest you and you punch him, it will probably only be a misdemeanor if he is not really hurt. If you punched him in the face and it only left a small bruise, it would probably only be a misdemeanor. I think that is the reason that Chief Bratton wants to make resisting arrest a felony in certain situations. I think there are probably too many guys punching officers and getting off with a slap on the wrist.

I think if you punch an officer in the face, it probably should be a felony, regardless of whether the officer has any broken bones from the assault.

Anyway, if it was up to me to decide whether to pass this new law, I would need more information. I would need to know why Bratton feels that they need this law (I suspect it is for the reason I just mentioned), and I would would want to know what criteria would be used to determine whether a felony charge would be filed. If the reason given was the reason I stated and if the criteria was that the only people who could be charged with a felony are people who physically assault (punch) a police officer, then I would probably be fine with the new law. If there was no real criteria to decide what would be a felony, then I would be against it. But I would be shocked if the new law wasn't very specific and and didn't require a true assault to be filed as a felony.

If an officer is trying to arrest me and I punch him in the face, don't you think that should be a felony, regardless of whether the officer sustains any real injuries?

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think there are probably too many guys punching officers and getting off with a slap on the wrist.

I think if you punch an officer in the face, it probably should be a felony, regardless of whether the officer has any broken bones from the assault.

Anyway, if it was up to me to decide whether to pass this new law, I would need more information. I would need to know why Bratton feels that they need this law (I suspect it is for the reason I just mentioned)

Again, complete and total fantasyland. You really need to stop speculating on things you know absolutely nothing about.

Bratton is trying to satisfy his incredibly sensitive union heads and rank-and-file, who went on an embarrassing petulance tour when our mayor didn't sufficiently kiss their asses after two cops were killed. That's all this is. More buttressing of the cops' rights to whatever they want and report only to themselves.

Too many people are assaulting cops and getting away with it! Yeah, the cops are the victims, not the perpetrators of too much unpunished violence. That's rich.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I read your article and then did a little more research. It doesn't sound like there is a difference between assaulting a police officer and assaulting a civilian. Either can be misdemeanors or felonies, depending on the extent of the injury and whether or not a weapon was used. So I guess that means if an officer is trying to arrest you and you punch him, it will probably only be a misdemeanor if he is not really hurt. If you punched him in the face and it only left a small bruise, it would probably only be a misdemeanor. I think that is the reason that Chief Bratton wants to make resisting arrest a felony in certain situations. I think there are probably too many guys punching officers and getting off with a slap on the wrist.

I think if you punch an officer in the face, it probably should be a felony, regardless of whether the officer has any broken bones from the assault.

Anyway, if it was up to me to decide whether to pass this new law, I would need more information. I would need to know why Bratton feels that they need this law (I suspect it is for the reason I just mentioned), and I would would want to know what criteria would be used to determine whether a felony charge would be filed. If the reason given was the reason I stated and if the criteria was that the only people who could be charged with a felony are people who physically assault (punch) a police officer, then I would probably be fine with the new law. If there was no real criteria to decide what would be a felony, then I would be against it. But I would be shocked if the new law wasn't very specific and and didn't require a true assault to be filed as a felony.

If an officer is trying to arrest me and I punch him in the face, don't you think that should be a felony, regardless of whether the officer sustains any real injuries?

Oh yeah, I'm sure in an age of cops shooting people and performing banned chokeholds and getting away with it, that the issue is really people punching cops and getting away with it. No way is it cops asking for even more power to go along with fulfilling their wannabe military fantasies.
Our crime rates are the lowest they've been in 40 years. Its been trending down for years.
But to hear you and the cops, you'd think it was the opposite. Christ, we already have a huge prison population and you want to add to it?!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I know the context because I was watching it live you fuc king buffoon. I wasn't sitting in my ivory tower waiting for Fox News to tell me why it's ok to blame poor/black people for the latest issue. There were 20-30 people in the street chanting and that was the police's response. Yay America.

This is why I don't venture into these threads often, because it raises my blood pressure to actually interact with someone as dangerously ignorant and out-of-touch as Rupert. But I'm glad you like the police in America looking like Mubarak's army in Egypt in that video. It should tell everyone never to take any of your libertarian "get big gubmint out of my life" bullshit seriously ever again. Because the militarization of the police is the biggest government overreach there could be and while it was happening you stood there waving your pom pom's for it.

By the way, I remember exactly what was going on in Ferguson back in August. I remember reading the ridiculous arguments about how the riots were being caused by the police because the police were being too aggressive. That turned out to be total nonsense. When the police listened to these ridiculous critiques and backed off the next few nights, the violence got worse. A high percentage of these so-called protesters are just opportunists. They push the envelope and hope the police won't do anything. They are hoping a riot will start so they can start looting. We've seen this type of thing plenty of times before. It's happened in Los Angeles on several occasions.

I think there should be a zero tolerance policy on civil unrest. Anybody who gets violent including throwing objects and/or breaking things should be arrested immediately. I'm fine with peaceful protests but once they cross the line they need to be arrested. I feel bad for all the people whose businesses got burned down. It would never happen if we supported the police and let them do their jobs. They get criticized by the left so much that sometimes they are afraid to do their jobs.

And for the 10th time, I don't think the police are perfect. When there is obvious misconduct or even obvious incompetence, I am the first person to want the officers to be held accountable. There was a case recently where the police were searching a neighborhood for a suspect and they were going through people's backyards throughout the neighborhood. They went into one guy's yard and when they saw a dog (who belonged to the homeowner) they shot and killed it. I was outraged by this. I didn't defend the cop. Quite to the contrary, I thought there needed to be consequences. You don't go into a guy's yard without a warrant and kill his dog. There wasn't even any reason to believe that the suspect was hiding in this particular yard. It was just one out of fifty houses in that neighborhood where they were searching. I thought this was certainly an abuse of power by the police. By all accounts, the dog was friendly too.