To Protect and to Serve II

#15,651
#15,651
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, VolFaninFla and McDad
#15,652
#15,652
I still think allot of shenanigans exist from police due to qualified immunity. They see it as a safety net. Those who are good cops don’t need it.
 
#15,653
#15,653
NurseGoodVol said:
I still think allot of shenanigans exist from police due to qualified immunity. They see it as a safety net. Those who are good cops don’t need it.
Click to expand...


Having litigated this issue literally hundreds if not a thousand times, I can tell you why you are wrong, at least in the contexts of shootings, which seems to be the one folks complain about the most.

When cops draw a weapon and encounter an unknown cirumstance, they do not have time to reflect on their "safety net."
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#15,654
#15,654
lawgator1 said:
Having litigated this issue literally hundreds if not a thousand times, I can tell you why you are wrong, at least in the contexts of shootings, which seems to be the one folks complain about the most.

When cops draw a weapon and encounter an unknown cirumstance, they do not have time to reflect on their "safety net."
Click to expand...
Based on what you’ve seen over the years do you think the police problem is real or being overblown?
 
#15,655
#15,655
Carl Pickens said:
Based on what you’ve seen over the years do you think the police problem is real or being overblown?
Click to expand...


I don't think it's much different than it was 15 or 20 years ago, but with video now of everything more bad acts are being exposed.

I do think it's harder and harder to keep good employees. That is a significant issue everywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and Carl Pickens
#15,656
#15,656
lawgator1 said:
Having litigated this issue literally hundreds if not a thousand times, I can tell you why you are wrong, at least in the contexts of shootings, which seems to be the one folks complain about the most.

When cops draw a weapon and encounter an unknown cirumstance, they do not have time to reflect on their "safety net."
Click to expand...
I was talking from the angle of civil rights violations. Shenanigans not shooting. Shooting someone is totally different, when you have half a second to decide, that I understand.
When you spend 10 minutes trying to violate civil rights then QI is easier to attack.
 
#15,667
#15,667
EasternVol said:
The ones doing the actual confiscating were not the politicians though. Democrats and Republicans both were responsible.
Click to expand...
Those confiscations occurred under orders. From who? Gov Blanco? Mayor Nagin? Police Superintendent Compass? Or are you asserting some officers just came up with the idea on their own?
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#15,668
#15,668
lawgator1 said:
Having litigated this issue literally hundreds if not a thousand times, I can tell you why you are wrong, at least in the contexts of shootings, which seems to be the one folks complain about the most.

When cops draw a weapon and encounter an unknown cirumstance, they do not have time to reflect on their "safety net."
Click to expand...
so in your opinion, the trained person that we expect to uphold our safety, and whose litteral job to deal with these situations gets protection from the courts because they don't have to to reflect on the safety net; but someone defending their own family in their own house shouldn't get the same safety net?
 
#15,669
#15,669
hndog609 said:
Those confiscations occurred under orders. From who? Gov Blanco? Mayor Nagin? Police Superintendent Compass? Or are you asserting some officers just came up with the idea on their own?
Click to expand...
So the ones physically confiscating the guns were just following orders, got it. They were still confiscating guns though. You're really reaching with that last bit.
 
#15,670
#15,670
EasternVol said:
So the ones physically confiscating the guns were just following orders, got it. They were still confiscating guns though. You're really reaching with that last bit.
Click to expand...
I"M reaching? Seriously? Let's make this simple.
Guns were confiscated. Yes or no?
The ONLY reason they were confiscated is because people issued orders to do so. Yes or no?
Who was responsible for issuing those orders?

The who did what actually on the ground is absolutely, positively and unambiguously downstream from the above questions. The odd part is there is not a single person reading this, including you, that isn't aware of this fact.

If you must make some kind of "who follows orders" observation (Ras has been a big proponent of that over the years) then so be it but it's 100% the primary issue of who gives the orders or the rest literally doesn't matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#15,671
#15,671
hndog609 said:
I"M reaching? Seriously? Let's make this simple.
Guns were confiscated. Yes or no?
The ONLY reason they were confiscated is because people issued orders to do so. Yes or no?
Who was responsible for issuing those orders?

The who did what actually on the ground is absolutely, positively and unambiguously downstream from the above questions. The odd part is there is not a single person reading this, including you, that isn't aware of this fact.

If you must make some kind of "who follows orders" observation (Ras has been a big proponent of that over the years) then so be it but it's 100% the primary issue of who gives the orders or the rest literally doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
The inital assertion was that it was 'Democrats confiscating guns'. I pointed out that many of those those doing the physical confiscations were certainly Republicans so followers of both parties were responsible. The orders weren't the only reason guns were confiscated. If the robots hadn't followed those orders they wouldn't have been.
 
#15,672
#15,672
EasternVol said:
The inital assertion was that it was 'Democrats confiscating guns'. I pointed out that many of those those doing the physical confiscations were certainly Republicans so followers of both parties were responsible. The orders weren't the only reason guns were confiscated. If the robots hadn't followed those orders they wouldn't have been.
Click to expand...
the issue is you are choosing the third or fourth domino to fall, and assigning the blame there. some blame is there, these cops should have been like NM sheriffs refusing their governors ban on guns; but the larger real fault lies further up the food chain.

especially when the higher ups in the food chain can just replace those lower down until they find someone to do it. so even if you fixed these republican cops, you wouldn't have solved the gun grabbing issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and InVOLuntary
#15,673
#15,673
EasternVol said:
The inital assertion was that it was 'Democrats confiscating guns'. I pointed out that many of those those doing the physical confiscations were certainly Republicans so followers of both parties were responsible. The orders weren't the only reason guns were confiscated. If the robots hadn't followed those orders they wouldn't have been.
Click to expand...
Look EV, as stated previously if you want to have a conversation about "following orders" it wouldn't be the first time it's come up in this thread. Your devaluation of the origin of there, no really, seriously, ever being a confiscation at all is bewildering. Has there ever been an order followed without an order given? AT BEST you might be able to eke out an observation that comes across as "The confiscation orders issued by Democratic leadership wasn't universally rejected outright by some that might vote Republican.". That sound like a strong stance to you? When police chief Eddie Compass announced

"No one will be able to be armed. Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns."

who do you really think is carrying the greater onus of culpability here? (btw Compass resigned 4 days after the successful injunction placed against the legality of the confiscations)

In happier news this mess brought about the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act.
 
#15,674
#15,674
LouderVol said:
so in your opinion, the trained person that we expect to uphold our safety, and whose litteral job to deal with these situations gets protection from the courts because they don't have to to reflect on the safety net; but someone defending their own family in their own house shouldn't get the same safety net?
Click to expand...


That's a bit vague. And there are stand your ground laws out there.
 
#15,675
#15,675
LouderVol said:
the issue is you are choosing the third or fourth domino to fall, and assigning the blame there. some blame is there, these cops should have been like NM sheriffs refusing their governors ban on guns; but the larger real fault lies further up the food chain.

especially when the higher ups in the food chain can just replace those lower down until they find someone to do it. so even if you fixed these republican cops, you wouldn't have solved the gun grabbing issue.
Click to expand...
If you read what I wrote you'd see that I am assigning blame to all the actors and not just the cops.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top