Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You said ...
"I'm sure a male officer would have at least been able to control the female perp rather than her getting the advantage."
IF the female perp had jumped/fallen on top of a male officer, who was standing on the bus steps, and they ended up on the ground with the F perp on top of the male officer, then, the male officer wouldn't have had control of the F perp, and, the F perp would have had the advantage.
Oh I fully comprehended what you were saying, and doing. Instead of linking to the final court ruling you linked to the 'complaint'. A complaint has no legal standing on its own until it is ruled on by the court. Also, there are many times where parts of a complaint are ruled in favor for, while other parts are denied by the court. It appears that you are completely oblivious to the fact that a complaint is just a complaint and means absolutely nothing until it is ruled on by the court. On top of that, you added your own beliefs making appear that they were also in that complaint.
Your comment ..
"Also, had it been a male officer (even in the same disadvantaged position) the female suspect may not have attempted what she did."
My response to that particular comment ..
"If someone is crazy enough to attack a cop then the gender of the cop probably wouldn't matter."
Your response to my responsive comment that you'd quoted ..
That is not what you said. You respond to my comment quote with something completely different than what you had originally said. (you do seem to have a way of changing things to suit your own agenda )
Over-exaggerate? I was going off of your own comments ..
"...Strength, agility, timed runs, body mass index calculations were all either eliminated, watered down or lowered to compensate to allow those of lesser size, strength, higher body weight etc. to pass. .."
"many years ago you'd never see an undersized or out of shape trooper....all were near 6' tall +, stout and in shape.."
"That all changed and today you can find a male trooper 5'5" 135 lbs., etc. - a reduced & weakened "light" version of what used to be."
"Now the bar has become so low that just about anyone who is not disabled or mentally challenged (and even that is not an automatic bar anymore it seems) can pass vastly degraded testing procedures"
Those comments of yours more than backs up my comment .. "You think that cops these days are all Barney Fifes with Forrest Gump intellects".
Pity that you hadn't bothered to link to the court decision, instead of the complaint (that means absolutely nothing), and, included a few quotes to back up your statements, and, maybe even looked up and quoting the actual differences in the testing, etc., pre and post judicial decision. Instead, you've been going off of a piece of paper that has no legal standings, you had changed the context of that paper, and, you even change your own words when they are commented on.
I had stated earlier that I didn't believe in affirmative action. In this particular case it's basically unknown if AA had been used, and if so, to what degree. Can't really go off of your diatribes since they are unfounded, in this particular issue, and, with your predilection of changing things in order to make your comments appear true.
So, until you can prove your points, then,
As to you "No one said...." uh huh sure.....
What I was saying that even if she was successful a male officer would have been more likely to regain or establish control over her at some point...this female officer surely didn't.
I'm not going to argue each and every point with you, nor attempt to convince you otherwise since you seem to be one of those incapable of accepting the truth......and your accusations (diatribe?) of me changing things to look true are as without merit as the rest of your post.
And....trust me, I'm going off much more than a "piece of paper that has no legals standing", namely more than 30 years experience in this realm, many in the administrative part.
Here is a link that may help you better understand the ruling and what was imposed (again... put simply....test was dumbed down because minorities had trouble passing....sugar coat it any way you want but that's it in a nutshell). If this doesn't clear it up then perhaps you should research further on you own and post back showing how AA (either officially or non-officially) was not considered in this whole comedy of how the system was rigged to accept & promote underachievers not desrving of same:
Oh...and btw....even though this ruling mentions only affecting 13 jurisdictions changed all future NJ Civil Service tests to make the them "more passable" thereby making it easier for all and allowing just about everyone to pass....they haven't yet started penalizing test takers for being white (since overall white officers are still scoring much higher) but the way things are going I wouldn't be surprised.
And here is a link to the actual decision....I posted the original "claim" (which you apparently have such a problem with) because it explained the issue rather concisely....I hadn't posted the actual decision since it is 57 pages long and most people don't have the time to read and get through it but judging by the amount of time you've spent questioning it in your long winded responses I'm sure you do.:
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,492 posts, read 12,502,824 times
Reputation: 10450
Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyram
<snip the ever changing story regarding what you claim to say>
I'm not going to argue each and every point with you, nor attempt to convince you otherwise since you seem to be one of those incapable of accepting the truth......and your accusations (diatribe?) of me changing things to look true are as without merit as the rest of your post.
When someone posts the truth, I accept it. When someone posts their opinion, I'll consider it. When someone posts their opinion and claims it's true, when it's merely factless opinion, I don't accept it.
Quote:
And....trust me, I'm going off much more than a "piece of paper that has no legals standing", namely more than 30 years experience in this realm, many in the administrative part.
30 years in that "realm" and you still couldn't base your opinion on facts. Come on, you're right there, how hard would it be to come up with facts?
Quote:
Here is a link that may help you better understand the ruling and what was imposed (again... put simply....test was dumbed down because minorities had trouble passing....sugar coat it any way you want but that's it in a nutshell). If this doesn't clear it up then perhaps you should research further on you own and post back showing how AA (either officially or non-officially) was not considered in this whole comedy of how the system was rigged to accept & promote underachievers not desrving of same:
Been there, done that (though on the DoJ site, which had linked to the actual Consent Decree) and briefly mentioned the Consent Decree in an earlier post. Though glad to see that 'you' are finally trying to dig for facts.
Quote:
Oh...and btw....even though this ruling mentions only affecting 13 jurisdictions changed all future NJ Civil Service tests to make the them "more passable" thereby making it easier for all and allowing just about everyone to pass....they haven't yet started penalizing test takers for being white (since overall white officers are still scoring much higher) but the way things are going I wouldn't be surprised.
And here is a link to the actual decision....I posted the original "claim" (which you apparently have such a problem with) because it explained the issue rather concisely....I hadn't posted the actual decision since it is 57 pages long and most people don't have the time to read and get through it but judging by the amount of time you've spent questioning it in your long winded responses I'm sure you do.:
Bingo. You've finally hit on a fairly informative link -- and yes, I do have to commend you on finding and posting it. No I don't have the time that you believe I do, and, I think we are pretty even as far as long winded responses. Anyway, I hadn't read the full text in this link. Instead I skipped straight to page 47, regarding the new exam (since the 'type' of the exam was the root of it all between the NJCSC and the DoJ). You might want to read that section yourself.
My instinct would have been the same. But isn't that why we have a police force...so we don't have to get messses with pieces of crap like her? Incidents of female officers needing help from the public are becoming more prevalent. This is embarrassing. It's also very dangerous for the public.
To begin with, that trooper should have known better than to position herself on the steps below the woman she was taking charge of. That alone gave the woman a sense of power over the trooper. Secondly, the trooper's long hair needs to go. Once the woman got hold of it, she controlled the trooper.
This incident never should have happened. It wouldn't have happened if the trooper was male with close-cropped hair.
I forgot to reply to this. I totally agree with the bolded. People saying "why did it take so long for anyone to help the officer" are nuts. Sure an officer may need help now and again but it should be a very rare instance, the whole point of calling the cops is so THEY can protect US and we DON'T HAVE TO get involved.
When someone posts the truth, I accept it. When someone posts their opinion, I'll consider it. When someone posts their opinion and claims it's true, when it's merely factless opinion, I don't accept it.
Bingo. You've finally hit on a fairly informative link -- and yes, I do have to commend you on finding and posting it.
I would have shot her ass in less than one second. Just gone for my gun and had at it. One less POS in the world. The fact that no one tried to stop this is unbelievable and it shows how DISGUSTING our society is. I would have beaten that bytches ass in a heartbeat if I was on that bus as a passenger. SERIOUSLY W T F
Here's your link where it's explained. Post from it about the oral test being easier than the written test.
But, we both know you'll come back with some lame ass excuse why you can't prove it, so .....
As far as your baseless opinions that you post ....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
