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.
If that's not your position, I've yet to see you offer a contrary one.
I don't know how to tactfylly state this so......this is a statement based upon small thinking.....to explain.
Say we have 500 people shot by the police. 6 are controversial and posted here and I questions the actions of the police in those six, to you that means I also do not justify the other 494.
Quote:
Every time someone refutes what you say, you want to move the goalpost and claim that you didn't mean what you have very plainly been saying.
Try not being so obtuse for a change and just spit it out.
I don't know how to tactfylly state this so......this is a statement based upon small thinking.....to explain.
Say we have 500 people shot by the police. 6 are controversial and posted here and I questions the actions of the police in those six, to you that means I also do not justify the other 494.
No one has refuted anything I've said
Because you repeatedly avoid justifying the other 494 even when given the opportunity to do so.
You spend all your time on the 6 even when all the facts of those 6 are not known and you are merely speculating in favor of the suspect.
Because you repeatedly avoid justifying the other 494 even when given the opportunity to do so.
The other 494 are not listed here to justify. Is this how it works? If I condemn Senator A for lying I must commend the other 99 for not lying or I'm accusing them of lying also?
Quote:
You spend all your time on the 6 even when all the facts of those 6 are not known and you are merely speculating in favor of the suspect.
I said in my very first post that more facts were needed.
Officers often lack the training to approach the mentally unstable, experts say
More than half the killings involved police agencies that have not provided their officers with state-of-the-art training to deal with the mentally ill. And in many cases, officers responded with tactics that quickly made a volatile situation even more dangerous.
“This a national crisis,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, an independent research organization devoted to improving policing. “We have to get American police to rethink how they handle encounters with the mentally ill. Training has to change.”
More than training has to change.
In January, for instance, Jonathan Guillory, a white 32-year-old father of two who had worked as a military contractor in Afghanistan, was having what his widow called a mental health emergency. He sought help at a Veterans Affairs hospital in Arizona, his wife, Maria Garcia, told local reporters, but the busy hospital turned him away. Jean Schaefer, a spokeswoman for the Veterans Health Administration in Phoenix, said the hospital had no record of Guillory’s visit. [/i]
That isn't exactly what I said so I feel no desire to respond to it.
That is the gist of what you said, feel free to respond or not. It's your prerogative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
They have been posted here many times. From demanding I.D. where one does not require one to telling people they can not do something they have every right to do.
We are going to have to insist on better police training.
Sorry, I wasn't precise. Demanding to see I.D. in many cases is not a request that one has to lawfully comply to.
“The citizen who has given no good cause for believing he is engaged in [criminal] activity is entitled to proceed on his way without interference” (Page 338 U. S. 177)
Brinegar v. United States – 338 U.S. 160
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.