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.
Why was the baby sleeping by the guarded front door while the rest of the family was sleeping in a back room?
Was the yard full of toys? I read there was an old crib that was being thrown out on the porch or yard. Perhaps the cops were looking at the two Mercedes SUVs sitting in the driveway and didn't notice stickers on the back of a van.
Wasn't the family aware of the brothers drug activity and weapons charge before the moved in with them?
It is possible that the room is the best place for a crib. They were a family of 5 (or six) crashing with another family member. That is a lot of people for one house.
They said that the family became aware of his activities and that even though he didn't actually live there his presence was a big reason for their upcoming move.
What do you mean they hire just about anyone? They don't pick from their top or even average candidates? There may be more lower scoring candidates in minority pools BUT they still have top scoring people and one would think that you'd pick from them unless of course you do like they did during that time period in Miami where they set the requirement too high and the pool of candidates wasn't good enough. That is bad policy implementation and not the best reflection of how to better use AA.
Wow, no personal offense, but you don't know much about the ills of AA, do you?
First of all, they lower standards to allow less intelligent and less physically able people to get hired. Remember that even though these jobs involve public safety and direct contact with citizens, it is not rocket science. The idea that standards are too high so they need to be lowered is laughable. That is unless you believe firefighters and cops do not need to have certain physical strengths to do the job such as chopping down doors with axes to reach unconscious children, carrying out heavy people down stairs in a fire, taking down large unarmed physically combative criminals, etc.
I've seen blacks hired that could not swim, yet whites who can swim get eliminated. Hispanics with past criminal records are hired, yet squeaky clean honest applicants get rejected. Women who's hands are not large enough to properly hold the weapon and cannot even pass basic marksmanship get hired. The list goes on and on with absurd examples, and that is only the extreme cases. There is a whole stream of average to below average people getting jobs based on nothing more than the color of their skin or their gender.
This also goes for detective work being smart/sharp enough to figure out crimes, rather than having the IQ of a sack of potato's.
So when candidates that pass the exams are scoring in the high 90's but get rejected, and the AA hires are scoring in the low 70's and getting hired, you can expect trouble. The same goes with promotions to where you have idiots in charge making policy decisions that have a demoralizing effect on the entire squad/department. Heck look no further than the recent example of the Secret Service.
Ultimately AA/quotas [and the other terms they try to disguise it with such as "diversity goals"] are doomed to failure and are discriminatory.
If individual cases of discrimination are occurring then address those on an individual basis, not make an entire policy of people subjected to favorable and unfavorable discrimination on the basis of their race or gender.
this is a post of insanity. you cant legislate away everyone's freedoms because you are trying to prevent every single bad thing in this world. i also hope you favor making alcohol illegal since you seem to want to minimize fatal accidents, right? you have absolutely no clue how many additional crimes would be committed if drugs were legal. how many households are torn apart because a father is in prison for drug possession or selling? how many murders & robberies are happening because drugs are illegal and the people dealing with them operate outside the law? how much money is spent on police, prisons, judicial expense, etc. that could be used on something productive other than imprisoning non-violent criminals?
im not entirely sure with what you are saying at the end there. if you are trying to mock the concept of personal responsibility, then that is your opinion. i think people should be held responsible for their actions.
My point is there are tons of people wanting to crucify these police officers, calling them baby killers, etc. Not accepting it as people make mistakes at the same time excusing the "mistakes" caused by drugs, drug dealers and drug addicts. There are more causalities caused by the drug trade that is not related to police activity than the occasional incident like the OP.
I'm not suggesting legislating away peoples freedoms. And Im not trying to minimize fatal accidents. Im pointing out the casualties caused by drugs which many people seem to brush under the rug to demonize the incident.
A compelling argument from Stanford Daily. Give it a glance or a read. The approach outlined would be revolutionary. It is probably what needs to happen. I'm generally not for big / expanding government. But the issue of the existence of psychoactive substances and the human animal's innate need to experiment and alter consciousness bears a novel approach.
The gateway drug for me (and for many people) was spinning around until I became dizzy and the world appeared to be tiiiiiilting when I was five years old.
no i have seen middle class minority area called ghetto .plus some of the richest neighborhoods in america are in the inner cities.so it is not a fact i can go to baltimore indy kc portland and find middle class black areas in the cites that are not crime ridden.plus that "contain crime" phrase is why we have all this profling mess now because folks trying to contain others to certain areas and that is stl in a nutshell
People can rent or buy wherever they can afford it. There are plenty of middle class black folks living in the suburbs, there were no fences to keep them out. This isn't 1965. Where are these low crime areas you speak of in Kansas City?
2mares, No one is excusing the mistakes of the criminals, but law enforcement still have a responsibility linked to their actions. You seem to not grasp this concept.
My point is there are tons of people wanting to crucify these police officers, calling them baby killers, etc. Not accepting it as people make mistakes at the same time excusing the "mistakes" caused by drugs, drug dealers and drug addicts. There are more causalities caused by the drug trade that is not related to police activity than the occasional incident like the OP.
I'm not suggesting legislating away peoples freedoms. And Im not trying to minimize fatal accidents. Im pointing out the casualties caused by drugs which many people seem to brush under the rug to demonize the incident.
i dont blame the cops individually. they are just the ones pulling the triggers and blowing up people. they are following bad laws and bad policy.
government doesnt have the right to ban people from using drugs. thats a personal choice. could it have bad outcomes for the person, their loved ones and others. sure. but thats part of being human & the government's role isnt to punish a pre-crime, its to punish actual crimes. otherwise they are just legislating our freedoms away.
i believe the policies allow them to throw the stun grenade into the baby's crib at their own discretion.
i do not believe they were aware that they were throwing the grenade into the baby's crib.
Those that were apart of the planning and controlling the scene decided the course of action. It was their call how to handle the situation there, as it was their call to not take the guy away from the house. Those in charge should be held accountable. I believe they did know there were children in the house, from the informant. At the very least they could have suspected as much as they had scoped out the place.
This thread isn't about whether drugs should or should not be legal, that belongs in the debate or political forums.
[quote=Vector1;36891559]Wow, no personal offense, but you don't know much about the ills of AA, do you?
quote]
No offense taken as I do know some about the ills. That is what this was about "unless of course you do like they did during that time period in Miami where they set the requirement too high and the pool of candidates wasn't good enough. That is bad policy implementation and not the best reflection of how to better use AA." Some places didn't set their quotas as high so they didn't need to go mass hiring a lot of underqualified people. The percentage increases in some places were single digits and the police forces weren't always large enough for that to have a big impact.
Quota systems that fill spaces with bodies just to say they did it are not good and not what was mandated. Making groups take a look at hring practices and bias in testing or making sure that top qualified candidates don't get overlooked due to bias are some of the things that were. Poor execution of AA is not the same as AA in and of itself being a bad thing.
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.
