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.
People are free to express their opinions regardless of whether or not you or anyone else agree with them. That's why this is a blog. Also, if you haven't noticed..it happens in the real world too..you know the one outside of your computer? Yeah..people say what they think and feel. Interesting concept isn't it?
You need to figure out how to have a discussion without trashing people. In this case, it's the NYPD. There are people on this forum who find your calling the NYPD "pigs" and other offensive comments to be over the top. This is more than an issue of freedom to express opinions ... it's an issue of civility.
Yes, I am aware of the limits of free speech. Inciting imminent lawlessness (yelling fire in a crowded theater), pornography, or making false defamatory statements are exceptions. But it's not as broad as you suggest. Calling people "names or bad words in public" is only actionable if defamatory. It's got to be a false statement of fact. Accusing someone of theft who did not commit theft is a false statement of fact. Saying someone is a jerk is a statement of opinion, and is not actionable. Saying cops are "pigs" is a statement of opinion and is not directed at a particular individual - clearly not actionable as defamation. It's protected free speech, even though rude, and foolish.
"Classical Guy, you make many assumptions and state beliefs of mine that I have not expressed."
I quoted you and responded to your quoted statements. I also in separate paragraphs made other points about things other people said. I didn't attribute anything to you that you did not say.
By the way, I never denied that police officers have done bad things in the past, nor have I ever excused the bad things. In any large organization, especially one where people are given the kind of power under color of law that police officers are given, you will have problems. I don't deny, excuse, or attempt to justify the problems. Those officers who violate the public trust deserve to be punished. However, the entire department and law enforcement in general do not deserve to be punished by YOUR prejudices inferred by past wrongdoing of individual officers. You are doing to the police the very same thing that you decry in police officers - developing prejudices against the group based on the bad acts of individuals. Recognizing that the police have a difficult and dangerous and important job, and thus giving them the benefit of the doubt, and treating them respect is the duty of a rational citizen. When they violate the public trust, they should be punished. There is nothing inconsistent in that, and I'm sure all police officers would agree with it.
Your post is rationalizing AND attempting to flip the script.
You even say: "I'm sure ALL police officers would agree with it."
You've never heard of that wall of silence, huh?
What about the ones who are out there doing more crime than those they should be apprehending?
Would they agree?
Your posts tend to be full of contradictions and excuses.
Earlier your post read that their "misconduct" (what a nice word) isn't a fact.
Here's my take -
There ARE no excuses, no rhymes or reasons.
Anyone who signs up to protect and serve needs to do it with honor or not do it at all.
My POV is based on facts, not nearly enough of which are publicized.
I'm not attempting to change your opinion of NYPD.
It's a gig. And apparently a dishonorable one at that, thanks to the pervasive uh..."misconduct:.
There are far too many criminals, gangsters and thugs on the NYPD with a license to ill and a license to kill.
And, of course, they give the NYPD a bad name and make it difficult for those who are committed to doing their jobs.
What's dude's name who's been in so much trouble over the past few years? Guilliani's boy? I can't remember his name, but (just one example) NYPD seems to be corrupt from the top down.
Who can reasonably deny that NYPD has major problems and needs a serious cleaning up?
You need to figure out how to have a discussion without trashing people. In this case, it's the NYPD. There are people on this forum who find your calling the NYPD "pigs" and other offensive comments to be over the top. This is more than an issue of freedom to express opinions ... it's an issue of civility. I'll assume that you'll actually understand this when you grow up and get some experience in the real world. Sorry, but your 22 years of life experience doesn't cut it in this discussion.
Some people learn more in 22 years of life than others do in 30, 40, 50 or more.
Hell, we can learn from five year olds.
In my opionion, it's not wise to dismiss another human being's experience or opinion based on he or she being of a younger age or based on not having had the same experience or anything else.
Also, while I personally don't refer to police officers as "pigs", I understand why they've taken on that "persona" or is it "animalsona"?
It's because of the many who perceive others and who treat others like animals.
I've heard police officers call law-abiding citizens much worse.
I also understand why some folks in here have positive opinions of NYPD and others have negative opinions.
Not having the same experience or opinion does not mean one invalidates the other.
Only ignorance attempts that.
Last edited by Viralmd; 07-22-2008 at 03:20 PM..
Reason: Calling out mod
This morning girlfriend called 911 to report her boyfriend who she said is armed and threatening her. Patrol cops responded, searched the area and found the man. After short chase man was shot WHEN HE STOPPED AND REACHED TO HIS WAISTBAND. Weapon was never recovered. Means guy was unarmed.
He did not wave the gun, he never pulled the gun, he never pointed the gun towards the police officer. He reached to his waistband.
Call it whatever you want. I'll call it trigger happy.
This morning girlfriend called 911 to report her boyfriend who she said is armed and threatening her. Patrol cops responded, searched the area and found the man. After short chase man was shot WHEN HE STOPPED AND REACHED TO HIS WAISTBAND. Weapon was never recovered. Means guy was unarmed.
He did not wave the gun, he never pulled the gun, he never pointed the gun towards the police officer. He reached to his waistband.
Call it whatever you want. I'll call it trigger happy.
Um.. no, if you were an officer, you'd shoot someone who was reaching for something as well, because you clearly SHOULDN'T be moving at all, when officers are approaching you. Especially to an area where a weapon could be concealed.
Hmm..so you have a call in from a terrified girl about a guy who is threatening her AND armed...a chase ensues, the man stops, reaches into his waist band (the motion someone would do if they had a gun and were about to shoot) and the cops react by firing. And you tell me this is trigger happy?
I call it justified based on the circumstances, and I would expect any other reasonable person, based on the information and circumstances, to do the exact same thing.
This morning girlfriend called 911 to report her boyfriend who she said is armed and threatening her. Patrol cops responded, searched the area and found the man. After short chase man was shot WHEN HE STOPPED AND REACHED TO HIS WAISTBAND. Weapon was never recovered. Means guy was unarmed.
He did not wave the gun, he never pulled the gun, he never pointed the gun towards the police officer. He reached to his waistband.
Call it whatever you want. I'll call it trigger happy.
It's called split-second decision making. It doesn't always turn out the way you want it to and sometimes there are tragic consequences, but it is considered a justifiable shooting. If the cops believe that the suspect is armed (and, apparently, according to your description of the event, his girlfriend provided that information) and he makes what they interpret as a threatening gesture (ie, reaching into the waistband as if attempting to draw a weapon), the cops are legally justified in firing on the suspect.
You may not agree with it, but the law gives the benefit of the doubt to the cop. Without that benefit, there'd be chaos in the streets. And before we get started on the "how come they couldn't just shoot him in the arm or the leg?" understand that cops are taught to shoot at the largest mass available to them -- the torso. Under street conditions, it's difficult to even accomplish that.
Problem is that if the cop hesitates and the guy really is armed, the cop is dead. And every cop's goal every day he works is to go home alive, in one piece. Period.
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.
