2 nyc cops executed...

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Colt45 Said:

The problem I think most on here have with you is your lukewarm “support” for cops. Your logic implies that “not all cops are bad, and we do need cops, but lets get rid of the bad ones”.  
You minimize the dedication, courage, and professionalism that cops display, day in and day out. You are coming across, at least to me, that good cops are the exception rather than the rule.
You are painting a “bad” image of cops, and most everyone on this site takes exception to the image you are painting.
There are “bad” people in every occupation. There are bad doctors, bad pilots, bad garbage men, …………
It should be obvious that all cops put their lives on the line to protect us. For that they deserve the public’s support, and your support too quin. When you come across as a cop hater, you will be blasted on this site, as you have hopefully learned.
Say something about the “good” cops for a change so everyone can start their healing process………

Okay, what do I need to do to show my support for good officers? Call for promotions? Already did that earlier this thread. Disavow the shooter? Already did that too. Place irresponsible blame on protestors because of the action of a single deranged individual? That isn't supporting the police.

Where have I said all cops are bad? I've said repeatedly I don't think Wilson should have been charged, don't think any should be killed, and that the ones that are positive should be highly commended. Is it because I attack the ones like the cop that assaulted Garner? Or the one that took down the student in Fargo? Perhaps the fault isn't with me painting them all "bad", but with you guys painting them all "good" and taking issue when I label single ones bad.

Yes, there are bad people in all professions. They get fired, sued, thrown in jail for their maladies.

I have said good things about good cops. You guys are so caught up in your own biases against me, apparently you don't see them.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

snow Said:
Hey Jack~

Good thought but this idiot just likes to blab blab blab...He carries on his own convo from top to bottom...

Have a great holiday as well.

Ah yes, calling someone an idiot because you don't agree. I guess you wear the asshole crown proudly, huh?

Horsager's picture
Horsager
Offline
Joined: 8/12/03

 

Quincy05 Said:

snow Said:
Hey Jack~

Good thought but this idiot just likes to blab blab blab...He carries on his own convo from top to bottom...

Have a great holiday as well.

Ah yes, calling someone an idiot because you don't agree. I guess you wear the asshole crown proudly, huh?

Well, in post #158 of this thread which is near the bottom of pg. 8, you called the Grand Jury cases BS because you didn't agree with their outcomes.  It's not like you were in the courtroom and know what information was presented, or how it was presented.  There aren't any video or written transcripts of the case out and available to the public yet.

Just so we're clear here.  You're saying that if you don't agree with something it's fair for you to label it as BS.   But, if someone doesn't agree with you they're an A-hole?  That doesn't seem like a very enlightened position to me.

This moment is a paradox, it's the oldest you've ever been as well as the youngest you'll ever be.



gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Quincy05 Said:

gst Said:
Quincy once again I don;t beleive anyone here thinks cops are infallible nor should they be given a pass.

But it is an occupation that is unlike any other despite your efforts to compare it to working in the oil field and most people understand that and as such tend to give cops the benefit of the doubt.

I have had run ins with over zealous law enforcement in the past, but I have also had the priviledge of knowing people who do in fact put on a badge each day to "protect and serve" not knowing what they will face that day.

It is not a job I would want to do so I tend to appreciate those that do and allow them the benefit of the doubt till facts are known.

Remember as you sit with your family this Christmas, there are police officers that are once again putting their life on the line not soley for their pay check, but to truly protect you and yours.

It's the talk such as this that puts them on a pedastal and makes them infalliable. Cops aren't protecting my by throwing a kid down in a Fargo school. Cops aren't protecting me for arresting a teenager with marijuana. Cops weren't protecting me when they told the lady to delete her pictures after their raid.

You can give cops the benefit of the doubt, just don't make that benefit so large that there is only doubt left. Seems like more and more often people try to find something, anything wrong with the person that dies in order to exonerate the officers that kill. Garner sold untaxed cigarettes, so the officer isn't to blame. Kelly Thomas resisted arrest, so the officers that severely beat him aren't at fault. What about Tamir Rice?  Oh, well his parents had a criminal past and he shouldn't have had a BB gun. Disregarding the non-illegaltiy of it all. John Crawford? Oh, well he shouldn't have been holding a BB gun in Wal Mart that looked like a gun. Ignoring the fact that officers engaged him immediately and the sole reliance on a phony 911 call.

There are too many officers now that have a "use force now, ask forgiveness later" attitude in order to be "safe". Why aren't civilians allowed to be safe when they encounter the police?

Myself, I will give them the same benefit I'll give everyone else from now on.

Bullshit, it is called respect.

All you have done in this thread quincy is "speculate".

On what happened, on what people think.................................

You are "speculating" on whether the cops actions in Fargo may indeed cause a kid to stop and think about what happened have a wake up call and maybe someday NOT make a choice to rape someones daughter or rob someones store.
Protecting you directly, maybe not, but try not to "speculate" on what may be the ultimate end result of the officers actions.

Have a Merry Christmas quincy and take a step back and give it some thought.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Horsager Said:
Well, in post #158 of this thread which is near the bottom of pg. 8, you called the Grand Jury cases BS because you didn't agree with their outcomes.  It's not like you were in the courtroom and know what information was presented, or how it was presented.  There aren't any video or written transcripts of the case out and available to the public yet.

Just so we're clear here.  You're saying that if you don't agree with something it's fair for you to label it as BS.   But, if someone doesn't agree with you they're an A-hole?  That doesn't seem like a very enlightened position to me.

They were BS and I laid out my reasonings as to why I thought that. I still think Wilson was probably justified, but the matter should have gone to court. The prosecutor didn't need to do the job of the defense like he did. How often do you hear the defendant testifying at the grand jury? Less than 10% maybe?

Nothing available to the public? The video of the altercation is available to the public. As are the initial testimonies of the officers. It's not like the public is completely blind in this case.

If the process isn't the same as it is with civilians, then something isn't quite fair, eh? And if someone calls me an idiot for disagreeing, odds are they are an asshole. He doesn't need to agree with me, he just should not be an asshole about it. Capiche?

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
No, I haven't put on a badge, but I have interacted with police.

I had already guessed you had interacted with police.  It's very evident you hate police, so I am guessing your interaction was as a perp.  People don't carry on about hating police unless they have had a bad experience.  There is always a reason people don't like police.  Nine times out of ten it's because they are on the other side of the law.

I'm amazed you think you know more than the grand juries in these cases.   I don't think anyone is as impressed with you as you are with yourself.  I hope your bs cop hating doesn't influence some nut job into thinking another pig with wings is a good idea.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Plainsman Said:
I had already guessed you had interacted with police.  It's very evident you hate police, so I am guessing your interaction was as a perp.  People don't carry on about hating police unless they have had a bad experience.  There is always a reason people don't like police.  Nine times out of ten it's because they are on the other side of the law.

I'm amazed you think you know more than the grand juries in these cases.   I don't think anyone is as impressed with you as you are with yourself.  I hope your bs cop hating doesn't influence some nut job into thinking another pig with wings is a good idea.

How about you ask questions instead of constantly using your bias to frame who I am. I've had interactions as a "perp" and as a civilian, probably like 95% of everyone else on here.

People don't need to have a bad experience to want reform. People just need to open their eyes to the abuses that happen and the protections in place that don't allow reform. If you think that equates to "hate", that's your issue, not mine. I "hate" the police because of bad cops about as much as I hate hospitals because of bad doctors... not much.

I hope you BS cop loving doesn't influence some nut job to abuse the rights of some innocent civilian.

As for impressions, I really don't care. You guys illustrate frequently the type of impression you have when someone disagrees with you. I'm glad I don't have that type of impression.

Side note: do you hate farmers? Do you think someone would use your influence for your hatred of farmers to do damage against them? Or do you acknowledge the shortfalls in agrculture politics and wish to reform it?

Horsager's picture
Horsager
Offline
Joined: 8/12/03

 

Quincy05 Said:

Horsager Said:
Well, in post #158 of this thread which is near the bottom of pg. 8, you called the Grand Jury cases BS because you didn't agree with their outcomes.  It's not like you were in the courtroom and know what information was presented, or how it was presented.  There aren't any video or written transcripts of the case out and available to the public yet.

Just so we're clear here.  You're saying that if you don't agree with something it's fair for you to label it as BS.   But, if someone doesn't agree with you they're an A-hole?  That doesn't seem like a very enlightened position to me.

They were BS and I laid out my reasonings as to why I thought that.

Therein lies the rub.  You don't know.  You weren't there.  You don't have any relevant information regarding video or transcripts of the proceedings.  You're disagreeing based on emotion, not facts.

Decisions rooted in emotion and not facts all too often leave their owner in an untenable position.  Isolated in their belief that their opinions/thoughts/beliefs are the sum-total of what can be true.  It would not surprise me to learn that you spend an inordinate amount of time wondering why that independent of the group you find yourself surrounded by, everyone else is always so wrong.

This moment is a paradox, it's the oldest you've ever been as well as the youngest you'll ever be.



Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Wanting to get rid of bad politicians doesn't mean you hate legislatures. Wanting to be rid of bad doctors doesn't mean you hate medical services. Wanting to get rid of a broken swing doesn't mean you hate parks. Getting rid of bad cops doesn't mean I hate police.

Now that that is out of the way, you guys don't need to say it so much.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Horsager Said:
Therein lies the rub.  You don't know.  You weren't there.  You don't have any relevant information regarding video or transcripts of the proceedings.  You're disagreeing based on emotion, not facts.

Decisions rooted in emotion and not facts all too often leave their owner in an untenable position.  Isolated in their belief that their opinions/thoughts/beliefs are the sum-total of what can be true.  It would not surprise me to learn that you spend an inordinate amount of time wondering why that independent of the group you find yourself surrounded by, everyone else is always so wrong.

Herein lies the rub, the arguments I laid forth don't preclude the necessity of me being there. I made no specific argument for each case that would result in the requirement of me being on the jury. I think the entire grand jury system is rigged in favor of police. Hence, the actions of the prosecutors and the results of the grand juries were incorrect.

Decisions rooted in emotion are what entails folks like you to say that cops aren't safe. They allow folks like you to lay blame on protestors and reformers like myself. They allow folks like you to use buzz words like "cop hater" in order to diminish the argument in favor of reform. Do you think those are all objective based narratives? Hell no. I have already shown, that OBJECTIVELY, police officers are indicted at such a different rate that there is no way one of those systems is fair to the defendent and the accused.

Have you ever thought about the group you surround yourself with, and perhaps they aren't "everyone else" as you may think?

 
Seems according to this poll from 2002, the majorities favored reforms:
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=466&issue_id=122004

Perhaps you should expand your group to figure out why other demographics disagree with you:
http://reason.com/poll/2014/10/24/who-really-likes-the-police-older-richer

Horsager's picture
Horsager
Offline
Joined: 8/12/03

 

Quincy05 Said:

Wanting to get rid of bad politicians doesn't mean you hate legislatures. Wanting to be rid of bad doctors doesn't mean you hate medical services. Wanting to get rid of a broken swing doesn't mean you hate parks. Getting rid of bad cops doesn't mean I hate police.

Now that that is out of the way, you guys don't need to say it so much.

"Wanting" is emotion, not factual and not necessity.  

It is very thoughtful of you to codify your emotions for the rest of the readership here though.

This moment is a paradox, it's the oldest you've ever been as well as the youngest you'll ever be.



Colt45's picture
Colt45
Offline
Joined: 8/24/12

Quincy05 Said:

Colt45 Said:

The problem I think most on here have with you is your lukewarm “support” for cops. Your logic implies that “not all cops are bad, and we do need cops, but lets get rid of the bad ones”.  
You minimize the dedication, courage, and professionalism that cops display, day in and day out. You are coming across, at least to me, that good cops are the exception rather than the rule.
You are painting a “bad” image of cops, and most everyone on this site takes exception to the image you are painting.
There are “bad” people in every occupation. There are bad doctors, bad pilots, bad garbage men, …………
It should be obvious that all cops put their lives on the line to protect us. For that they deserve the public’s support, and your support too quin. When you come across as a cop hater, you will be blasted on this site, as you have hopefully learned.
Say something about the “good” cops for a change so everyone can start their healing process………

Okay, what do I need to do to show my support for good officers? Call for promotions? Already did that earlier this thread. Disavow the shooter? Already did that too. Place irresponsible blame on protestors because of the action of a single deranged individual? That isn't supporting the police.

Where have I said all cops are bad? I've said repeatedly I don't think Wilson should have been charged, don't think any should be killed, and that the ones that are positive should be highly commended. Is it because I attack the ones like the cop that assaulted Garner? Or the one that took down the student in Fargo? Perhaps the fault isn't with me painting them all "bad", but with you guys painting them all "good" and taking issue when I label single ones bad.

Yes, there are bad people in all professions. They get fired, sued, thrown in jail for their maladies.

I have said good things about good cops. You guys are so caught up in your own biases against me, apparently you don't see them.

You can spin what you have said on this and previous threads all you want. Even if you arent a cop hater, most on this site think you are. Its an impression they have formed based on YOUR comments. If you arent a cop hater, then I guess you havent communicated that very effectively, cause I bet if I was to take a FBO poll, you would overwhelmingly be labeled as a cop hater. Everyone cant be wrong. So either wise up and change your tone, or keep piling it on. Nobody is taking your side, as far as I can tell.

So, just lighten up a little, we all get you want "reform" and that there are "bad" cops out there. There are bad doctors too that screw up operations and unintentionally kill people. Why arent we rallying for "doctor" reforms? Nobody wants a rogue cop on the loose, nobody wants a drunk driver on  the road, nobody wants a drunk  pilot to fly a plane, etc...... but guess what! It  happens!
Its just a fact of life, cops screw up. But at the end of the day, we need to be thankful there are people willing to serve and protect, and they deserve respect.I think everyoje would agree cops do way more good than bad.  They dont deserve to be vilified and hated and disrespected.  So just show the cops a little respect, thats all we want.  And keep the cop judging in the courts where it belongs.
Chill out!

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Horsager Said:
 "Wanting" is emotion, not factual and not necessity.  

It is very thoughtful of you to codify your emotions for the rest of the readership here though.

Hahaha, this is really the route you are going? One can't want reform because "want" is emotion? This is disregarding that "want" is actually agnostic in terms of subjective and objective (nice try).

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
Wanting to get rid of bad politicians doesn't mean you hate legislatures.

I agree

Wanting to be rid of bad doctors doesn't mean you hate medical services.
 

I agree

Side note: do you hate farmers? Do you think someone would use your influence for your hatred of farmers to do damage against them? Or do you acknowledge the shortfalls in agrculture politics and wish to reform it?

The later, but you may get someone on your side with the distraction. 

   Wanting to get rid of a broken swing doesn't mean you hate parks.

Yada yada yada we get the point.

Getting rid of bad cops doesn't mean I hate police.

I agree, you just have no idea if the cops were talking about are good or bad.  The grand jury knew, but you decide their bad with no evidence.  Put the keyboard down and make some more license plates.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Colt45 Said:
You can spin what you have said on this and previous threads all you want. Even if you arent a cop hater, most on this site think you are. Its an impression they have formed based on YOUR comments. If you arent a cop hater, then I guess you havent communicated that very effectively, cause I bet if I was to take a FBO poll, you would overwhelmingly be labeled as a cop hater. Everyone cant be wrong. So either wise up and change your tone, or keep piling it on. Nobody is taking your side, as far as I can tell.

So, just lighten up a little, we all get you want "reform" and that there are "bad" cops out there. There are bad doctors too that screw up operations and unintentionally kill people. Why arent we rallying for "doctor" reforms? Nobody wants a rogue cop on the loose, nobody wants a drunk driver on  the road, nobody wants a drunk  pilot to fly a plane, etc...... but guess what! It  happens!
Its just a fact of life, cops screw up. But at the end of the day, we need to be thankful there are people willing to serve and protect, and they deserve respect.I think everyoje would agree cops do way more good than bad.  They dont deserve to be vilified and hated and disrespected.  So just show the cops a little respect, thats all we want.  And keep the cop judging in the courts where it belongs.
Chill out!

I'm not spinning anything. I've said the same stuff the entire time. I don't care what most on this site think. Clearly the "jump to conclusions" mat runs rampant around here. Just because the rampant "cop lover" bias runs so vast here, doesn't mean the poll would be correct. You guys are so hell bent on personally attacking me that you completely disregard what I actually say, throw out excuses as why to ignore me (I don't say enough positive things), or flat out insult. Forgive me if I take your accusations as to what I am with a grain of salt. If you think no one has taken my side, you haven't read the thread enough. ;)

Why aren't we rallying around doctor reforms? When was the last time you heard of a doctor that had a malpractice suit against them either keep their job or not be disbarred? There are failsafes instituted against doctors that police and their unions have ensured don't exist. Look into the number of cases in which an officer gets reprimanded and fired and then gets another job in a new city. How many doctors does that happen to?

Yes, "it happens", but it seems to be happening much more with officers currently and there is much more of a defense of those officers by the unions and some in the public. http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/30/lawsuit-capitol-police-officers-keep-jobs-after-duis-anthrax-hoax/

Yes, a fact of life indicates that people in general may "screw up". But most times if those screw ups happen to end in a loss of life, people don't keep their jobs and get paid admin leave. As I told someone else. Yes, people screwing up is a problem, cops screwing up is a problem, but the latter is a state sponsored problem, and that is what we should worry about the most.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Plainsman Said:
I agree, you just have no idea if the cops were talking about are good or bad.  The grand jury knew, but you decide their bad with no evidence.  Put the keyboard down and make some more license plates.

So the cop that was involved with Garner, good or bad? Was he bad when he assaulted the two black guys last year, but he's good now after accosting Garner? Where is the line?

The grand jury isn't told of their history. They are limited to the facts of the case. That doesn't indicate if a cop is generally bad or good.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Plainsman Said
Put the keyboard down and make some more license plates.

So I'm a criminal now? Good lord guys...

Horsager's picture
Horsager
Offline
Joined: 8/12/03

 

Quincy05 Said:

Horsager Said:
Therein lies the rub.  You don't know.  You weren't there.  You don't have any relevant information regarding video or transcripts of the proceedings.  You're disagreeing based on emotion, not facts.

Decisions rooted in emotion and not facts all too often leave their owner in an untenable position.  Isolated in their belief that their opinions/thoughts/beliefs are the sum-total of what can be true.  It would not surprise me to learn that you spend an inordinate amount of time wondering why that independent of the group you find yourself surrounded by, everyone else is always so wrong.

Decisions rooted in emotion are what entails folks like you to say that cops aren't safe. 

I didn't say that.


Quincy05 Said:
Decisions rooted in emotion allow folks like you to lay blame on protestors and reformers like myself. 

I didn't do that.


Quincy05 Said:

Decisions rooted in emotion allow folks like you to use buzz words like "cop hater" in order to diminish the argument in favor of reform.

I didn't do that either.

Jeepers, it seems like you're trying to blame me for things I haven't said lump me into a group in which I don't belong.  You're emotions must be getting the better of you because you're sure not allowing facts to get in the way.

This moment is a paradox, it's the oldest you've ever been as well as the youngest you'll ever be.



Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Colt45 Said:
So just show the cops a little respect, thats all we want. And keep the cop judging in the courts where it belongs.

Why don't you show the protestors respect? Cops don't need my respect. I don't work for them. On the contrary, they work for the people, I am included in this, so they should be treating the people with respect. Not assuming everyone is out to get them.

Why should cop judging be limited to courts? Do you think all department policies are backed by law? Um, they aren't.

Jiffy.'s picture
Jiffy.
Offline
Joined: 7/26/12

 I can tell Christmas vacation is on for the kiddies.....

 

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Horsager Said:
  I didn't say that.

So you agree with me that cops are safe?

I didn't do that.

Good, apologies.

I didn't do that either.

Fair enough, apologies again.

So what exactly are you upset about then? That I don't agree with police defendant grand juries? Why aren't you calling anyone else out for "emotional" arguments if you aren't lumped together with them? I mean, is that "enlightened" to single out a specific poster for a pedantic line of questioning?

Foamit's picture
Foamit
Offline
Joined: 12/7/13

 just had to check in... good lord quincy... are you a typing teacher or a court reporter??? 

Horsager's picture
Horsager
Offline
Joined: 8/12/03

 

Quincy05 Said:

Horsager Said:
  I didn't say that.

So you agree with me that cops are safe?

I didn't do that.

Good, apologies.

I didn't do that either.

Fair enough, apologies again.

So what exactly are you upset about then? 

I'm not upset about anything, merely pointing out a little bit of hypocrisy that began here:

Quincy05 Said:


snow Said:
Hey Jack~

Good thought but this idiot just likes to blab blab blab...He carries on his own convo from top to bottom...

Have a great holiday as well.

Ah yes, calling someone an idiot because you don't agree. I guess you wear the asshole crown proudly, huh?


You rolled me right into the group of folks calling you names and opining about your intelligence.  And you did so not because I said anything that they'd said, not because I'd called you a name.  Not because I disagreed with any one of your positions, but, because over the span of a whopping 4 posts, I pointed out how your thinking is rooted in emotion and not facts.

This moment is a paradox, it's the oldest you've ever been as well as the youngest you'll ever be.



DirtyMike's picture
DirtyMike
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 10/26/11

Quincy05 Said:

Why don't you show the protestors respect? Cops don't need my respect. I don't work for them. On the contrary, they work for the people, I am included in this, so they should be treating the people with respect. Not assuming everyone is out to get them.

Why should cop judging be limited to courts? Do you think all department policies are backed by law? Um, they aren't.

because they're trying to burn down, loot, or otherwise destroy cities across the nation. 


Colt45's picture
Colt45
Offline
Joined: 8/24/12

Quincy05 Said:

Colt45 Said:
So just show the cops a little respect, thats all we want. And keep the cop judging in the courts where it belongs.

Why don't you show the protestors respect? Cops don't need my respect. I don't work for them. On the contrary, they work for the people, I am included in this, so they should be treating the people with respect. Not assuming everyone is out to get them.

Why should cop judging be limited to courts? Do you think all department policies are backed by law? Um, they aren't.

I do respect the prosecutors, thats why I said keep the cop judging in the courts where it belongs. Let the prosecutors try and convict the "bad" cops, if they have enough evidence to procede then by all means prosecute away and lock up the perps, regardless if they are a cop. Not sure why you think I am hating on prosecutors........

I get your argument, nobody wants a rogue or bad cop on the streets, but you take it way further than that. Yes, you should respect the cops,  your comments lead me to believe you dont but most will think you should. Its your choice, your free to disrespect anyone you want.
Do you feel the same way about our military folks? I bet there are "bad" soldiers out there killing innocent  unarmed people all over the world, maybe we should escalate this to reforming the military? Or are you all comfortable with the blanket of security and freedom they provide and dont want to rock that boat?

KurtR's picture
KurtR
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/16/07

so q5 the great reformer what are your plans for this master reform?

Quincy05 Said:

Horsager Said:
Therein lies the rub.  You don't know.  You weren't there.  You don't have any relevant information regarding video or transcripts of the proceedings.  You're disagreeing based on emotion, not facts.

Decisions rooted in emotion and not facts all too often leave their owner in an untenable position.  Isolated in their belief that their opinions/thoughts/beliefs are the sum-total of what can be true.  It would not surprise me to learn that you spend an inordinate amount of time wondering why that independent of the group you find yourself surrounded by, everyone else is always so wrong.

Herein lies the rub, the arguments I laid forth don't preclude the necessity of me being there. I made no specific argument for each case that would result in the requirement of me being on the jury. I think the entire grand jury system is rigged in favor of police. Hence, the actions of the prosecutors and the results of the grand juries were incorrect.

Decisions rooted in emotion are what entails folks like you to say that cops aren't safe. They allow folks like you to lay blame on protestors and reformers like myself. They allow folks like you to use buzz words like "cop hater" in order to diminish the argument in favor of reform. Do you think those are all objective based narratives? Hell no. I have already shown, that OBJECTIVELY, police officers are indicted at such a different rate that there is no way one of those systems is fair to the defendent and the accused.

Have you ever thought about the group you surround yourself with, and perhaps they aren't "everyone else" as you may think?

 
Seems according to this poll from 2002, the majorities favored reforms:
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=466&issue_id=122004

Perhaps you should expand your group to figure out why other demographics disagree with you:
http://reason.com/poll/2014/10/24/who-really-likes-the-police-older-richer

 Adn

KurtR's picture
KurtR
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/16/07

 Adn

KurtR's picture
KurtR
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/16/07

 

 Adn

feather_duster's picture
feather_duster
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 9/10/06


this is fun...

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

Quincy05 Said:

Plainsman Said:
I agree, you just have no idea if the cops were talking about are good or bad.  The grand jury knew, but you decide their bad with no evidence.  Put the keyboard down and make some more license plates.

So the cop that was involved with Garner, good or bad? Was he bad when he assaulted the two black guys last year, but he's good now after accosting Garner? Where is the line?

The grand jury isn't told of their history. They are limited to the facts of the case. That doesn't indicate if a cop is generally bad or good.

All we have is a video that actually shows very little of what is happening.  If you look at the policeman's right arm you will notice he isn't using it for leverage to choke, so the left arm is simply used to pull him down. 
The grand jury had evidence far beyond anyone on this site yet your sure he is guilty.  You are operating on the same hatred the Ferguson rioters operated on.  Guilt until proven innocent, and I mean the cop since you couldn't even get that straight last time I made that point.
The line?  The line was crossed by Garner when he refused to follow orders.  You brought up, what if the cop gives illegal orders.  Why bring that up, since the cop didn't give illegal orders?  Your operating like the little neighbor girl when her mother asked what she was crying about.  She said the cat was looking at her.  The mother says we don't have a cat.  The little girl says ya, but what if we did? 

The grand jury not having their history also happens often in criminal court.  If a man is accused of robbing a bank, but he was picked up for something totally unrelated the history will be often be suppressed.  After all it's the current incident were interested in, unless your bias and just want a shot at an innocent police officer. 

Quincy I really do wonder about your baseless hate for police.  Not one person your debating wouldn't agree with getting rid of bad police, but you keep beating the drum about choking Gardner.  The medical people say he wasn't choked.  Do you think that evidence should have been withheld from the grand jury.  Quincy it's clear that like the Ferguson hoodlums your not interested in guilt or innocence you just want to get the cop.

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

 

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Foamit Said:
 just had to check in... good lord quincy... are you a typing teacher or a court reporter??? 

Just a lot experience with computers.

Garfield's picture
Garfield
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/30/13

 

guywhofishes Said:

Indeed. 

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Horsager Said:
  I'm not upset about anything, merely pointing out a little bit of hypocrisy that began here:

Quincy05 Said:


snow Said:
Hey Jack~

Good thought but this idiot just likes to blab blab blab...He carries on his own convo from top to bottom...

Have a great holiday as well.

Ah yes, calling someone an idiot because you don't agree. I guess you wear the asshole crown proudly, huh?


You rolled me right into the group of folks calling you names and opining about your intelligence.  And you did so not because I said anything that they'd said, not because I'd called you a name.  Not because I disagreed with any one of your positions, but, because over the span of a whopping 4 posts, I pointed out how your thinking is rooted in emotion and not facts.

I didn't roll you into a group about my intelligence FYI, I rolled you into the group that assumed I'm a "cop hater" because of your weak attempt at framing my arguments. You are using a flawed assumption they are based on emotion. They aren't. "Want" isn't an emotional term. Disagreeing with the grand juries isn't based on specific evidence but rather the system of grand juries with officer defendants, hence, it's not emotional. So in a span of 4 posts, you threw out a red herring, tossed in some strawmen, and still had the audacity to attempt to ridicule (your whole 'enlightened' comment).

So, care to try again or should I destroy your crap some more?

Colt45's picture
Colt45
Offline
Joined: 8/24/12

Quincy05 Said:

Plainsman Said:
I agree, you just have no idea if the cops were talking about are good or bad.  The grand jury knew, but you decide their bad with no evidence.  Put the keyboard down and make some more license plates.

So the cop that was involved with Garner, good or bad? Was he bad when he assaulted the two black guys last year, but he's good now after accosting Garner? Where is the line?

The grand jury isn't told of their history. They are limited to the facts of the case. That doesn't indicate if a cop is generally bad or good.

I thought we were all color blind............... I didnt know the cop assulted "two black guys" last year, didnt think color mattered.
Are you implying the cop is racist?

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

DirtyMike Said:
because they're trying to burn down, loot, or otherwise destroy cities across the nation. 

And cops are trying to destroy the basic rights of civilians, while looking for an excuse to kill...

See why lumping everyone in with the bad ones doesn't work?

Garfield's picture
Garfield
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/30/13

 

Quincy05 Said:

gst Said:

Quincy I am from the little town of Antler ND and I repeatedly saw reports of protestors calling for dead cops when do we want them right now.

Do you really beleive it is not "speculation" to think this shooter did not see it as well?

Once again please show were I have ever said sharpton called for the killing of cops. You seem to want to continue to infer things that have never been said have been said.

Your inability to connect simple dots shows your lack of understanding of correlation or causation.

Hate to burst your bubble quincy, but if it is choosing between your thoughts  or those of Thomas Sowell on this issue..............................................................................

Yes, it is speculation. I didn't see anything about that until after the shooting. Perhaps you look at sources that would preclude that information being out there. Do you think the shooter looked at the same sources as you?

Feel free to choose Sowell. I disagree with him completely on this issue, and we'll see if Townhall has the gall to call him or themselves out on the hypocrisy.

As for Sharpton, you're correct. The jumbled sentence made me misread "protestors fanned by the flames of sharptons rhetoric calling for dead cops". You need commas in there if you want it read properly. You know "i love fucking college guys" or "I love fucking college, guys"

If you didn't see those disgusting protesters until after the shootings then you are even more  uninformed than any of us realized. Wait...you only watch MSNBC so it is no wonder you missed all these idiot protesters in NYC, MO and Oakland.

I doubt this would even enter you mind, but does that not make you wonder what else you have missed given your liberal 'news' outlets always are guilty of bias by omission? 

BTW, if you want your nonsense 'read properly' try a spelling and grammar course.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

KurtR Said:
so q5 the great reformer what are your plans for this master reform?

Start with repealing minimum sentancing laws, and minor infractions for drugs. That would be a great start legislation wise. After that, gut the police unions and the unwarranted protections available to bad cops. Unions should make exceptions that allow the cities to be rid of bad cops; and cities should make exceptions of throwing benefits at good cops. This, along with an expansion of civilian oversight, body cameras, car cameras, and more transparency when bad officers get fired should be a start.

A great suggestion I read was a national "bad cop" database. To sum, when a cop gets fired/reprimanded/whatever and leaves a department, it's listed. So when he is hired at a new department, there is no excuse for not knowing the history of an officer. If he was an asshole before and was fired, there is no plausible deniability as to why he is still an asshole.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

feather_duster Said:

this is fun...

Excellent palate cleanser!

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Plainsman Said:

All we have is a video that actually shows very little of what is happening.  If you look at the policeman's right arm you will notice he isn't using it for leverage to choke, so the left arm is simply used to pull him down. 
The grand jury had evidence far beyond anyone on this site yet your sure he is guilty.  You are operating on the same hatred the Ferguson rioters operated on.  Guilt until proven innocent, and I mean the cop since you couldn't even get that straight last time I made that point.
The line?  The line was crossed by Garner when he refused to follow orders.  You brought up, what if the cop gives illegal orders.  Why bring that up, since the cop didn't give illegal orders?  Your operating like the little neighbor girl when her mother asked what she was crying about.  She said the cat was looking at her.  The mother says we don't have a cat.  The little girl says ya, but what if we did? 

The grand jury not having their history also happens often in criminal court.  If a man is accused of robbing a bank, but he was picked up for something totally unrelated the history will be often be suppressed.  After all it's the current incident were interested in, unless your bias and just want a shot at an innocent police officer. 

If you look at his hands, you can see them grasp together, that is using leverage for the hold.  Add to that the hold was banned through department policy, he was sued last year over civil rights abuses; it leads me to believe that he shouldn't be allowed to continue being a NYPD officer. This is completely INDEPENDENT of the grand jury decision.

The cop did give illegal orders. He had no basis to arrest Garner. Selling untaxed cigarettes is a misdemeaner. Even if they had probable cause to confront Garner (have yet to see they did if the friend was correct), the subsequent use of force was still not warranted based on the crime at hand.

Your little girl analogy is flawed. Please tell me why the officers needed to arrest him that instance. Please tell me where there warrant was to search him. The officers had nothing and accosted him because he didn't lock step.

But, hey, let's ignore Garner. What crime did Gurley commit? Also, what crime was Garner convicted of before he was killed? Seems to me you're also assuming guilty until innocent, we're just looking at different players ;)

Quincy I really do wonder about your baseless hate for police.

And I wonder about your baseless hate for farmers.... good lord I thought we were over this crap...

KurtR's picture
KurtR
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/16/07

unions do suck i will give you that.  Cameras and all that also good as the he said she said bull shit wont fly.  i would take the minimum sentence deal as long as for 1st degree murders and rapist and any cruel shit done to kids types die post haste.  preferably with a .22 back of the head standing in a hole with a back hoe waiting to push dirt in.

Quincy05 Said:

KurtR Said:
so q5 the great reformer what are your plans for this master reform?

Start with repealing minimum sentancing laws, and minor infractions for drugs. That would be a great start legislation wise. After that, gut the police unions and the unwarranted protections available to bad cops. Unions should make exceptions that allow the cities to be rid of bad cops; and cities should make exceptions of throwing benefits at good cops. This, along with an expansion of civilian oversight, body cameras, car cameras, and more transparency when bad officers get fired should be a start.

A great suggestion I read was a national "bad cop" database. To sum, when a cop gets fired/reprimanded/whatever and leaves a department, it's listed. So when he is hired at a new department, there is no excuse for not knowing the history of an officer. If he was an asshole before and was fired, there is no plausible deniability as to why he is still an asshole.

 Adn

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Colt45 Said:
I thought we were all color blind............... I didnt know the cop assulted "two black guys" last year, didnt think color mattered.
Are you implying the cop is racist?

Color is a descriptor. Would you be upset if I said "he assaulted two males" and claim I was saying he was sexist? Cut the crap.

KurtR's picture
KurtR
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/16/07

 
as much as i dont like the spider he does show proper technique.

Classic Fight: Anderson Silva vs. Dan Henderson @ UFC 82 [FULL VIDEO]

 Adn

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Garfield Said:
If you didn't see those disgusting protesters until after the shootings then you are even more  uninformed than any of us realized. Wait...you only watch MSNBC so it is no wonder you missed all these idiot protesters in NYC, MO and Oakland.

I'm sorry, I just didn't check out stormfront the past week, must have missed your post...

I doubt this would even enter you mind, but does that not make you wonder what else you have missed given your liberal 'news' outlets always are guilty of bias by omission?

BTW, if you want your nonsense 'read properly' try a spelling and grammar course.


It hasn't entered my mind because I don't watch liberal news outlets.

My spelling and grammar are impeccable. And I was discussing gst's post when I said 'read properly'. Or were you also commenting on his poor punctuation? Thanks for your concern though!

Colt45's picture
Colt45
Offline
Joined: 8/24/12

Quincy05 Said:

KurtR Said:
so q5 the great reformer what are your plans for this master reform?

Start with repealing minimum sentancing laws, and minor infractions for drugs. That would be a great start legislation wise. After that, gut the police unions and the unwarranted protections available to bad cops. Unions should make exceptions that allow the cities to be rid of bad cops; and cities should make exceptions of throwing benefits at good cops. This, along with an expansion of civilian oversight, body cameras, car cameras, and more transparency when bad officers get fired should be a start.

A great suggestion I read was a national "bad cop" database. To sum, when a cop gets fired/reprimanded/whatever and leaves a department, it's listed. So when he is hired at a new department, there is no excuse for not knowing the history of an officer. If he was an asshole before and was fired, there is no plausible deniability as to why he is still an asshole.

Makes sense to me, I am all for gutting any union. If the uniion is protecting "bad" cops then that aint right.  I approve of Quins plan, I still dont understand why quin hates and disrepsects cops so much though.............

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

KurtR Said:
 
as much as i dont like the spider he does show proper technique.

Classic Fight: Anderson Silva vs. Dan Henderson @ UFC 82 [FULL VIDEO]

Forearm on throat, hands grasp together for leverage... yep...

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

KurtR Said:
unions do suck i will give you that.  Cameras and all that also good as the he said she said bull shit wont fly.  i would take the minimum sentence deal as long as for 1st degree murders and rapist and any cruel shit done to kids types die post haste.  preferably with a .22 back of the head standing in a hole with a back hoe waiting to push dirt in.

Before I would agree with you, but recently I'm of the opinion that I don't trust the government to decide this. I don't trust them with basic money management, why would I trust them with someone's life?

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Colt45 Said:
 I still dont understand why quin hates and disrepsects cops so much though.............

I don't. So now you understand.

Horsager's picture
Horsager
Offline
Joined: 8/12/03

 

Quincy05 Said:

 I rolled you into the group that assumed I'm a "cop hater" 

But you already apologized for trying to put me in that group, so why bring it up again?

See:


Quincy05 Said:

Decisions rooted in emotion allow folks like you to use buzz words like "cop hater" in order to diminish the argument in favor of reform.

I didn't do that either.

 

Quincy05 Said:
Fair enough, apologies again.

Statements which include "I want" or "I think" are wrought with emotion and not bounded in facts.  You can want in one hand and defecate in the other, one will fill, one will not.  One is fact, the other, emotion.

15 pages worth of espousing one's feelings to a group of folks who care so little about them so as to belittle them is a poor way in which it edify your narcissism.  It has however revealed your hypocrisy.  That part where you can disagree and call people A-hole, but they can't disagree and attach the idiot moniker to you.

This moment is a paradox, it's the oldest you've ever been as well as the youngest you'll ever be.



DirtyMike's picture
DirtyMike
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 10/26/11

Quincy05 Said:

KurtR Said:
so q5 the great reformer what are your plans for this master reform?

Start with repealing minimum sentancing laws, and minor infractions for drugs. That would be a great start legislation wise. After that, gut the police unions and the unwarranted protections available to bad cops. Unions should make exceptions that allow the cities to be rid of bad cops; and cities should make exceptions of throwing benefits at good cops. This, along with an expansion of civilian oversight, body cameras, car cameras, and more transparency when bad officers get fired should be a start.

A great suggestion I read was a national "bad cop" database. To sum, when a cop gets fired/reprimanded/whatever and leaves a department, it's listed. So when he is hired at a new department, there is no excuse for not knowing the history of an officer. If he was an asshole before and was fired, there is no plausible deniability as to why he is still an asshole.

Impeccable? 


Pages