Politics Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bjf123

None of us know what was said between the 75 year old and the police officers. Regardless, he didn’t deserve to end up in the hospital. Personal opinion here, but I don’t think they intended to knock him down and injure him. I think they intended to push him out of the way and that he’d just back up a bit, but not fall on his back and hit his head. That he fell and hit his head is back enough. Where the one who shoved him really screwed up is by not stopping to immediately come to his aid. Instead, he kept walking. You can see another officer stop and get on his radio, but no one actually bent down to the guy on the ground. That’s inexcusable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Yeah it appeared to me when I watched that one of them stopped for a split second and looked like he was starting to bend down and the one on the radio stopped him from doing so and told him to keep going. Not sure why. I know they had medics close by from what I heard on the video.

I just come back to what purpose did that serve? It was just so absolutely unnecessary. As the DA said, if he isn’t following orders and breaking the law then arrest him. You don’t assault him. I mean he was clearly an old man. Most 75 year olds don’t do well when pushed by two people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z

That’s terrible. Senseless loss of life. Glad they have the suspect in custody and charged with murder. “Good news” (nothing good about any of it) is that people who kill cops are always brought to justice.

---

I wish you were right. 0 for 2 here, including the one in Cincinnati that 87 mentiones:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ed/5308024002/

Do you see a problem when we're spending time arguing about a guy that was pushed away by a cop and fell over, when several cops have been shot and killed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z

You have statistics to back that statement up? I’ve looked around to see what I could find. Here’s one article that found the opposite to be true.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...outputType=amp

---

I'm afraid we're talking about very different things. My friend who is cop in a borderline bad area. His city forbids them from taking any active aggression arresting someone who resists or flees. The city would rather have criminals walk than take the chance of bad publicity. Granted they don't publish this policy, but word will eventually get around. That will not help neighborhoods be safer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton

I wish you were right. 0 for 2 here, including the one in Cincinnati that 87 mentiones:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ed/5308024002/

Do you see a problem when we're spending time arguing about a guy that was pushed away by a cop and fell over, when several cops have been shot and killed?

---

1. You misunderstood, or I should have been more clear, that when they know who did it and caught they are always put to justice. No one gets off when murdering a cop. We have seen numerous cops get off when murdering citizens, even when charged that is only half (maybe even less) of the battle in a lot of those scenarios.

2. No I don’t see a problem with holding police officers to a higher standards than criminals and murders. You do? Are you saying because those police officers were shot at and some killer that gives a police officer in Buffalo the right to assault the citizens of Buffalo?


Again when a criminal commits a crime or murders and cop or a citizen they are put to justice (when caught obviously). They got to jail for life or a very long time. Unfortunately too many times when an officer murders someone or assaults someone they are sent home on paid administrative leave instead of to jail. A lot of times the taxpayers end up with big settlements to the aggrieved and the police officer continues working.

I don’t know if this happened recently but I know I just learned it recently, but Sam Dubose’s killer got a 300,000+ settlement from UC. Unreal.

Duplicate.

It looks like the rest of the department in Buffalo agrees this was over-the-top:
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/501378-57-buffalo-officers-resign-from-emergency-response-team-in-response-to

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton

It looks like the rest of the department in Buffalo agrees this was over-the-top:
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/501378-57-buffalo-officers-resign-from-emergency-response-team-in-response-to

---

1. Sad. I guess it’s not just a few bad apples in that police department is it?

2. There definitely aren’t any lawyers in that group.

3. It was a completely empty gesture as they are all still employed by the department. They just resigned from that team within the department. It’s probably a good thing for the citizens on Buffalo though because I believe they brought in some people from the national guard instead to do what they were doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z

A lot of times the taxpayers end up with big settlements to the aggrieved and the police officer continues working.

I don’t know if this happened recently but I know I just learned it recently, but Sam Dubose’s killer got a 300,000+ settlement from UC. Unreal.

---

This is because the police are protected by their union, which makes it VERY difficult to fire a police officer. But since you're a democrat, are you arguing for less protections for union member's job security when they commit job misconduct?

And the content of the first part of this article is so frightening (and serious) that I can't even make a snarky comment about it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ge...cid=spartandhp

Is there an adult on this council that will say, "It's a really bad idea to have a large city without a police dept."

I also found interesting the part in the above article about the NYT editor resigning for permitting a conservative senator to write an editorial that it's liberal readers found offensive. I always thought lefties claimed they were so tolerant of other's opinions (which is true, unless the left disagrees with the opinion.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XU 87

This is because the police are protected by their union, which makes it VERY difficult to fire a police officer. But since you're a democrat, are you arguing for less protections for union member's job security when they commit job misconduct?

---

I’m not a democrat and in general am not a fan of unions. I read the NY Post a lot and reading on there about the shit teachers get away with in NYC public schools because of the union is a disgrace.