stop exaggerating the war on cops

Into the Night said:
:cruisewhat:

Never said there was, NoName.

?????????? Try English. It works better.

No constitution is written by the government it creates. It is not a government document.

Mantra 1a. Lame.
Click to expand...


you accused me of tyranny for knowing what words mean, when really you're just an idiot.
 
Into the Night said:
Enforcing the law is protecting the public. Your word games won't work.
Click to expand...
protecting the public, at large, is exactly what was stated in the SCOTUS opinion. protecting the public, at large, is not protecting you as an individual..........for two examples, look at the parkland shooter and the cop that took no action as well as the new york subway spree killer arrest AFTER he'd stabbed a citizen who had to defend himself.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
protecting the public, at large, is exactly what was stated in the SCOTUS opinion. protecting the public, at large, is not protecting you as an individual..........for two examples, look at the parkland shooter and the cop that took no action as well as the new york subway spree killer arrest AFTER he'd stabbed a citizen who had to defend himself.
Click to expand...
Special pleading fallacy. The cop that took no action in that instance himself became an accessory to the crime.

SCOTUS doesn't hire police. The whole point of hiring police is to protect the public.
 
Into the Night said:
Then why is a cop hired, Damo? What is the purpose of hiring them?

That doesn't work for some slimeball that pulls a weapon on a cop, Damo.
Click to expand...
They enforce laws. That is their purpose. What I do know... Not one ruling supports the idea that they are there to "protect" anyone but themselves.
 
Into the Night said:
Special pleading fallacy. The cop that took no action in that instance himself became an accessory to the crime.

SCOTUS doesn't hire police. The whole point of hiring police is to protect the public.
Click to expand...
so you agree with my enlightened take.

I'm happy to be your thought leader.

you're welcome.
 
Damocles said:
They enforce laws. That is their purpose. What I do know... Not one ruling supports the idea that they are there to "protect" anyone but themselves.
Click to expand...
court rulings are not job descriptions are they?

I believe they took an oath to serve and protect.

are you an anarchist big banker fascist libertarian crime thinker?
 
Damocles said:
They enforce laws. That is their purpose. What I do know... Not one ruling supports the idea that they are there to "protect" anyone but themselves.
Click to expand...
Why does a city, county, parish, or State hire police, Damo?? Who pays for them? Who forms the volunteer police departments, so common in the United States? Why are they formed? Who are they made up of? Why do people even call the police??? Why enforce the law at all??

It's to protect the public, Damo. All of it.

Can they protect everyone at all times? No. That's all the Supreme court really said. You also have the inherent right to defend yourself.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
why, badge blower? they are practically invulnerable now, as it is. what more protection would you like to see them have? should they be able to execute jay walkers in public without worry of prosecution?
Click to expand...
False dichotomy fallacy.

No cop is invulnerable to the effects of breaking the law.
Police in general are trained to de-escalate a situation, not to go around shooting people.

But if someone attacks or threatens a cop, they will likely be shot. The cop has the inherent right of self defense, same as anyone, WITH THE ADDITIONAL concern for keeping such threat for harming the public. They will empty the magazine into the threat, if it comes to that.

And the courts and the public will back them up on it.

BUT,
If a cop goes rogue and starts attacking the innocent, that cop is breaking the law, and the defender has AGAIN the inherent right to defend himself, including emptying his magazine into the rogue cop.

And the other police, the courts, and the general public will back them up on it.


Yes...cops are subject to following the same laws as any citizen. They are NOT immune if they break the law!
 
Into the Night said:
False dichotomy fallacy.

No cop is invulnerable to the effects of breaking the law.
Police in general are trained to de-escalate a situation, not to go around shooting people.

But if someone attacks or threatens a cop, they will likely be shot. The cop has the inherent right of self defense, same as anyone, WITH THE ADDITIONAL concern for keeping such threat for harming the public. They will empty the magazine into the threat, if it comes to that.

And the courts and the public will back them up on it.

BUT,
If a cop goes rogue and starts attacking the innocent, that cop is breaking the law, and the defender has AGAIN the inherent right to defend himself, including emptying his magazine into the rogue cop.

And the other police, the courts, and the general public will back them up on it.


Yes...cops are subject to following the same laws as any citizen. They are NOT immune if they break the law!
Click to expand...
the delusion is strong in you. it's too bad that you ignore the reality of qualified immunity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top