Good for Zimmerman. I hope it's exactly what it looks like.
Whenever someone brings up the F. Scott Fitzgerald quote about how "there are no second acts in American lives," I want to get slap-happy.
Printable View
Good for Zimmerman. I hope it's exactly what it looks like.
Whenever someone brings up the F. Scott Fitzgerald quote about how "there are no second acts in American lives," I want to get slap-happy.
Must have staged this as well http://www.google.nl/search?q=zimmer...ts%3B800%3B587Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
That's ouch. An ad hominum like that really really bleeds. Can even be fatal. That looks like a cracked skull to me really. People who read quality-newspapers can't have seen this, but this was after the event
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Clearly Obama could produce a son that looks like Trayvon. And that son may wear a hoodie, hell Obama may have even worn one a some point because it's a perfectly acceptable form of clothingQuote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
In other news, St.Zimmerman apparently saved 10 white babies from a burning car.
Sure, but my point was that a high young Obama doing something to earn the suspicion of a overzealous neighbourhood watch member (see below on that narrative not facts are the driving matter) that with some escalation ends up with Obama dead, is a very improbable scenario, but doesn't require some outright crazyness to happen. Compare to say Mitt Romney (afaik) or someone else with a very spotless growing up record.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
They've got national protests and everything. It was an issue already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
It's not the facts that he has to react to, it's the narrative. He could've chosen to officially reject the narrative, but that's still a reaction to the narrative, not the facts. No time to fully check atm, but afaik he choosed troubled youth did something stupid and ended up dead for it as he narrative for his speach.
That media can control the narrative is quite nasty and a fact that's hard to avoid.
You can't Flim-Flam the Zim Zam.
Of course he did, they were white rednecks driving an SUV. And it conveniently happened close to his known location, shortly after his trial and noone got injured.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I BET HE HELPED TURN THE TRUCK ON ITS BACK, TOO!!!111
I bet he shot out the front tyres; black and under a hood. Yep, that's probably it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Sounds like CinC is saying that if Martin had a gun, he should have shot Zimmerman rather than punching him, according to Florida Law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Given that Obama is, irrc, a Harvard educated Lawyer, I think he's allowed an opinion on that.
I also think he's correct - given that a Texan once shot a Scot for urinating on his lawn and nothing happened.
Edit: rvg is Assyrian - so he's less white than Zimmerman, sorry Lemur.
If Zimmerman hadn't been beaten bloody, claiming self-defense would have been a lot more challenging.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
If Martin shot Zimmerman just for following him, without a scratch on him... he'd likely go to prison.
It's a stupid and unhelpful comment from the president.
It was dark, Zimmerman was following a young man out to buy skittles. He was armed - Florida allows concealed carry, so if Martin had been armed and he had been approached by Zimmerman he would have been justified shooting Zimmerman before Zimmerman shot him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
As it happened Martin wasn't armed, so he did the same but with his fists, and because he didn't have a gun he died. If he had been armed, Zimmerman would be dead.
Zimmerman was beaten, but not horribly, mostly that was unfortunate because his head was right by the curb.
The fact is - there's no Western country where Zimmerman would not have gone to gaol, except the US.
I don't understand what you're saying....
Are you trying to claim that since Florida has CCW licenses, that Martin, or anyone, could have assumed Zimmerman was not only armed, but presented an imminent threat of great harm/death and preemptively shot him even if Zimmerman had not threatened him. Then you further think that a jury would buy that and let him off?
If so- that's a load of rubbish.
If that's not what you're saying, please explain yourself better- because I don't see what you're getting at.
Please remember. Assault is a criminal act. Following someone around outside is not.
The kid could have shot Zimmerman and his defence would have been that he thought he was being stalked and about to be mugged/raped/murdered.
Did the kid die instantly or was he defending himself from a stalker who drew a firearm?
And would a jury have thought that a reasonable assumption? Not likely. Martin would not have had a scratch on him, and the man he shot would have turned out to be the head of the neighborhood watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
It was a stupid thing for Obama to say. And even more stupid considering he was a lawyer.... Then again, most of our politicians are lawyers and stupid- so I'll give him a pass on that part....
Are you talking hypothetically here??Quote:
Did the kid die instantly or was he defending himself from a stalker who drew a firearm?
I also think we are forgetting the fact that the defense claimed Martin doubled back.
If you want the law to change, elect a representative to enact that change.
Or you could forget about your representative until the red ticker on CNN tells you something is popping off.
No - that's pretty much it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Zimmerman looks like a fairly solid guy - it's dark - he's following me - this isn't a great neighborhood - people get attacked - this is Florida, so he could be armed, hell I'm armed.
So I'll shoot him before he shoots me - that's actually what I'd do in that situation - in a country where people carry concealed weapons and are allowed to shoot other people without even being arrested, I'd be pretty terrified if someone was following me.
The situation only tilts further in Martin's favour if he says he doubled back to remonstrate with Zimmerman and then Zimmerman became aggressive (which seems likely given that Martin felt the need to knock him down).
When the cops turn up I can say, "I was afraid he had a weapon", the cops search the body and low and behold he has a nasty little hold-out pistol without a safety catch.
How is that any less credible than Zimmerman's story?
After all - doesn't Zimmerman's defense rest of him being afraid for his life, against an unarmed man much lighter than him? Surely the same defense MUST be applicable before weapons are drawn, because otherwise it's functionally useless in a situation where both parties are armed.
Or we come back to Obama being right - Stand Your Ground is a charter for armed Civilians to shoot and kill unarmed Civilians if they throw a punch.
Punch a wrong guy and you might end up dead. Moral of the story: don't punch people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Not sure if trolling or authentic...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
And if Martin would have had a gun?Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Would the moral then be, "don't follow people in the dark"?
It's an awesome way to order your society - fear.
If you live in a country like the UK America is pretty terrifying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whacker
No healthcare and pretty much anybody could be carrying a gun - and there's a chance that if you raise your voice - someone will shoot you. Then, when you get shot and killed, nobody even gets arrested.
Sure, I'd have shot Zimmerman, he looks either dopey or shifty in all the photos, it's dark, bulky jacket, if I saw the harness I'd assume that guy was going to kill me.
That's a cultural thing though - in the UK we only use guns to kill people. So if you see someone carrying one and he's not a cop, he's probably going to kill you.
Given that Zimmerman used his gun to kill Martin, I feel somewhat justified in this view of firearms.
Fear is something that is almost universally understood. Except by stupid people. Those get weeded out by the process. Simple, efficient, elegant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I am going to ask everyone nicely. As I have said, this type of trial is only toxic for the public discourse. Since all has been said regarding the verdict this seems to now degenerate into another gun control argument with useless hypothetical's made about the Zimmerman/Martin interaction. Please just let this thing drop.
I beat my meat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Good to see the same folks here battling it out in the same fashion as years past...
Martin jumped on the wrong "crazy ass cracker" and got himself killed before one of Obama's other "sons" got a chance to bust a cap in him. Its "Obama" culture, no point in trying to understand it. When "the Man" is now the Prezzy of the United States, the whole race baiting loses it flavor. St. Skittles and his borderline retarded girlfriend is the face of Obama-nation and is our future. There is not a god damn thing we can do to change our future.
Obama was wrong in one aspect, he had said that Trayvon could have been him at that age. Nope, aside from the drug use, Obama's WHITE grandparents kept him away from "black" culture. If Obama had lived in South Side Chicago, East St Louis, Detroit, or some other tribal sh!t hole in this rotting country, he would have been pulling throat tricks for crack and probably wouldn't have made it to adulthood. Unfortunately, this didn't happen. :laugh4:
Have a good one everybody. Anthony Weiner, How long is your dong?
Hello gorgeous!
Welcome back!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
You mean he looks like a paedophile and Martin probably punched him back after he touched him somewhere inappropriate. The problem is that Zimmerman can simply omit that and get away with it now that he killed the only person who could tell us that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I mean looks like a paedophile, quacks like a paedophile, walks like a paedophile and follows a young boy around at night, the case is pretty much set for me.
It's just scary how easy it was for him to silence the only victim and then get away with his sexual assault.
Yeah, he even called a pedophile 911 operator to invite a few pedophile cops along for the party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Yeah, sometimes these things permeate several layers of society.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Obama said he could've had a son who looked like Martin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Let's not overplay the hand, hillbily
No, in the latest Obama interference in this case, Obama said that Trayvon could have been him many years ago... you cow pie eating, long horn humpin', cowboy... Missed you buddy...:bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Well he very well could have been. I think there is very little doubt Zimmerman profiled Martin. Now, that doesn't mean Martin can double back and instigate a fight but it does lend credence to the presidents words. The nebulous concept of "black frustration" has more to do with the profiling part.
Georgia sucks, Sherman should have finished the job :bow:
So, um, whats with the rescue of the family in the burning car? Seen a lot of news articles saying it was staged, but those come from the typical no-source left wing blogs that have zero credibility imo.
I thought this was a surprisingly refreshing bit of commentary from the cesspool that is cable news.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhitsQt69Zo
Working in real estate, I can attest to the way blacks live. No other group of people we rent to are more uniformly destructive to the property and the environment in which they live. It is incredible how quickly they can completely destroy an apartment. And this isn't a geographic or socioeconomic issue either. We have property all across the country and have residents of all different ethnicity paying the same rent, and yet, you can count on rehabbing the entire interior of a unit versus a simple paint and carpet job when the residents are black.
It's a symptom of a culture of apathy that is destroying many of America's inner cities in the same manner on a macro level - a culture we are all too afraid to confront outside of internet anonymity, myself included.
So you mean destrucivism is inherent to being black? :inquisitive:
I think he means it is a result of current black subculture.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastDays
Well that of course depends on where in the world. Unfortunately I've never even been to the US so I can't really say anything about subcultures there.
I hope nobody from the Org sent money to Zimmerman's legal defense fund. Looks like it's more of a slush pile.
Zimmerman Scammed Gun Nuts Out Of A Lot Of Money; Never Paid Attorneys
Zimmerman never paid his defense attorney? What happened to all of the money he raised for his “legal defense fund?” [...] If you visit Zimmerman’s Legal Defense fund web-site you can get a pretty good idea where the majority of the money was spent.
Zimmerman’s web page says that as of January 2, 2013, the “George Zimmerman Defense Fund” had raised a total of $314,099.07. That sounds like a lot of money. The web page goes on to give a not-at-all-detailed break-down of how the money was spent.
The first expense entered shows $95,000 for bail.
That money would have been returned following the not guilty verdict, however, which means this is no longer a valid expense. It also means the money should have been added back into the total at some point.
Next, we see that $61,747.54 was spent for 8 months of living expenses.
And that doesn’t include Zimmerman’s private security, which for 8 months cost an additional $56,100.00. [...]
Leaving that page, and moving to one titled “Moving Forward” which addresses how future donations will be spent, it gets even more interesting. The predicted future expenses include the Zimmerman’s living expenses and private security as the first two items on the page. A bit further down the page, under the heading “Case Related Expenses” it clearly says “Mr. O’Mara and Mr. West have not been paid for their services. Money has been used to pay rent on office space, for IT support, for staff dedicated to the case.”
So by his own admission Zimmerman did not use the Legal Defense Fund donations to pay his attorneys. He spent the majority of the money on living expenses for himself and his wife, who was just paid more than $4,000 for one months living expenses out of the defense fund money.
A bit of a tough career profile. 150k+ is middle/upper middle in the Orlando area and he did risk significant jail time for his "earnings."
That sounds like my two months trip to the US is going to be the most dangerous thing I've ever done XDQuote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
There is this Canadian video game speedrunner I watch who was invited to AGDQ in Washington DC and he is scared to even cross the border because he thinks he will be injured and have his life ruined by our healthcare system.
Yeah - pretty much.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
It's like visiting a Third World country where the government is more likely to hurt you than protect you.
Remember the British professor who was mobbed by three-four NY Police Officers for Jay-Walking, then HE was dragged before a Judge?
In the UK that would have been thrown out for the nature of the arrest, and the cops would be up for disciplinary.
"Zero Tolerance" is the dumbest idea in the history of mankind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Can't agree. Too many dumb ideas from too many cultures for me to agree with that claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
He is a scumbag, we all know that.
Also, I've been living here my entire life and have yet to been shot.
1 pedophile caught in a police sting, 1 kindergartner dead of a brain tumor, no shootings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Whereas in my neck of the woods ... did I mention that the wife took my youngest to Milwaukee today?
Suspect in custody after shots fired at Children's Hospital
WAUWATOSA - A suspect is in custody after reports of shots fired at Children's Hospital Thursday afternoon, the hospital confirmed.
The hospital says there is "no continuing threat."
Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke says Wauwatosa Police tried to serve the 22-year-old black male a warrant for his arrest for felony possesion of a firearm on the 7th floor Neonatal Unit.
The suspect fled, and pulled out a handgun. Officers then fired several shots at the suspect, wounding him. He is currently being treated for non-life threatening injuries at Froedtert Hosptial.
That sounds.... irrational.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
If he's going into DC proper, maybe not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Let me get this straight. The police decided the best place to serve a warrant on an armed individual was in a neo-natal ward? Dahmer proved that Milwaukee cops weren't exactly the brightest, but, really?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Never would have been a problem if the babies concealed carried.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
I agree, and I have told him that more than twice that he will be fine as long as he just exercises common sense, but he says he can't imagine having to stay out of certain areas for a given time period because in Canada you can walk anywhere you want at any time and feel safe. Sure dude, sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Hollywood is to blame.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I disagree. Ignorance is to blame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
If you choose to let movies dictate your worries and novels undercut your faith or news broadcasts dictate your thinking.....the problem is not the purveyor of the pablum but the person spooning it in.
Oh no, we're well aware that Hollywood isn't real. If it were we might actually be rabid fanboys shouting USA and think the whole US government consists of marines, FBI, CIA and a few fighter pilots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
No. We get rather more than you seem to be aware of. Like this. Choice excerpt:
Fascinating stuff. Let's not get into the forced arrested person to undergo surgical procedures without reason whatsoever details too much, they're less than appetising.Quote:
the United States outdoes India when it comes to custodial rapes of women by law enforcement personnel
Well, at least you can buy a gun to defend yourself from the state. Or can you only rent one as a tourist?
How does that work anyway?
You are not allowed as you are not American, so you have no rights to the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Well, if you buy it to defend yourself from police torture, then I doubt you'd want to ask the police about it first...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
In states with background checks it might prove difficult if they don't use the NSA databases for the background checks but on some gun fair in Alabama where noone asks for anything, it might just work, right?
And then, when some cops with shady hoods/hats follow you, you may want to preemptively strike them before they enter your private zones. If you wait until they grab your arms it's too late.
And how can the constitution not apply to me while I'm there? Does that mean the laws don't apply either? I can see how benefits such as unemployment benefits do not apply, but a selective application of rights seem shady. After all the declaration of independence reads: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Do I have to assume that they forgot about the rights for all humans around the time they made the constitution? The whole gun debate always boils down to getting a gun to defend your right to life and the pursuit of happiness. Denying the right to defend your life to other humans clearly goes against the spirit of the DoI.
The constitution wasn't written for blacks and other brown people, so I doubt it was written for krauts on holiday...Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I've never really been able to understand how sensible people can venerate a document written by(and allowing for) people who thought it was a splendid idea to kidnap people and put them to work for the rest of their lives, and kill or rape them as they pleased. What a wonderful bunch of idiots that was.
Actually, the only race mentioned in the original text of the Constitution were "Indians." [Amerinds, Native Americans, First Peoples] The only other delineation was between free and non-free persons.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
As to the "kidnapping" portion, The Constitution did provide for a ban on the importation of slaves beginning in 1808, and Congress enacted such a law at the earliest possible date mentioned in the Constitution. This followed even earlier attempts to restrict shipping and ship construction for the trade. Nevertheless, slavery was our "original sin" as a nation, stands as the least moral component of our society at the time of our founding, and was not expiated until more than half a million of us died "arguing" the issue.
The Constitution was also written to be amended and improved, which we have done regarding this issue.
I acknowledge that Norway allowed slavery to die out even before the New World was discovered, to your credit, but it is not as though slaves weren't mentioned in your own legal documents of the past (e.g. The Gulating [sic?] code). Dig far enough back and almost all societies fail when judged by today's moral standard on the issue.
Oh, and foreigners living in the USA legally may purchase firearms. The typical residency requirements for purchase functionally restrict sales to tourists. Dealers at shows tend to follow the same rules that brick & mortar stores do regarding firearms, but private sales (person to person, no dealer status), though they are supposed to follow the same basic rules, are difficult to oversee and restrict.
First of all Seamus, I go by peoples actions - the constitution was written by slave-owners, and they didn't stop doing it. Obviously, when the constitution talks about "all men being free", black people weren't in their minds(but africans are animals anyway, right?).
And a small history lesson: Gulating was the legal code for the western portion of Norway only, and westerners are widely known to be barbaric savages(just look at @Sigurd ). Each part of Norway had their own laws(think of us like a mini-HRE) until Magnus Lagabøte made a law for the entire country a couple of centuries later. Then we became danes, of course, and worked hard to ship slaves over to the US.
Still, I have very few problems with that, just like I have very few problems with the US constitution or even our own jew-banning one. What I do have a problem with are those who make the creators of those laws into divine beings whose unparallelled wisdom created a perfect law for all time. That's the problem, those who can't seem to understand that they where men of their time creating laws for their time, which may not be useful in our time, no more than the laws of the Eidsivating are useful for me.
Well, if you plan to use it against police officers anyway, the legality of acquiring it may be the least of your worries.
As a completely submissive pro-government commie I doubt I'd personally run into any big problems with the police force in the USA, and for the healthcare you usually get some overseas policy from your own insurance before you go abroad, no?
Meh, you don't fight the police when they've stopped you. You just don't.*Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
You put on your serious-and-concerned face, you say "Yes officer" and little else, and you cooperate.** Then (if appropriate) you fight them like hell in court.
On the street it's your word versus his, and the deck is stacked high against you. In court, you're on a much more even footing.
There's a time and a place for everything.
* Unless you believe your life is in immediate danger, but that's whole other topic, and kinda tricky to deal with correctly.
** With the exception of searches. You never agree to a search of anything. They may do it anyway, but you state clearly, "I do not consent to you searching my person/car/boat/home/whatever." It matters that you say this.
The signatories weren't too fond of kraut tourists, since they mostly came on British package holidays.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
You get the cops you deserve. And the cops you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
America wants to be tough on crime. Naturally, you get tough cops.
Euroweenies wants to be soft on crime. We like to put cushions under their armpits, we want to learn a cold-blooded murderer how to do gardening. Thus, we also get soft cops.
You believe the nature of institutions are separate from the culture they reside in...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
....And how often do you elect a public official who promises to be "tough on crime" vs an official who promises to be "soft on crime"?
You think any country has just one culture?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
The diversity of cultures within a nation does not mean we can't talk about a national culture, which would be the sum of all the cultures contained within that nation. In the case of the US, that means a national culture of "tough on crime". In Euroweeniestan it means a culture of "soft on crime".
Various parts of society is affected to varying degrees by both the national and local culture. Some parts of society is heavily affected by the national culture and little by the local culture, while other parts are affected little by the national culture and a lot by local culture. Law enforcement would be an example of the former, while sports would be an example of the latter. The reason is logical: crime is a national concern more than a local one, while sports is a local concern more than a national one.
Places in the US who would prefer to be soft on crime suffers the same fate as places in Euroweeniestan who would prefer to be tough on crime: overruled by the national culture.
What? How and where? Certainly wasn't my intention to do so...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
As a rule, minorities are always overruled by the majority.
Horetore, there is no such thing as a "sum" of cultures. Maybe there's supervenience in the overlap of cultures, but a "national culture" is not a sum or an aggregate result.
Other way around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horetore
GC, over time an institution will take on the characteristics of the society surrounding it. It's rather telling, if true, that the Eugene PD "imports" recruits from outside the area.
The militarization of American police is a big, complex, ugly topic, and probably deserves its own thread.
Can't the politicians fire the top personnel of the police departments and dictate their policy?
That's what they always do in Hollywood anyway.
Remember I speak commie: "you" refers to "you the nation", not this liberal "you the individual"-nonsense ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
No, I stand by my way 'round.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Law enforcement is a task given authority from above, a national institution. Sports, on the other hand, are built from the ground up, with no real authority above. Law enforcement will be conducted mostly the same way across a nation, while what sports are played in a given location is a lot more varied. The valley I live in is a good example: where I live, at the end of the river, it's exclusively football and bandy. 30 minutes up the river, at Kongsberg, they play hockey and basketball, and the football enthusiasm is so low I feel like I've entered a new country every time I go to work.
Hmm...Quote:
Law enforcement is a task given authority from above, a national institution. Sports, on the other hand, are built from the ground up, with no real authority above
For my country and city, it sure seems like the opposite though, on both counts. Law enforcement and penal law can vary more than your view would admit, and not just by state, while basketball, Ami football, and baseball are national institutions in their own right.
Either there's just a difference between countries here, or there's a difference in what our respective perspectives are focusing on.
Maybe it's something that deserves scholarship, I dunno; for my part, I'm OK with declaring you a madman. :wink:
That last bit is probably spot on no matter what the topic is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Anyway, I am of course speaking from a mainly eurocentric position, without in-depth knowledge of american customs.
I do find it unlikely, however, that basketball, football, handegg and various other sports are enjoyed equally across the US, however. Surely there must be a special focus on one at one place, and a special focus on another at a different place, with the occasional town focused on a completely different sport?
EDIT: I did, however, forget about the utterly retarded way you savages organize your sports activities, without proper sports clubs and all that...
In the US, police departments are administered by local governments. Each municipality's police department is an independent entity with its own policies and regulations. There is no over-arching authority over law-enforcement.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Speaking of local variations in sports culture, here in Utah rugby is becoming popular thanks to our Polynesian immigrants, but almost nobody plays lacrosse or hockey.
Yet Lemur's linked interview about the militarization of the police is full of mentions of presidents and federal declarations of war on things.
To say there is no overall national influence on local police is a bit much perhaps. As far as I can tell, a lot of stuff is done by the police so they "can come home to their family". The more often a cop gets shot trying to serve a warrant, the more often cops will be replaced by SWAT teams. If there is an area where the cops face a lot of violence and antagonism, naturally they will want to come back with better vests and bigger guns next time. This is also a trend in the military, where every single loss is becoming more and more of a tragedy and not so much seen as a natural consequence of war. People see they can do this or that to achieve more security, and then they do it. I'd bet officers in a SWAT team are less likely to die serving a warrant than nice guys in blue uniforms ringing the doorbell.
That being a US cop is a wastly more dangerous profession than being a western European cop is certainly influencing the situation. It wouldn't surprise me if it's a partial spiral as well, a severe disrespect for the police and severe punishments starts to make killing a cop, rather then simply fleeing, an option.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Sure there's a national influence, but there's no national authority, which is what I think HoreTore was getting at. There may be national trends but that doesn't mean that the situation is the same in every town and city, some police departments are better than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
So what are we arguing about again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
I honestly forgot and either you Americans don't know either, disagree with us Europeans for completely opposite reasons or I really lost track of what it was about. Is policing in America a local issue now or is there a national police culture that has no or very low local variations?
Who is the boss of the San Francisco Police Department and who is the boss of the New York Police Department? I remember that whether there is a Police Department or a Sheriff can vary from place to place and even overlap but aren't all of these somehow being watched by an elected politician or an elected Sheriff? Why does it seem like all the politicians overseeing the police forces grant them the budget for more SWAT teams and armored cars while all the citizens who dislike their use reelect those politicians? Is oit possible that such considerations are drowned during elections in a sea of economic concerns and the problem that there are only two parties and both candidates have the dsame stance on the issue which is why it is also never debated?
This one was so little thought through I was unsure whether I should bother replying to it, but anyway:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuuvi
There's both national influence and authority.
You can start at the very top, which would be the constitution. Then, you have the congress/federal government. Then you have related branches of law enforcement, like the FBI. And of course, we can't forget about police academies now can we? You may have your own sheriff, but you won't have your own police officers. And so on, and so on... And finally, of course, comes the fact that crime is also a nation-wide issue, and not a local one. The real crime spans several borders.
Sheriff Joe in Alabama can't help being influenced by what the people want the cops to do in New York.
First, thanks for the explanations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
And then I guess you would propose to split America up, since every time you have an issue, it's about the country being too big, which supposedly makes all the teething issues unsolvable?
This is where you are wrong and this is what I've been trying to argue against. Sorry if I'm not doing a very good job. Here in the US, you do have your own police officers. Each police department does it's own hiring, and it dictates its own policies and procedures. This is what I meant when I said there "is no over-arching authority", I was not referring to the authority to enforce the law, but rather the authority to oversee and manage the nation's police force. Yes there are national law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, but they cannot and do not enforce local and state laws and they are not the ones interacting with the populace on a day-to-day basis . Please see GC's post for a better explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I don't disagree that there is national influence, I just believe that you are wrong about there being little to no local influence. It's a mixture of both. Sheriff Joe was elected by the people of Redneck County, Alabama to run his county's police force. Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama don't have the authority to tell him how to do his job. The manner in which he conducts his department will be influenced by national trends in law enforcement, but they will also influenced by Sheriff Joe's upbringing, the culture he grew up in (which in a rural area was most likely the local one), and the nature of crime in his county. A rural county in Alabama has vastly different demographics than a dense, urban metropolis like New York, which means there will be different types of crime, different types of criminals, and possibly different crime rates. You won't find the Mafia in rural Alabama, and cops in New York probably have better things to do than hiding in the trees waiting for speeders to drive by.