Printable View
Its there to show that what type of people are sought after to become police officers. You keep bouncing back and forth between this case not being symbolic of a nationwide problem and other examples not being exactly this case. Real head in the sand type of debate style.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Did you even read the link - the guy has no case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
"He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law."
If the court had ruled in his favor it would have to rule in favor of the severely low IQ people too...
Meeting and then exceeding minimum qualifications are two vastly different scenarios in hiring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
And the kicker is that the court ruling isn't even the point. It's a verified and legally defended position that American police agencies are not looking for the best and the brightest. They are looking for those that won't question directives or push against the status quo.
"The type of people" sought are in this instance those with above average but not exceptionally above average IQs. Not sure what "type of people" you infer that to be relating to this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I don't agree with the policy, but I was rejected from even getting a job interview once before as I was told I was "overqualified". Seems comparable.
Bullshit. If you seriously think that only those who have an exceptionally high IQ are those who question directives or push against the status quo then that is bizarre to say the least. Even those below average let alone those above average being sought can do both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Companies normally set a floor to qualifications, not a ceiling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
However ruling out those who are overqualified is not unique to the Police.
The black community's hope that this finally being a pretty white girl could bring about possible change has already been hijacked by the fact that the murderer is possibly a somali-muslim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
This was the top trending story on my Facebook:
http://silenceisconsent.net/first-so...usting-reason/
YOU are missing the point. Intelligence isn't a protected class. Just because something may be considered 'wrong' doesn't make it illegal. It is not the government's job to ensure every single person is fairly hired. Only in the event a protected class is discriminated against can the legal system enter into the fray.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Yep, you're still as clueless as normal. I made no mention of it being illegal, only the wrongness, as an underlying issue for our policing problem.
But you missed that by a fucking mile. Congrats?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/18/u...ustralian.html
This is the kind of behavior the Lewks of this country are enabling. Hear a loud sound and see a person? Immediately shoot them. If you go on trial, claim you felt threatened. There will be at least one Rand/Lewk on the jury.
You can put a large amount of blame on the assassination of police officers in Dallas, New York and other cities. While it isn't likely you're gonna get killed sitting in your patrol car it is in their minds. (Just like Ebola, Zika, Bird Flu and the like made a bunch of everyday Americans freak out). Now it clearly looks like this shoot was absolute garbage, and if I was his partner I'd be pissed off ass well. Shot THROUGH the door? Across his partner's body? The fuck is wrong with him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The spat of violence on the streets by leftists rioters is also more likely to cause people to be armed in the first place.
http://nypost.com/2017/02/23/protest...le-with-teens/
"Car and residential windows were broken during the melee that drew 300 protesters near Euclid Street and Palasis Road — about two miles away from Disneyland, the “Happiest Place on Earth.” Two dozen people were arrested, police said.
Anaheim police eventually had to surround and protect the cop’s house. Vandals among protesters tagged neighborhood homes with red spray paint, “fuck pigs” and “kill the cops,” the OC Weekly reported."
Hell not even college campuses are safe from violence:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/21...s-in-2017.html
"A planned talk at the University of California-Berkeley by polarizing Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos was canceled Wednesday evening after protesters threw smoke bombs and flares at the student union building where he was scheduled to speak.
"Violent left-wing protesters stormed the building and forced me to be evacuated by police and by my security detail," Yiannopoulos "
Of course the danger generally isn't leftist rioters (that's typically restricted to highly urbanized areas where the moral decay and squalor reach critical mass) it is the danger of regular apolitical criminals. The real threat and the reason we need police. Frankly it is obvious to me that the leftist have blood on their hands for supporting lighter sentencing of violent criminals making the world a more dangerous place, making the police jumpier, making more shootings like this occur... and so on. There are ways to break the cycle of violence and that is put the harsh boot of the law down on thugs, thieves, rapists and violent felons. They are trash, keep them away from society and they won't infect it further.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/hom...hts/index.html
"Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman -- whose office responded to the shooting at the Hermans' home -- said he believes the mother and her two children were in a life-and-death situation and she had no choice but to exercise her constitutional right to self-defense.
"Had it not turned out the way that it did, I would possibly be working a triple homicide, not having a clue as to who it is we're looking for," he told CNN."
When danger is seconds away the police are minutes away.
No, you can't. The police was killing a thousand people a year before those attacks. You need to work on cause and effect, Lewk. The cause must come before the effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
There's that ridiculous quote again. The VAST majority of those shootings weren't bad shoots. They aren't even borderline cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Several hundred of those are unarmed. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Just because someone is unarmed doesn't mean the shoot was bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Also do you have a full list of the shootings broken down by weapon, outcome, criminal history etc?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Good to know that anyone with a criminal history is fair game for cops to shoot.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...lanting-drugs/
Cops are great and should always be given the benefit of the doubt.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/texas-depu...opstories.html
Crime: public urination. Penalty: death by asphyxiation.
That might actually get somewhere if the husband isn't a cop.
Unsurprisingly you omitted a couple of facts that may have been deemed relevant. Like the husband claims he was attacked first, I hope forlornly there is CCTV to either prove or disprove that claim. Or that the off duty cop has been fired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
There is nothing in the story that justifies choking a man to death.
The fight was over the second the guy was knocked out. You do not have the right to choke a man to death at that point. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Agreed.
More empirical evidence of racial bias by the police:
Twitter Link
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/form...1bab0efca.html
Equal protection.
http://www.yourcentralvalley.com/new...racy/784981277
Quote:
August said he was in such a low place personally and financially that he looked for a way to use his position to make more money.
"I made that decision based on Satan playing games with me in making me feel like I was prideful and unable to go to family members for help," August said in the video.
Curious how they determine that it is the Police falsifying records to show that they are giving a break and not that the drivers aren't bunching themselves to avoid the jump? Here in the UK there is a major threshold of 100mph. The speed limit is 70mph and driving at eg 90-99mph can result in a fine. Driving at 100mph can result in loss of licence. As a result a lot of speeders will stick to the 90s because they don't want to risk the higher penalties of getting caught above 100mph.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Interesting quote from your link: This exercise reveals that the majority of officers exhibit no bias, with the aggregate disparity in treatment explained by the behavior of a small minority of officers
So now your argument is that white people know to go over the speed limit by 9 or 19 MPH, but black people are much more likely to go 10 or 20 over? And both groups engage in this odd behavior only before certain police officers?
As for the bold part: this just shows you haven't been paying attention to anyone here. While a minority engage in terrible behavior, the majority condone that behavior by concocting stories to support these people or protesting over any attempt to hold them accountable.
The evidence from what I read in the link is that everyone is more likely to not break the threshold which makes sense given that the penalty for doing so is stiffer. I know people here who will put the car on cruise control at precisely the right speed to be just under the threshold for a stiff penalty. Not everyone will act that way of course and not every car has cruise control.
As for your second part that is completely unsubstantiated. Where is the evidence that a majority are concocting stories or protesting? And union reps defending their members don't represent a majority.
Are you just trolling now? The article says that whites are much more likely to get a ticket right at the border of a harsher fine. So is your hypothesis that black people are stupid and are more likely to drive right over that number?
I don't have an hypothesis. It would be pure speculation. Hence why I asked for evidence.
Off the top of my head there are four potential theories to explain the difference. All plausible. I'm sure if you put your mind to it you could come up with more.
1. The Police are faking figures.
2. Some drivers are more careful than others at not going over the limit.
3. Some cars are more likely than others to have cruise control set to prevent going over the limit.
4. Some drivers are more likely than others to not care and speed faster.
I got done for speeding twice when I was driving a cheaper car. Since I got a more expensive car that had cruise control I have never had a ticket. I am curious to see if there is any academic research linking eg cost of vehicle/wealth of driver to likelihood of being fined.