Big Bad Politics!

AlsoSprachOdin

@Amagan
I feel confident the system is already protecting the cops quite well enough already, we can afford to protect them a little less. Apart from rare exceptions like Derek Chauvin, cops these days can commit murder in broad daylight and get away with it (not that the aforementioned ex-cop is an example of any such thing). Dialing that shit back a few notches won't result in immediate anarchy.
The entire Uvalde situation was already far more ridiculous and tragic than the supposed issue you describe. And I never heard of the lack of that ruling ever being a problem for any of the centuries before it was made.
I mean, if their job isn't to protect and serve, what exactly are they for? Hassling people over bullshit for fines and uncivil forfeiture to pad their own pockets some more? Keeping the riffraff from taking their peaceful protests to in the rich neighbourhoods?
Of course it should be illegal for government workers to not do their jobs. Otherwise taxation really is just theft.
Amagan

@AlsoSprachOdin
Well there's a very good reason they're called law enforcement officers, as it details what their job is. Cops exist to enforce the laws, not to provide general security protection. Their job is to further a government interest.
Amagan

@UrbanMysticDee
Isn't it funny. People never seem to mind SCOTUS overstepping its legal authority, inventing new constitutional rights that never existed, and legislating from the branch so long as they're furthering a cause that they believe in and want to see advanced at all costs.

But the very minute their opponents get treated to the same standard and seeing one of their causes being given the same consideration, suddenly these people lose their shit because their enemy is getting equal treatment. Suddenly SCOTUS is corrupt and out of bounds, it's lost all legitimacy, the number of Justices needs to be expanded in order to drown out the wrongthinkers, and the whole institution needs to be burnt to the ground because the people making the most racket aren't getting their way.

The same people who're condemning the Dobbs decision would've absolutely cheered if NYSRPA v Bruen were decided in New York's favor. It's almost like they only care about what they want, not about justice or the rule of law.
AlsoSprachOdin

@Amagan
Are you talking about what cops are or what they should be? I seem to remember the subject at hand to be the SCOTUS decision on police protection. So why don't you explain WHY cops SHOULND'T act as general security in society? And if so, where should security come from?
Amagan

@AlsoSprachOdin
1 cop to every 330 people, at the very best. Exactly how can 1 single cop serve to provide security to 330 spread out individuals? Go ahead and explain to everyone here how that could ever be achieved.


@Zaknel
That's always been the case. Anytime SCOTUS rules in favor of one side but not the other, the losing side becomes unhappy and demands the court be packed to favor their interests but not the interests of the other side because only THEY can ever be right and persevere, not anyone else for any reason.

The same people mad that abortion isn't a constitutional right at the federal level are the same people who would be cheering SCOTUS if they ruled there was no constitutional right to carry a gun outside the home.
Anonymous #0847
I saw someone say this in the other pol thread.
Minorities and Women, time to lock and load:

Don’t let these inbred fascist cultist fucks lay a hand on you.

See how they like it when an AR15 is pointed at them.

If they were allowed to do that then the shooting at Buffilo would not have happened and I would bet this person preached about restricting gun rights then.
Zaknel
Boot badge - It's Bootiful
Fried Chicken - Attended an april fools event
Chatty Kirin - A user who has reached a combined 1000 forum posts or comments.
U Lil Shid - Hi, Im a lil shid.
Liberty Belle - Sings the song of the unchained

Ezekiel 33:11
@CaptainXtra
Minorities and Women, time to lock and load:



Don’t let these inbred fascist cultist fucks lay a hand on you.

See how they like it when an AR15 is pointed at them.

Is this some kind of joke?
AlsoSprachOdin

@Amagan
I don't expect the cops to show up in time to save everybody if someone just decides to unload on everyone around them. Nobody expects that.
Seriously, stop arguing like I expect cops to be Superman. I already said I didn't.
Numbers help in getting to a situation slightly sooner, certainly. But there were more than a hundred cops at Uvalde, standing around for an hour doing nothing. More cops would not have helped there. Having those cops held responsible to a duty to protect would have helped.

And now that I have answered your question, stop evading mine.
Why shouldn't cops — to the best of their ability — act as general security in society?
If they shouldn't, where should security come from? Keep in mind the cops were keeping people from protecting their own children at Uvalde.
Anonymous #0847
@Zaknel
No. They flip-flop so readily when it suits them. They are not called NPCs because of their thought out responses. I would bet if you mention how Gun laws helped cause the Buffalo shooting by restricting the right to defend you would be banned for trolling.
Anonymous #3F61
If the overturning of roe v wade creates a push by the left to neuter the supreme court, by god let them do it. The supreme court has been their best weapon for almost 50 years and watching them break their favourite toy in a fit of short sighted rage will be poetry.

Trump should have neutered the court when he had the chance.
Anonymous #0847
@Anonymous #3F61
They celebrated it when it worked for them. They are only pissed now that it does not. Ginsburg as an activist before anything else as was made to suffer for them.
Amagan

@AlsoSprachOdin
Having those cops held responsible to a duty to protect would have helped.


But then who would ever sign up to be a cop?

And now that I have answered your question, stop evading mine.
Why shouldn't cops — to the best of their ability — act as general security in society?


Because it's quite literally not in their job description? They exist to enforce the laws, not to protect the public. They serve a government interest, not a private interest.

If they shouldn't, where should security come from? Keep in mind the cops were keeping people from protecting their own children at Uvalde.


Security begins at home and with the individual. But government has seen fit to prevent that from being the norm because the criminals need greater legal protections.
Amagan

@Anonymous #3F61
They don't want to neuter the SCOTUS, they want to pack it with ultra-liberal judges to drown out the conservative votes, essentially once again changing the rules to suit them because they don't like having to play by the rules along with everyone else.
AlsoSprachOdin

@Amagan
>But then who would ever sign up to be a cop?
People who intend to actually protect and serve.
>Because it's quite literally not in their job description
Remeber how I asked previously, not that long ago, if you were debating what cops are or what they should be? Because of course I agree that they don't have any legal duty to protect and serve, that's the statement I made that started this entire argument. How can you keep arguing past me?
Let's try again. Given that we're talking about how police forces SHOULD work, should cops have a duty to protect or not? And why?
>Security begins at home and with the individual. But government etc
Yes. Yes. Yes. Obviously. Shit is fucked. It shouldn't be that way. I don't know how you got the impression I disagreed on this.
Humble Oriathan
Boot badge - It's Bootiful
A toast - Incredibly based
Chatty Kirin - A user who has reached a combined 1000 forum posts or comments.
Fried Chicken - Attended an april fools event
Liberty Belle - Sings the song of the unchained

Wally Worshiper
@AlsoSprachOdin
My opinion on the Ulvalde school shooting changed btw. With all the new evidence of the incident that's been coming out after it was willfully kept from the public for weeks, something about the whole thing doesn't seem right now. What stuck out most was the fact that they got into the school, but waited a whole hour before doing anything. One of the cops idling had a daughter who was in the school on that day, and he just stands by so calmly. Any other man holding an assault rifle would've took an immediate initiative to save their kid.
UrbanMysticDee
Chatty Kirin - A user who has reached a combined 1000 forum posts or comments.
Liberty Belle - Sings the song of the unchained

Bae > Bay
@Amagan
There's about 400 violent crimes per year per 100,000 people in the US. Even if each was committed by a different person that's only 1.3 million criminals. That's rough parity between the number of cops and the number of criminals.

These people are the scum of the earth. They're the biggest criminal gang on the planet given a license to kill to keep homeless people from sleeping on park benches and work a day people from smoking a joint. We need to abolish the police and replace them with a public security bureau.
Amagan

@AlsoSprachOdin
Let's try again. Given that we're talking about how police forces SHOULD work, should cops have a duty to protect or not? And why?


First, are we talking a general duty to protect the public at large, or a more specific duty to provide protection to any specific private citizen who requests such? Details like that need to be hammered out first in order to give an accurate answer.

@Humble Oriathan
I honestly think the whole thing was deliberately orchestrated in order to generate public support for new gun control laws that would otherwise be opposed by intense public pressure. The fact the shooting was carried out just days before a planned NRA convention is highly suspicious. The fact the school is going to be demolished is even more suspicious. It's Sandy Hook all over again.
Amagan

@UrbanMysticDee
What exactly would keep this "public security bureau" from doing the exact same thing that make the police look bad? How would it even be implemented? Would they actually enforce the laws or would they say "fuck the laws" and simply do whatever they wanted based on the notion of social justice? would they end up being just as racist, or would they operate on the notion that minorities should be excused from the consequences of their actions because of "systemic racism keeping them down"?
UrbanMysticDee
Chatty Kirin - A user who has reached a combined 1000 forum posts or comments.
Liberty Belle - Sings the song of the unchained

Bae > Bay
@Amagan
Because the only job of the public security bureau would be to protect the public from criminals, not to harass people committing victimless "crimes" or to fill for-profit prisons with slave labor. Anyone who doesn't risk their life to defend the public would be arrested for dereliction of duty.
Syntax quick reference: *bold* _italic_ [spoiler]hide text[/spoiler] @code@ +underline+ -strike- ^sup^ ~sub~