I still think this is the best thing I have heard in the past year with regards to police reform.IseWolf22 said:Military - It's ~15% of the total federal budget, ~50% of discretionary spending. The real expense is not solider salaries and benefits, it's defense contractors. A single Tomahawk missile is $1 million. We spend about as much as the next 10 countries combined. We subsidize defense for the rest of the world.pineknollshoresking said:Actually, I respect your points. I think those words would come out of my mouth as well.IseWolf22 said:pineknollshoresking said:elaborate on each...IseWolf22 said:Military spending, war on drugs, immigration, police reform, free trade, pro section 230, etc.pineknollshoresking said:What areas do you have a smaller government mindset than other outspoken people on here?IseWolf22 said:I'm not sure why you think this applies to me. On the vast majority of issues I'm for little to no intervention from the state. The things we generally argue about are areas where conservatives want more state power and not less. I'd argue I'm one of the biggest proponents of small government on this board.pineknollshoresking said:
Where are the people like this? Civ, Isle, Hokie...
Dean Alfange, a progressive and labor activist, wrote the following 163 words as first published in Reader's Digest in 1952:
"I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek to develop whatever talents God gave menot security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say 'This, with God's help, I have done.' All this is what it means to be an American."
To preface this, you may think these positions are wrong, and that's OK, but I think they still qualify as more "small government" than the standard conservative position today.
Military spending - Cut it. Less troops abroad. Higher standards for intervention. Spend less on defense contractors.
War on Drugs - the government shouldn't care what you put in your body. I am the ultimate authority on my own body. Decriminalize substance abuse and you cut down on enforcement costs and incarceration
Immigration - Make it easy to enter the country legally. A wall is a massive government project. Spend less on ICE
Police reform - police are literally the Government's armed enforcement of laws. The loss of life and liberty by the state needs to be viewed with extreme scrutiny
Free trade - voluntary exchanges of goods and services make both parties more wealthy. It doesn't matter of the other county has tariffs, tariffs are just a tax on your own population and drives up the cost of goods
Section 230 - I dont want the government policing speech on a privately owned platform, no matter how much I disagree with their moderation decisions
Military Spending - I completely agree; however, I'm not sure that is where the real money is. Being in the Military is like being a tenured teacher when it comes to benefits. I'm not sure what to do there...
War on Drugs - the problem we have here is our health system. If we can get the government 100% out of healthcare, then I can support your view 100%
Immigration - I agree, make it easier for legal immigration; however, stop illegal immigration. To me, both are American workers killers.
Police reform - on the surface, it's easy to want to do reforms, based on today's rhetoric; however, the system has been co-opted by woke local public figures that it's hard to figure where to start.
Free trade - that one bothers me. I agree with the premise; however, what China (the CCP) has done to us is extremely scary. I say done to us; however, we had willing participants. In fact, they are wanting to move the world currency standard to something like a crypto currency. If that happens, the US could, and probably will, see a dire future.
Section 230 - I get what you are saying... let me ask this? Do you think companies, like Google, are too big? Too much control? What do you do when a company like DuckDuckGo, Google, Bing, etc.. intentionally suppresses results of indexed sites they don't agree with.
War on Drugs - The healthcare expenses from drug use are much smaller than the what we spend to incarcerate drug users and fight trafficking. I'd also argue that the drug war drives up prices, benefiting the cartels south of us and destabilizes those countries, driving more migrants to the US.
Immigration - I don't think you can really stop illegal immigration. Visa overstays don't get the press of the southern border, but many years they outnumber border crossings. And I don't think you can deport everyone already here. I'd rather have all of them legal and working.
Police reform - I agree it's been tainted by the current state of discourse. However there are many race neutral reforms we could pursue. You've said that you like John Stossel, you could start with his views on police reform
Trade - This is an entire thread in itself. But to boil it down, I don't think a bad outcome is possible when two entities willingly exchange money for goods. Consumer surplus is created and total wealth increases.
230 - I do think big tech is too big, but that's only because we all still use their services. There are literally 100s of social media sites. People can and should abandon the big players if they are acting badly. Let the market decide. I do have some sympathy for the idea that we should allow free speech on platforms, but I've yet to see a single proposal that get's us there without unintended consequences. I try to view new laws with the assumption that at some point, my worst enemy will be in charge. In that scenario I have yet to see something better than the status quo, which is to allow platforms to moderate themselves as they see fit
It's not just white men but keep on telling yourself thatTheStorm said:
What is the deal with all of these Asian hate crimes in NYC? White men need to get over themselves... there is no place for that kind of behavior in this country...
My fault then... I just assumed that it had to be a white man (and more specifically a republican white man) since they are known to be automatically racist - even if they aren't...jkpackfan said:It's not just white men but keep on telling yourself thatTheStorm said:
What is the deal with all of these Asian hate crimes in NYC? White men need to get over themselves... there is no place for that kind of behavior in this country...
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/983002295/suspect-arrested-on-hate-crime-charges-over-attack-on-asian-woman-in-manhattan
Since racism is systemic, then you are still ok to blame white republicansTheStorm said:My fault then... I just assumed that it had to be a white man (and more specifically a republican white man) since they are known to be automatically racist - even if they aren't...jkpackfan said:It's not just white men but keep on telling yourself thatTheStorm said:
What is the deal with all of these Asian hate crimes in NYC? White men need to get over themselves... there is no place for that kind of behavior in this country...
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/983002295/suspect-arrested-on-hate-crime-charges-over-attack-on-asian-woman-in-manhattan
I do wonder where all this reported Asian-hate comes from though all of a sudden? I've never given it a passing thought if I'm being honest... but it must be out there somewhere though, because Biden just passed a resolution about it... and I hear they talk about it on CNN and everything.
Ohhh yeah I remember that story. Wow is that what this is about? That guy was sex addict who went insane I thought... I mean Asian massage parlor... you know? That case bared out to not be racially motivated I thought. But I guess a narrative was adopted like with everything else. But just in case anyone is confused and to be clear I don't believe in any hate against anyone Asian, Black, or White.packgrad said:
A white man shot up an Asian massage parlor a couple/few weeks ago so a narrative is being written. Not that there isn't violence against Asian Americans. But who they're trying to frame as those perpetuating the violence.
ncsualum05 said:Ohhh yeah I remember that story. Wow is that what this is about? That guy was sex addict who went insane I thought... I mean Asian massage parlor... you know? That case bared out to not be racially motivated I thought. But I guess a narrative was adopted like with everything else. But just in case anyone is confused and to be clear I don't believe in any hate against anyone Asian, Black, or White.packgrad said:
A white man shot up an Asian massage parlor a couple/few weeks ago so a narrative is being written. Not that there isn't violence against Asian Americans. But who they're trying to frame as those perpetuating the violence.
Haha, gotcha, I missed the sarcasm. My badTheStorm said:My fault then... I just assumed that it had to be a white man (and more specifically a republican white man) since they are known to be automatically racist - even if they aren't...jkpackfan said:It's not just white men but keep on telling yourself thatTheStorm said:
What is the deal with all of these Asian hate crimes in NYC? White men need to get over themselves... there is no place for that kind of behavior in this country...
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/31/983002295/suspect-arrested-on-hate-crime-charges-over-attack-on-asian-woman-in-manhattan
I do wonder where all this reported Asian-hate comes from though all of a sudden? I've never given it a passing thought if I'm being honest... but it must be out there somewhere though, because Biden just passed a resolution about it... and I hear they talk about it on CNN and everything.
Good morning. This is great. Enjoy. pic.twitter.com/nfCaEOhedR
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) April 26, 2021
You serious?Civilized said:ncsualum05 said:Ohhh yeah I remember that story. Wow is that what this is about? That guy was sex addict who went insane I thought... I mean Asian massage parlor... you know? That case bared out to not be racially motivated I thought. But I guess a narrative was adopted like with everything else. But just in case anyone is confused and to be clear I don't believe in any hate against anyone Asian, Black, or White.packgrad said:
A white man shot up an Asian massage parlor a couple/few weeks ago so a narrative is being written. Not that there isn't violence against Asian Americans. But who they're trying to frame as those perpetuating the violence.
What did these Asian masseuses have to do with his sex addiction?
Civilized said:ncsualum05 said:Ohhh yeah I remember that story. Wow is that what this is about? That guy was sex addict who went insane I thought... I mean Asian massage parlor... you know? That case bared out to not be racially motivated I thought. But I guess a narrative was adopted like with everything else. But just in case anyone is confused and to be clear I don't believe in any hate against anyone Asian, Black, or White.packgrad said:
A white man shot up an Asian massage parlor a couple/few weeks ago so a narrative is being written. Not that there isn't violence against Asian Americans. But who they're trying to frame as those perpetuating the violence.
What did these Asian masseuses have to do with his sex addiction?
Military - "High" budget. Sure. Higher than the next 10 countries combined? That's crossing into absurdpineknollshoresking said:Military - I'm comfortable with it being 15% of our budget. That being said, I would definitely consider pulling troops out of most of the locations we are in. The cost of defense missiles, well I don't know if the prices are fair or not. Nonetheless, it should be reviewed and I think we have to keep our defense capabilities extremely high.IseWolf22 said:Military - It's ~15% of the total federal budget, ~50% of discretionary spending. The real expense is not solider salaries and benefits, it's defense contractors. A single Tomahawk missile is $1 million. We spend about as much as the next 10 countries combined. We subsidize defense for the rest of the world.pineknollshoresking said:Actually, I respect your points. I think those words would come out of my mouth as well.IseWolf22 said:pineknollshoresking said:elaborate on each...IseWolf22 said:Military spending, war on drugs, immigration, police reform, free trade, pro section 230, etc.pineknollshoresking said:What areas do you have a smaller government mindset than other outspoken people on here?IseWolf22 said:I'm not sure why you think this applies to me. On the vast majority of issues I'm for little to no intervention from the state. The things we generally argue about are areas where conservatives want more state power and not less. I'd argue I'm one of the biggest proponents of small government on this board.pineknollshoresking said:
Where are the people like this? Civ, Isle, Hokie...
Dean Alfange, a progressive and labor activist, wrote the following 163 words as first published in Reader's Digest in 1952:
"I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek to develop whatever talents God gave menot security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say 'This, with God's help, I have done.' All this is what it means to be an American."
To preface this, you may think these positions are wrong, and that's OK, but I think they still qualify as more "small government" than the standard conservative position today.
Military spending - Cut it. Less troops abroad. Higher standards for intervention. Spend less on defense contractors.
War on Drugs - the government shouldn't care what you put in your body. I am the ultimate authority on my own body. Decriminalize substance abuse and you cut down on enforcement costs and incarceration
Immigration - Make it easy to enter the country legally. A wall is a massive government project. Spend less on ICE
Police reform - police are literally the Government's armed enforcement of laws. The loss of life and liberty by the state needs to be viewed with extreme scrutiny
Free trade - voluntary exchanges of goods and services make both parties more wealthy. It doesn't matter of the other county has tariffs, tariffs are just a tax on your own population and drives up the cost of goods
Section 230 - I dont want the government policing speech on a privately owned platform, no matter how much I disagree with their moderation decisions
Military Spending - I completely agree; however, I'm not sure that is where the real money is. Being in the Military is like being a tenured teacher when it comes to benefits. I'm not sure what to do there...
War on Drugs - the problem we have here is our health system. If we can get the government 100% out of healthcare, then I can support your view 100%
Immigration - I agree, make it easier for legal immigration; however, stop illegal immigration. To me, both are American workers killers.
Police reform - on the surface, it's easy to want to do reforms, based on today's rhetoric; however, the system has been co-opted by woke local public figures that it's hard to figure where to start.
Free trade - that one bothers me. I agree with the premise; however, what China (the CCP) has done to us is extremely scary. I say done to us; however, we had willing participants. In fact, they are wanting to move the world currency standard to something like a crypto currency. If that happens, the US could, and probably will, see a dire future.
Section 230 - I get what you are saying... let me ask this? Do you think companies, like Google, are too big? Too much control? What do you do when a company like DuckDuckGo, Google, Bing, etc.. intentionally suppresses results of indexed sites they don't agree with.
War on Drugs - The healthcare expenses from drug use are much smaller than the what we spend to incarcerate drug users and fight trafficking. I'd also argue that the drug war drives up prices, benefiting the cartels south of us and destabilizes those countries, driving more migrants to the US.
Immigration - I don't think you can really stop illegal immigration. Visa overstays don't get the press of the southern border, but many years they outnumber border crossings. And I don't think you can deport everyone already here. I'd rather have all of them legal and working.
Police reform - I agree it's been tainted by the current state of discourse. However there are many race neutral reforms we could pursue. You've said that you like John Stossel, you could start with his views on police reform
Trade - This is an entire thread in itself. But to boil it down, I don't think a bad outcome is possible when two entities willingly exchange money for goods. Consumer surplus is created and total wealth increases.
230 - I do think big tech is too big, but that's only because we all still use their services. There are literally 100s of social media sites. People can and should abandon the big players if they are acting badly. Let the market decide. I do have some sympathy for the idea that we should allow free speech on platforms, but I've yet to see a single proposal that get's us there without unintended consequences. I try to view new laws with the assumption that at some point, my worst enemy will be in charge. In that scenario I have yet to see something better than the status quo, which is to allow platforms to moderate themselves as they see fit
War on Drugs - regardless of the healthcare expenses as it relates to drugs, we have to get the federal government out of health care! Would you consider a much stronger penalty for driving or anything else if one affects another when the one is using?
Immigration - I'm not expecting to stop illegal immigration 100%. We do need to do everything possible to stop it! I view this as a jobs issues for US citizens!
Police reform - I'll look at John Stossel's views.
Trade - I would ask you to do some research on China. Perhaps, start with the documentary "Death by China". It's older now; so, things have only gotten worse.
230 - what you have to be concerned about is internet access. If the ISP starts moderating and/or filtering content, then that is a problem. We do have competition; however, the companies are all big. My guess, which I'm not sure if this is good, is that congress will classify them as utilities and regulate them.
I agree with 95% of what he said.FlossyDFlynt said:
I still think this is the best thing I have heard in the past year with regards to police reform.
Now, that being said, I dont think its feasible given how department budgets are currently done, but to me, its a decent start to the conversation.
Here is where are in trouble with slowing military spend... Taiwan is a major world chip manufacturer. Essential Silicon Valley West. I Being that this industry has been outsourced over there, Thaiwan now becomes of National Interest to us.IseWolf22 said:Military - "High" budget. Sure. Higher than the next 10 countries combined? That's crossing into absurdpineknollshoresking said:Military - I'm comfortable with it being 15% of our budget. That being said, I would definitely consider pulling troops out of most of the locations we are in. The cost of defense missiles, well I don't know if the prices are fair or not. Nonetheless, it should be reviewed and I think we have to keep our defense capabilities extremely high.IseWolf22 said:Military - It's ~15% of the total federal budget, ~50% of discretionary spending. The real expense is not solider salaries and benefits, it's defense contractors. A single Tomahawk missile is $1 million. We spend about as much as the next 10 countries combined. We subsidize defense for the rest of the world.pineknollshoresking said:Actually, I respect your points. I think those words would come out of my mouth as well.IseWolf22 said:pineknollshoresking said:elaborate on each...IseWolf22 said:Military spending, war on drugs, immigration, police reform, free trade, pro section 230, etc.pineknollshoresking said:What areas do you have a smaller government mindset than other outspoken people on here?IseWolf22 said:I'm not sure why you think this applies to me. On the vast majority of issues I'm for little to no intervention from the state. The things we generally argue about are areas where conservatives want more state power and not less. I'd argue I'm one of the biggest proponents of small government on this board.pineknollshoresking said:
Where are the people like this? Civ, Isle, Hokie...
Dean Alfange, a progressive and labor activist, wrote the following 163 words as first published in Reader's Digest in 1952:
"I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek to develop whatever talents God gave menot security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say 'This, with God's help, I have done.' All this is what it means to be an American."
To preface this, you may think these positions are wrong, and that's OK, but I think they still qualify as more "small government" than the standard conservative position today.
Military spending - Cut it. Less troops abroad. Higher standards for intervention. Spend less on defense contractors.
War on Drugs - the government shouldn't care what you put in your body. I am the ultimate authority on my own body. Decriminalize substance abuse and you cut down on enforcement costs and incarceration
Immigration - Make it easy to enter the country legally. A wall is a massive government project. Spend less on ICE
Police reform - police are literally the Government's armed enforcement of laws. The loss of life and liberty by the state needs to be viewed with extreme scrutiny
Free trade - voluntary exchanges of goods and services make both parties more wealthy. It doesn't matter of the other county has tariffs, tariffs are just a tax on your own population and drives up the cost of goods
Section 230 - I dont want the government policing speech on a privately owned platform, no matter how much I disagree with their moderation decisions
Military Spending - I completely agree; however, I'm not sure that is where the real money is. Being in the Military is like being a tenured teacher when it comes to benefits. I'm not sure what to do there...
War on Drugs - the problem we have here is our health system. If we can get the government 100% out of healthcare, then I can support your view 100%
Immigration - I agree, make it easier for legal immigration; however, stop illegal immigration. To me, both are American workers killers.
Police reform - on the surface, it's easy to want to do reforms, based on today's rhetoric; however, the system has been co-opted by woke local public figures that it's hard to figure where to start.
Free trade - that one bothers me. I agree with the premise; however, what China (the CCP) has done to us is extremely scary. I say done to us; however, we had willing participants. In fact, they are wanting to move the world currency standard to something like a crypto currency. If that happens, the US could, and probably will, see a dire future.
Section 230 - I get what you are saying... let me ask this? Do you think companies, like Google, are too big? Too much control? What do you do when a company like DuckDuckGo, Google, Bing, etc.. intentionally suppresses results of indexed sites they don't agree with.
War on Drugs - The healthcare expenses from drug use are much smaller than the what we spend to incarcerate drug users and fight trafficking. I'd also argue that the drug war drives up prices, benefiting the cartels south of us and destabilizes those countries, driving more migrants to the US.
Immigration - I don't think you can really stop illegal immigration. Visa overstays don't get the press of the southern border, but many years they outnumber border crossings. And I don't think you can deport everyone already here. I'd rather have all of them legal and working.
Police reform - I agree it's been tainted by the current state of discourse. However there are many race neutral reforms we could pursue. You've said that you like John Stossel, you could start with his views on police reform
Trade - This is an entire thread in itself. But to boil it down, I don't think a bad outcome is possible when two entities willingly exchange money for goods. Consumer surplus is created and total wealth increases.
230 - I do think big tech is too big, but that's only because we all still use their services. There are literally 100s of social media sites. People can and should abandon the big players if they are acting badly. Let the market decide. I do have some sympathy for the idea that we should allow free speech on platforms, but I've yet to see a single proposal that get's us there without unintended consequences. I try to view new laws with the assumption that at some point, my worst enemy will be in charge. In that scenario I have yet to see something better than the status quo, which is to allow platforms to moderate themselves as they see fit
War on Drugs - regardless of the healthcare expenses as it relates to drugs, we have to get the federal government out of health care! Would you consider a much stronger penalty for driving or anything else if one affects another when the one is using?
Immigration - I'm not expecting to stop illegal immigration 100%. We do need to do everything possible to stop it! I view this as a jobs issues for US citizens!
Police reform - I'll look at John Stossel's views.
Trade - I would ask you to do some research on China. Perhaps, start with the documentary "Death by China". It's older now; so, things have only gotten worse.
230 - what you have to be concerned about is internet access. If the ISP starts moderating and/or filtering content, then that is a problem. We do have competition; however, the companies are all big. My guess, which I'm not sure if this is good, is that congress will classify them as utilities and regulate them.
WoD - No problems with criminal penalties for use while driving, shooting, or operating heavy machinery
Trade - I'm quite familiar with China. They are a real life example of authoritarianism at it's worse. I still don't think tariffs work. They punish your own population more than the other country.
230 - There is a good argument to be made to treat ISPs as a utility. Not so for social media
NYPD detective whacked in head with stick in brazen broad-daylight attack https://t.co/5R9ea3UETV pic.twitter.com/lfq1lr2AX3
— New York Post (@nypost) April 27, 2021
BBW12OG said:
Not sure where to put this so I'll post it on both threads.
Now let's see all the anti-police posters defend this piece of ***** I'm sure with the SOCIALIST run city this guy will be released immediately if they even are allowed to arrest him.
packgrad said:
How many fewer should it be? You keep saying it should be far fewer but have yet to substantiate that claim. It sounds like a leftist talking point. Why shouldn't there have been far more shootings?
Ultimately if people don't resist arrest, there is less reason for police to engage with Americans in violent ways, or with decreased frequency, and the citizens are safer too. Everybody wins.
Civilized said:packgrad said:
How many fewer should it be? You keep saying it should be far fewer but have yet to substantiate that claim. It sounds like a leftist talking point. Why shouldn't there have been far more shootings?
Ultimately if people don't resist arrest, there is less reason for police to engage with Americans in violent ways, or with decreased frequency, and the citizens are safer too. Everybody wins.
Why shouldn't it be more?
For starters because we are worst in the developed world by a large factor.
Secondly because there are clear ways to reduce violent interactions with cops and some departments around the country that have already started implementing them have shown very good early results.
Third because 1100 Americans dying at the hands of cops isn't good for Americans or cops and in virtually every situation in life you can improve outcomes with appropriate time, analysis, and resources.
As for what the target should be, cutting the number of killings by half seems like a reasonable starting point. We'd still be worst in the developed world but that's 550 American lives saved every year and maybe more importantly could have important long-term ancillary benefits like increasing trust in policing in communities where that relationship has historically been strained because of what has been viewed as overly aggressive or violent policing tactics.
As a related aside, the benefit of amendments to qualified immunity and increases in de-escalation training aren't limited to fewer Americans dying at the hands of cops every year; non-fatal violent encounters with police dwarf the number of fatal encounters. There would also be a reduction in non-fatal violent encounters which since they are much more frequent than fatal encounters probably have just as much capacity to impact perceptions of policing in American communities as a reduction in fatal encounters.
hokiewolf said:
This is where I have trouble with your argument, because I don't find any number acceptable for the amount of people who die during a police encounter or in custody. Again, I don't care about race, I care about making sure that policing is looked at and continually improved upon to try and eliminate these deaths as much as possible.
This is basically the same argument that I've seen in the construction industry over the last 20 years and frankly it's bunk. You strive for zero, you're probably never going to reach it, but to sit there and say any number of death is acceptable is just crazy to me.
I understand that, but to sit there and say that theres this acceptable number out there is straight out of the 19th century. For instance, when the Hoover Dam was built, there was an estimate on the acceptable number of deaths during construction. That is not the practice in todays world. This is essentially what your saying here, there's nothing that can be done to try and lower the amount of deaths is admitting defeat.packgrad said:hokiewolf said:
This is where I have trouble with your argument, because I don't find any number acceptable for the amount of people who die during a police encounter or in custody. Again, I don't care about race, I care about making sure that policing is looked at and continually improved upon to try and eliminate these deaths as much as possible.
This is basically the same argument that I've seen in the construction industry over the last 20 years and frankly it's bunk. You strive for zero, you're probably never going to reach it, but to sit there and say any number of death is acceptable is just crazy to me.
That's all great in a sunshine and rainbow world, but in the real world you understand that sometimes death happens. Death is most definitely acceptable, especially when you're dealing with people that are trying to kill you. Arm chair quarterbacking and saying no death is acceptable is not in the realm of reasonable expectation.
I think they are saying, why can't we at least try to lower the amount of deaths at the hands of the police? They need to be tracked, first. Study the situations in depth and try to learn from each one. If it truly is a civilian issue, how do we attempt to try to help in those situations? How do we attempt to change the reputation or view of police in those communities? If their is training that can be improved or added, why wouldn't you want to try it and see if it works? I don't think anyone here is just trashing the police force in general. I think they are just wanting to see improvements and if we don't try, then it won't improve.packgrad said:hokiewolf said:
This is where I have trouble with your argument, because I don't find any number acceptable for the amount of people who die during a police encounter or in custody. Again, I don't care about race, I care about making sure that policing is looked at and continually improved upon to try and eliminate these deaths as much as possible.
This is basically the same argument that I've seen in the construction industry over the last 20 years and frankly it's bunk. You strive for zero, you're probably never going to reach it, but to sit there and say any number of death is acceptable is just crazy to me.
That's all great in a sunshine and rainbow world, but in the real world you understand that sometimes death happens. Death is most definitely acceptable, especially when you're dealing with people that are trying to kill you. Arm chair quarterbacking and saying no death is acceptable is not in the realm of reasonable expectation.
PackPA2015 said:I think they are saying, why can't we at least try to lower the amount of deaths at the hands of the police? They need to be tracked, first. Study the situations in depth and try to learn from each one. If it truly is a civilian issue, how do we attempt to try to help in those situations? How do we attempt to change the reputation or view of police in those communities? If their is training that can be improved or added, why wouldn't you want to try it and see if it works? I don't think anyone here is just trashing the police force in general. I think they are just wanting to see improvements and if we don't try, then it won't improve.packgrad said:hokiewolf said:
This is where I have trouble with your argument, because I don't find any number acceptable for the amount of people who die during a police encounter or in custody. Again, I don't care about race, I care about making sure that policing is looked at and continually improved upon to try and eliminate these deaths as much as possible.
This is basically the same argument that I've seen in the construction industry over the last 20 years and frankly it's bunk. You strive for zero, you're probably never going to reach it, but to sit there and say any number of death is acceptable is just crazy to me.
That's all great in a sunshine and rainbow world, but in the real world you understand that sometimes death happens. Death is most definitely acceptable, especially when you're dealing with people that are trying to kill you. Arm chair quarterbacking and saying no death is acceptable is not in the realm of reasonable expectation.
I think this is what Hokie and Civil are hinting at.
The medical community has morbidity and mortality conferences where accidental patient death cases are presented and studied in depth to try to prevent them in the future. Everyone makes mistakes in every profession, but how can we try to limit those as much as possible is always the goal.
