"Police murders are not a good thing, but I will not pay hundreds of innocent lives to catch them. You may be so cruel but I am not."
Your cognitive dissonance is working hard to suppress the anxiety your acceptance of murder is creating within you. This is the first time you put an actual figure on the number of fantasy lives the actual lives you condone the taking of would save.
But just as before you have absolutely NO PROOF WHAT SO EVER for this - you're just pulling a large number out of you ass in a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible.
I could just as well claim that if I didn't get to kill anyone I wanted hundreds of thousands of innocent little children would die a horrible death.
No I don't have any proof for that but think about the hundreds of thousands of imaginary deaths that would happen if you don't let me kill!
Oh why won't you think of the poor children you monster!?
See - just as ludicrous as your empty claims.
" I claim that the solution is worse than the illness. Yes, the solution does make them worse at their jobs. Keep thinking about it. You almost have half the idea."
You claim that enforcing the laws against murder for police will make for a less efficient police.
Yes I know - you're morally corrupt, hence your cognitive dissonance.
"He had the chance to discharge the situation and de-escalate. Instead, he gave tacit approval of rioting and the media swam with it. He did this for votes, which was propaganda, and not for any noble reason. He had the power to help the nation heal and instead of signed the death sentence of many young lives. By demonizing those police that would protect minority neighborhoods the murder rate increased."
I guess that's what Fox told you.
Meanwhile, in the real word it works like this:
If the powers that be ignores repeated instances of police killings and brutality - as you want them to do - that doesn't mean that the bad blood goes away.
I'm sure it's no problem for you or the Fox News crowd how ever many black or brown people the police kills - you just don't give a fuck.
Until there are protests - and then you blame the protests.
Well America has tried it your and Fox's way for decades and have there never been any protest?
No, in fact there have been repeated full scale riots in American cities throughout history.
So clearly ignoring the facts and pretending like everything is fine is not the way to prevent protests.
Obama did what any grown up with half a brain would do - he showed that he understood the feelings of the community that was effected, showed them that he heard them and he validated their concerns.
That's what you do if you want to de-escalate a situation like that - show people that their concerns have been heard.
Keep ignoring the people and it will all blow up in your face - there is ample historical evidence for that.
And if Fox told you Obama ever said anything to the black community "for votes" their propaganda is even cruder and you are even more stupid then I believed.
Obama is the first black president - he could say or do anything to the black community and they would still vote for him.
It very much more likely cost him votes and support from ignorant whites like you.
"Yes, yes, you are a very nationalistic avowed socialist. You are also a speck of a country and until recently you were culturally homogeneous. Now you’re the European capital of forcing another people to submit to sex acts and unwanted intercourse. At least US citizens know how to keep their pants zipped."
First it's interesting to note that my comment that lead to this reply from you was this:
"There are no angry mobs caused by police shootings in Sweden or any other western democratic country. Because we trust our police to do the right thing and we know that when they don't, they suffer consequences for it. In America that trust have been destroyed - not by some mild comment on the basic facts of your country by Obama - but by years of complete ignorance for the misconduct of your police forces."
So, not having any argument to counter the fact that out of all western democratic nations only American police are mistrusted by such a large minority of it's own people, you ignore that and instead concentrate on trying to insult my country.
Unfortunately your just as uninformed about this as everything else you've written.
Because the nonsense about "rape capitol" (I know you didn't write exactly that, but I know what you've been hearing) is total crap and has been disproven many times over.
But since facts don't matter to right-wingers (since you have your own "alternative facts") it keeps coming back.
The basis for the lie about Sweden being the "rape capitol" of anything comes from two infamous Scandinavian racists - one female Swede and a male Dane. They have both headed different racist organisations in their respective country for many years and two years ago the published a paper through and American right-wing propaganda group called the Gatestone Institute.
Now none of these two clowns have any background in research or science - they're just opinion-filled windbags who hate Muslims.
So they wrote a paper filled with their fantasies about how there was this huge Muslim conspiracy to invade Europe and how Europeans who didn't hate Muslims like them where actually in on the conspiracy and wanted to bring down European civilisation from the inside.
Your standard insane nonsense in other words.
And they headlined their paper by claiming that Sweden was the rape capitol of the west - which they based on the official statistics of rape.
The thing is those numbers can't be compared between different nations because they all define what constitutes rape differently.
Also there is of course a huge dark number here where many rapes simply aren't reported in any country and the amount of it that is reported differ from country to country.
Any way - a long story short - the claim is complete nonsense and now you know.
But I bet you won't stop using the claim anyway will you?
No, you like your "alternate facts" to much to accept the real ones I bet.
So - Sweden is not the rape capitol of anything, but America is still the only western democracy where there are regular protests at police-shootings - because a large part of your own population doesn't trust their own police force.
"With the way you speak of revolution are you sure you're a socialist and not a fascist or communist? Actually, the way you argue is more in the latter camp so I think you would be happier as a communist. Either way, you're making the right-wing nuts look practically saintly."
Once again you're trying to avoid the facts I'm pointing to by turning it personal. This time not against my country but me personally.
Read some history - I'm not saying anything not supported by facts. It's not a question what I want (and no - of course I don't want any violence) - it's just a historic fact that ignoring the plight of the people or a large minority of it will lead to social unrest and revolts if not revolution.
That's why it's a very good idea for a leader to show the people he listens to them - like Obama did - and a very bad idea to ignore or even attack people for protesting - like Trump does now.
The whole part about the murder statistic is almost comical coming after you tried using that lie about Sweden being the rape capitol of anything as a smear, since that's of course built on a deliberate misreading of statistics.
"Only if you stretch the clock back and conflate all violent crime with the single statistic of murder. Over a twenty year period the *base* murder rate is down. When you compare the trend in homicide over the last five years, to the decade before, you can see a sharp incline. Beside the fact that small town America should be declining and the effect people are upset about involves inner cities."
I guess this is your opinion, since you didn't post a link to a source?
"The Times article you linked, which I have read before (odd how these things always come up again), even admits to the difficulty of using these statistics. "But whether crime is up or down depends on what data is being looked at — and who is doing the looking." I have done my own looking."
Of course you have... *facepalm*
A lot of people today think they can find the answer to anything by a little quick googleing but no - you or I are not qualified to draw conclusions from raw data like this because we lack the education and familiarity with the material you need to do that correctly.
That quote from the NYT really says people like you or I shouldn't guess about things like this ourselves, because we get it wrong.
And then, after that quote, the NYT told you what the correct answer is.
They interviewed several different people with the correct education and background to answer this question - but you ignored that part of the article, because it didn't say what you wanted to hear.
Instead you post completely pointless links to FBI spreadsheets of data that neither you or I have the education or experience to interpret in any meaningful way.
"..Lies, damn lies, and statistics." This is not because all statistics are incorrect but because they can be made to misconstrue a situation."
Yes - exactly! And that's why you or I shouldn't pretend we're experts in every field and we shouldn't listen to others who claim to be.
Instead we should listen to the ACTUAL experts and what they tell us about the statistics and what they show - like the one's being interviewed in the NYT article. But no - you didn't like what they said, so you just ignored them.
"If we destroy the carriers of innocent police officers all we are left with are the scum. It is a nuisance you may be unable to grasp. When the mob pushes for the prosecution of innocent looking officers, in the hopes of catching a few bad apples, the results are bad. This is why I call it a witch-hunt. Here is a US Department of Justice report to help explain https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2861305/Documenting-and-Explaining-the-2015-Homicide-Rise.pdf";
Here you're using a strawman:
"If we destroy the carriers of innocent police officers all we are left with are the scum. It is a nuisance you may be unable to grasp."
I have of course never advocated for the destruction of innocent police officers careers - that's a complete lie from you. I've advocated for enforcing the laws against the police just as well as against civilians - nothing more and nothing else.
"When the mob pushes for the prosecution of innocent looking officers, in the hopes of catching a few bad apples, the results are bad. This is why I call it a witch-hunt. "
What are you even talking about - it makes no sense?
Why would anyone push for persecution of "innocent looking" anything and why would anyone hope this would catch anything?
My only assumption is that your mixing your opinions into this. YOU think the officers are "innocent looking" - but what you think of course means nothing.
And then you post another completely pointless link to a 31 page report. Now if you want to point to anything specific in this report, quote the passage and cite the page for reference. Otherwise I assume you just posted the link to pretend you've read the report and think it will impress me.
""... proven by years of police misconduct the police forces of [The USA] was not and still isn't held universally and equally accountable as is prescribed by law... no other western nation accepts anything like this in their societies." Prove it with a reliable (none-media) source. I can admit to common sense that a few murders go unsolved in every country. I think your claim is fantastic and ignorant of reality. Prove your erroneous claims or admit you are wrong."
"I can admit to common sense that a few murders go unsolved in every country. "
You really don't understand how different the US is to the rest of the western world do you?
In any other western country it's extremely rare that a police officer ever kill anyone in the line of duty and every such case leads to extensive reviews. Of course I can't say it's never happened in any other nation then the US - sure it must have. But there are no "few murders" that could go unsolved in "every country" because there are simply not that many incidents where police kill civilians.
Hell - didn't you hear about the guy at the Louvre in Paris the other day?
He attacked a GROUP of French SOLDIERS armed with assault rifles - and they still didn't kill him outright. They shot him but he's in hospital and he'll live.
"I will be especially interested in you proving that no other western nation has ever covered up police misconduct. What a clownish thing to suggest."
Another strawman.
Of course it is - that's why I never suggested any such thing.
But I will be very interested in seeing you proving I did.
""...a few murders in your fantasy [world] stop many more others... you have absolutely no proof for that." You mean besides the US Department of Justice reports and FBI findings and the academic papers on the matter?"
And where are those reports and findings then? And don't pretend like the links you posted proves that because they don't. The DOJ-report deals with the rise in homicide rates in 2015 and the FBI pages you linked to are only raw data.
Nothing in there that says that a police force becomes less efficient if it's officers are held accountable to the law.
""... Trumpster..." Is that what we are calling this schmuck now? Why? Whatever, the internet is stupid sometimes."
I call him that as an insult but there are many other names for him as well online. I don't think there's a consensus.
""...no sane person is ever OK with ANYONE getting away with murder..." I think everyone, even remotely mature, is okay with the fact that some people get away with murder. It is a fact of life and can only be changed by living in an Orwellian nightmare. Perfect control of the population is impossible and so some murders will occur. Some of these murders will go unsolved because the world isn't perfect. Grow up!"
Yes, of course not all crimes will be solved. But that doesn't make it any more OK to murder - now does it?
But you're not only OK with it - you actually argue that it's GOOD for the police's efficiency that not all crimes - including murder - committed by police are solved.
And that's not only a morally corrupt and indefensible position to hold (hence the cognitive dissonance) - it's also not proven in any way.
0
@lesserevil
"Police murders are not a good thing, but I will not pay hundreds of innocent lives to catch them. You may be so cruel but I am not."
Your cognitive dissonance is working hard to suppress the anxiety your acceptance of murder is creating within you. This is the first time you put an actual figure on the number of fantasy lives the actual lives you condone the taking of would save.
But just as before you have absolutely NO PROOF WHAT SO EVER for this - you're just pulling a large number out of you ass in a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible.
I could just as well claim that if I didn't get to kill anyone I wanted hundreds of thousands of innocent little children would die a horrible death.
No I don't have any proof for that but think about the hundreds of thousands of imaginary deaths that would happen if you don't let me kill!
Oh why won't you think of the poor children you monster!?
See - just as ludicrous as your empty claims.
" I claim that the solution is worse than the illness. Yes, the solution does make them worse at their jobs. Keep thinking about it. You almost have half the idea."
You claim that enforcing the laws against murder for police will make for a less efficient police.
Yes I know - you're morally corrupt, hence your cognitive dissonance.
"He had the chance to discharge the situation and de-escalate. Instead, he gave tacit approval of rioting and the media swam with it. He did this for votes, which was propaganda, and not for any noble reason. He had the power to help the nation heal and instead of signed the death sentence of many young lives. By demonizing those police that would protect minority neighborhoods the murder rate increased."
I guess that's what Fox told you.
Meanwhile, in the real word it works like this:
If the powers that be ignores repeated instances of police killings and brutality - as you want them to do - that doesn't mean that the bad blood goes away.
I'm sure it's no problem for you or the Fox News crowd how ever many black or brown people the police kills - you just don't give a fuck.
Until there are protests - and then you blame the protests.
Well America has tried it your and Fox's way for decades and have there never been any protest?
No, in fact there have been repeated full scale riots in American cities throughout history.
So clearly ignoring the facts and pretending like everything is fine is not the way to prevent protests.
Obama did what any grown up with half a brain would do - he showed that he understood the feelings of the community that was effected, showed them that he heard them and he validated their concerns.
That's what you do if you want to de-escalate a situation like that - show people that their concerns have been heard.
Keep ignoring the people and it will all blow up in your face - there is ample historical evidence for that.
And if Fox told you Obama ever said anything to the black community "for votes" their propaganda is even cruder and you are even more stupid then I believed.
Obama is the first black president - he could say or do anything to the black community and they would still vote for him.
It very much more likely cost him votes and support from ignorant whites like you.
"Yes, yes, you are a very nationalistic avowed socialist. You are also a speck of a country and until recently you were culturally homogeneous. Now you’re the European capital of forcing another people to submit to sex acts and unwanted intercourse. At least US citizens know how to keep their pants zipped."
First it's interesting to note that my comment that lead to this reply from you was this:
"There are no angry mobs caused by police shootings in Sweden or any other western democratic country. Because we trust our police to do the right thing and we know that when they don't, they suffer consequences for it. In America that trust have been destroyed - not by some mild comment on the basic facts of your country by Obama - but by years of complete ignorance for the misconduct of your police forces."
So, not having any argument to counter the fact that out of all western democratic nations only American police are mistrusted by such a large minority of it's own people, you ignore that and instead concentrate on trying to insult my country.
Unfortunately your just as uninformed about this as everything else you've written.
Because the nonsense about "rape capitol" (I know you didn't write exactly that, but I know what you've been hearing) is total crap and has been disproven many times over.
But since facts don't matter to right-wingers (since you have your own "alternative facts") it keeps coming back.
The basis for the lie about Sweden being the "rape capitol" of anything comes from two infamous Scandinavian racists - one female Swede and a male Dane. They have both headed different racist organisations in their respective country for many years and two years ago the published a paper through and American right-wing propaganda group called the Gatestone Institute.
Now none of these two clowns have any background in research or science - they're just opinion-filled windbags who hate Muslims.
So they wrote a paper filled with their fantasies about how there was this huge Muslim conspiracy to invade Europe and how Europeans who didn't hate Muslims like them where actually in on the conspiracy and wanted to bring down European civilisation from the inside.
Your standard insane nonsense in other words.
And they headlined their paper by claiming that Sweden was the rape capitol of the west - which they based on the official statistics of rape.
The thing is those numbers can't be compared between different nations because they all define what constitutes rape differently.
Also there is of course a huge dark number here where many rapes simply aren't reported in any country and the amount of it that is reported differ from country to country.
Any way - a long story short - the claim is complete nonsense and now you know.
But I bet you won't stop using the claim anyway will you?
No, you like your "alternate facts" to much to accept the real ones I bet.
A link to the fantasy of two deranged Muslim-haters:
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195/sweden-rape
And for balance sake just one article from a serious news source debunking this nonsense:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372
So - Sweden is not the rape capitol of anything, but America is still the only western democracy where there are regular protests at police-shootings - because a large part of your own population doesn't trust their own police force.
"With the way you speak of revolution are you sure you're a socialist and not a fascist or communist? Actually, the way you argue is more in the latter camp so I think you would be happier as a communist. Either way, you're making the right-wing nuts look practically saintly."
Once again you're trying to avoid the facts I'm pointing to by turning it personal. This time not against my country but me personally.
Read some history - I'm not saying anything not supported by facts. It's not a question what I want (and no - of course I don't want any violence) - it's just a historic fact that ignoring the plight of the people or a large minority of it will lead to social unrest and revolts if not revolution.
That's why it's a very good idea for a leader to show the people he listens to them - like Obama did - and a very bad idea to ignore or even attack people for protesting - like Trump does now.
The whole part about the murder statistic is almost comical coming after you tried using that lie about Sweden being the rape capitol of anything as a smear, since that's of course built on a deliberate misreading of statistics.
"Only if you stretch the clock back and conflate all violent crime with the single statistic of murder. Over a twenty year period the *base* murder rate is down. When you compare the trend in homicide over the last five years, to the decade before, you can see a sharp incline. Beside the fact that small town America should be declining and the effect people are upset about involves inner cities."
I guess this is your opinion, since you didn't post a link to a source?
"The Times article you linked, which I have read before (odd how these things always come up again), even admits to the difficulty of using these statistics. "But whether crime is up or down depends on what data is being looked at — and who is doing the looking." I have done my own looking."
Of course you have... *facepalm*
A lot of people today think they can find the answer to anything by a little quick googleing but no - you or I are not qualified to draw conclusions from raw data like this because we lack the education and familiarity with the material you need to do that correctly.
That quote from the NYT really says people like you or I shouldn't guess about things like this ourselves, because we get it wrong.
And then, after that quote, the NYT told you what the correct answer is.
They interviewed several different people with the correct education and background to answer this question - but you ignored that part of the article, because it didn't say what you wanted to hear.
Instead you post completely pointless links to FBI spreadsheets of data that neither you or I have the education or experience to interpret in any meaningful way.
"..Lies, damn lies, and statistics." This is not because all statistics are incorrect but because they can be made to misconstrue a situation."
Yes - exactly! And that's why you or I shouldn't pretend we're experts in every field and we shouldn't listen to others who claim to be.
Instead we should listen to the ACTUAL experts and what they tell us about the statistics and what they show - like the one's being interviewed in the NYT article. But no - you didn't like what they said, so you just ignored them.
"If we destroy the carriers of innocent police officers all we are left with are the scum. It is a nuisance you may be unable to grasp. When the mob pushes for the prosecution of innocent looking officers, in the hopes of catching a few bad apples, the results are bad. This is why I call it a witch-hunt. Here is a US Department of Justice report to help explain https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2861305/Documenting-and-Explaining-the-2015-Homicide-Rise.pdf";
Here you're using a strawman:
"If we destroy the carriers of innocent police officers all we are left with are the scum. It is a nuisance you may be unable to grasp."
I have of course never advocated for the destruction of innocent police officers careers - that's a complete lie from you. I've advocated for enforcing the laws against the police just as well as against civilians - nothing more and nothing else.
"When the mob pushes for the prosecution of innocent looking officers, in the hopes of catching a few bad apples, the results are bad. This is why I call it a witch-hunt. "
What are you even talking about - it makes no sense?
Why would anyone push for persecution of "innocent looking" anything and why would anyone hope this would catch anything?
My only assumption is that your mixing your opinions into this. YOU think the officers are "innocent looking" - but what you think of course means nothing.
And then you post another completely pointless link to a 31 page report. Now if you want to point to anything specific in this report, quote the passage and cite the page for reference. Otherwise I assume you just posted the link to pretend you've read the report and think it will impress me.
""... proven by years of police misconduct the police forces of [The USA] was not and still isn't held universally and equally accountable as is prescribed by law... no other western nation accepts anything like this in their societies." Prove it with a reliable (none-media) source. I can admit to common sense that a few murders go unsolved in every country. I think your claim is fantastic and ignorant of reality. Prove your erroneous claims or admit you are wrong."
The US Department of Justice have investigated a number of police departments across the nation over the last decades and found more then enough evidence to support those claims.
Here are some links:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/17-justice-dept-investigations-into-police-departments-nationwide/
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-doj-and-police-violence/
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/13/509646186/doj-severely-deficient-training-has-led-to-pattern-of-abuse-by-chicago-police
"I can admit to common sense that a few murders go unsolved in every country. "
You really don't understand how different the US is to the rest of the western world do you?
In any other western country it's extremely rare that a police officer ever kill anyone in the line of duty and every such case leads to extensive reviews. Of course I can't say it's never happened in any other nation then the US - sure it must have. But there are no "few murders" that could go unsolved in "every country" because there are simply not that many incidents where police kill civilians.
Hell - didn't you hear about the guy at the Louvre in Paris the other day?
He attacked a GROUP of French SOLDIERS armed with assault rifles - and they still didn't kill him outright. They shot him but he's in hospital and he'll live.
"I will be especially interested in you proving that no other western nation has ever covered up police misconduct. What a clownish thing to suggest."
Another strawman.
Of course it is - that's why I never suggested any such thing.
But I will be very interested in seeing you proving I did.
""...a few murders in your fantasy [world] stop many more others... you have absolutely no proof for that." You mean besides the US Department of Justice reports and FBI findings and the academic papers on the matter?"
And where are those reports and findings then? And don't pretend like the links you posted proves that because they don't. The DOJ-report deals with the rise in homicide rates in 2015 and the FBI pages you linked to are only raw data.
Nothing in there that says that a police force becomes less efficient if it's officers are held accountable to the law.
""... Trumpster..." Is that what we are calling this schmuck now? Why? Whatever, the internet is stupid sometimes."
I call him that as an insult but there are many other names for him as well online. I don't think there's a consensus.
""...no sane person is ever OK with ANYONE getting away with murder..." I think everyone, even remotely mature, is okay with the fact that some people get away with murder. It is a fact of life and can only be changed by living in an Orwellian nightmare. Perfect control of the population is impossible and so some murders will occur. Some of these murders will go unsolved because the world isn't perfect. Grow up!"
Yes, of course not all crimes will be solved. But that doesn't make it any more OK to murder - now does it?
But you're not only OK with it - you actually argue that it's GOOD for the police's efficiency that not all crimes - including murder - committed by police are solved.
And that's not only a morally corrupt and indefensible position to hold (hence the cognitive dissonance) - it's also not proven in any way.