Weird...how language works like that.

Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds. I regret that I have but one upvote to give.

Upvote. There's always a bad apple in every bunch

True

That’s an interesting equivalency to draw. So...um...are you saying that the rioters and looters are a big problem to the same extent that bad cops are, and both need national attention? Or that rioters and looters aren’t that big of a problem just like bad cops aren’t a big problem, and we should ignore them on a national scale?

The equivalency doesn't need to be drawn, only pointed out. Rioters and looters are a big problem to the same extent that bad cops are...and both problems need to be solved lawfully...i.e., using good cops to enforce the law. Problem is...the powers that be are making it a point to trash all cops while hiding the acts of the rioters under some false narrative of legitimate protest.

Both good cops and legitimate law-abiding protesters are being generalized into a subset of their own numbers...the bad elements within that are stealing the spotlight. However, as I've pointed out with the Doctor, the numbers don't support the claim that cops have a rampant problem, whereas the protesters have visual evidence and the body count to boot, that shows they are more at fault for the violence within their numbers than the cops are for theirs. Unions tie the hands of police departments when it comes to cleaning up and reforming the system; whereas, local government authorities are tying the hands of the cops in their attempts to police the protests. Good cops get screwed by, their local leaders, bad unions, and protesters alike. Protesters are getting the metaphorical dick sucked and sent home with a smile.

How do you propose the good cops be sorted from the bad cops?

What are you going to do, ask them?

They reveal themselves in their actions, same way all criminals do.

“The powers that be...”

Who do you think it is that sits in the Oval Office? That controls the Senate? They’re pretty vocally opposing the narrative you’re attributing to the powers that be, and making sure no legislation passes to kowtow to it.

There’s also plenty of visual evidence and body count to support that bad cops exist everywhere and that the system protects them.

It sucks to be a good cop.

Oh!!!!!!!! Visual evidence but no hard evidence. Convenient for your antifa narrative.

How unimaginative and simplistic. Bored with you.

Scurry away.

I’m sorry, it’s just so typical. You’re just trolling around trying to own a lib, something that is so incredibly easy to do because all it takes is provocative language, an insistence that you’re right regardless of facts, and the stamina to get the last word. It’s just so boring.

Have the last word, I know you need it for some silly reason. If you want me to respond to you again on this thread, say something worth responding to.

If I don’t respond, it means I’ve read your response and am still bored with you.

They're asking for police accountability. Yet, the police have conveniently blurred the lines between what is a protest and a riot. Which of course they have. Self-interest. Pretending that civilians have the same luxury and protections as law enforcement who willingly murder and break laws is ridiculous.

How is quitting going to make them more accountable?

If they can't handle accountability, then they should quit.

Because THAT'S the American Spirit!

But if that's a problem for them, then they should quit.

Just because I said they should quit doesn't imply I said "arrested".

You somehow brought that into this diatribe.

I said "there are people who should quit."

You bring up "are they arrested".

WTF does that have to do with quitting?
*facepalm*

It's quite simple.

I asked you if the group of people you think should quit could be arrested by the police before you revealed what group you were even talking about. It was an attempt to reveal, again, another false equivalency.

Yet in response to my question "are they arrested by police" you answered with a picture of Democrats; none of which have been arrested, nor formally charged if I'm not mistaken. So, I assumed, possibly incorrectly, that you wanted them to be arrested. Which, of course, they cannot be just because you disagree with them politically.

Naturally, you couldn't argue with that line of thinking. It's not very partisan in tone. So, you tried to discredit my line of thinking, rather poorly, as me confusing "quitting" with being "arrested." Unfortunately, it looks like the only one here who is confused is you.

Feel free to try again.

But my point, which you're not refuting very well, is that "pretending that civilians have the same luxury and protections as law enforcement who willingly murder and break laws is ridiculous." and if it's too difficult for law enforcement to not shoot unarmed civilians, then those individuals should quit.

You generalize too much like everyone else I suppose. 33000 police interactions a day in this country where nothing bad happens. The police aren't the problem, generally speaking. Disciplining the one-off when it occurs... that's the problem. Police unions make that difficult. Remove those and maybe things will change.

Nothing bad happens is also a generalization.

It's a generalization, true, But 53 million incidences or contacts between police and civilians in 2015...only 1000 shot, which supports the generalization. 2019 had similar numbers, and of those only 10 unarmed blacks were shot. That's a pretty good record, by the numbers, considering half of those that were unarmed were shot in the process of trying to take an officer's life. That leaves 5...and the media hyped those up everyday for as long as they could, which leaves the casual observer under the impression that this is normal with all police and police departments across the states, when in fact, the numbers just don't support the hype. The term "most cops are good" is a serious understatement given the numbers.

Police killed more than ten black men in 2019.

You're very likely getting your information second hand from Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA. He made a similar claim with eight black men about a month ago. The Washington Post's database, which includes only people shot by police, not killed through other means like beating or tasering. That database is also woefully incomplete. The number of unarmed Black men fatally shot by police is likely higher than the Post's count due to a lack of comprehensive police records. Despite these issues, the Post's database shows police fatally shot 13 unarmed black men in 2019, not ten.

The Post said its team relies “primarily on news accounts, social media postings and police reports” in addition to its own reporting. Also, police fatally shot an unarmed Black woman, Atatiana Jefferson, 28, on Oct. 12 in Fort Worth Texas. But the Post's database covers only shootings. It does not include deaths caused by beating, tasering or vehicles. George Floyd’s died in police custody after a police officer knelt on his neck for several minutes, which would not have been included in the Post’s data set.

Mapping Police Violence, a crowdsourced database that includes deaths by vehicle, tasering or beating in addition to shootings, estimates 25 police killings of unarmed Black men in 2019.

Another thing, I would like to see is a more thorough source of data collection so that we can actually track how many unarmed people die as a result of police brutality, negligence, or general incompetence. A thing that shouldn't be necessary if the departments took the proper precautions and fired those with repeat offenses instead of waiting for their offenses to become public.

HOLY F**K!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 13??????

I WAS COOL WITH 10 BUT NOT 13!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DEFUND THE POLICE!!!! KICK OUT ALL WHITE COPS AND REPLACE THEM WITH BLACK COPS THAT ARE MORE LIKELY TO SHOOT OTHER BLACKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I realize you're being facetious but...

If you had continued reading, you would've read that the estimate is closer to 25. And those are only for those unarmed civilians that are shot, not those that are claimed by other methods. We simply don't have those numbers and to use them as a defense is weak. I think it would be more constructive to defund the police, hold criminal officers accountable, and maybe don't label every protest a riot. I just don't think I've ever made a racial distinction here in regards to the race of which officers should be held accountable and would likely argue against it. Nor does it solve the problem.

And denying there is a problem is also counter-productive.

What number would satisfy your goal of a fair outcome? 5? 1? 0?

The majority of shootings are perps attacking police with exoneration afterward. I really think bodycams were a great step forward in reform. Yet civil groups are calling for the end of that, because it hasn't served their narrative.

Yes, no one argues that cops that abuse their power shouldn't be dealt with.

One dead innocent person is a problem. Should you riot until not one more innocent people gets screwed with? Cops deal with crime. It's not the easist job. Defunding them Isn't going to improve things. Reform any waste in the system, which I'm sure is as rampant in politics or the military. Ripping the system down might not be the most wise action.

You've yet to prove it's a rampant problem like the Atlanta mayor saying she fears for her kids to be on the streets, like they are more likely to be killed by racist white cops than their peers, which account for 90% of black homicides.

I already said, "to use them as a defense is weak." The numbers are not the problem. It's the lack of accountability.

I've not heard of any civil groups calling for an end to body cams. I've heard of restrictive use of access to footage from individual officers to prevent them from tampering with evidence or to expand the access of footage to defense attorneys to assess the case of their clients. But I don't think anyone is actually calling for less body cams. Maybe less surveillance... Or even banning the use of facial recognition software but not body cams specifically.

True, no one argues against the sensible argument; so they often attack the source of those who make the argument and the ideas that might solve the problem without offering much in the way of constructive criticism; which is very unfortunate.

Claiming all protests for George Floyd are riots, adds to the problem. The police have taken anti-riot measures against every protest for George Floyd and Defund Police. As I've already argued, this is understandable. Self-interest. The people who follow that narrative that we shouldn't call ANY of these protests peaceful or stop calling them protests are manipulative measures to prevent the core problem from being fixed.

You are aware that cops deal with more than just crimes, right? They investigate civil disputes, make wellness checks, write highly expensive fines for often frivolous misdemeanors. In some departments, they generate revenue from such fines and arrests usually just to meet a quota.

I don't think taking away some of the cops jurisdiction would necessarily be "ripping the system down" but limiting when they should be deployed and for specific reasons may be the solution. Especially if those departments have a high number of cases in which officers murdered their suspects instead of bringing them in alive. Not just shot, and not just when they were armed. Which again, we do not have that data. And we could ask for it, and be met with as much resistance as we would for relegating what calls should have armed officers and which should instead be for EMTs, social workers, fire department, and animal control.

Another solution, of course, is that departments could be more transparent but from what I've understand, people have been asking for that for years and have been met with increasing resistance. So, it makes perfect sense to ask for another way. Especially if it serves the purpose of making department re-evaluate the importance of transparency.

I don't think it needs to be proven that there is distrust between the general public and law enforcement. And that responsibility is on law enforcement and not the public.