PDA

View Full Version : tPF We have a last minute entry?? Wouldn't if be Great!



zelmo1234
07-11-2016, 02:16 PM
If we are honest with each other, the 2016 presidential had a very big problem with the candidates

I can't see how anyone that is being honest can say that the Trust either one of them.

So I would like to nominate someone that is impressing me and then surpassing my opinion each and every time that I hear him speak.

So here his is, just a thought. I don't care what party he runs under I would vote for him.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.Md178984e0ff8fb1de7d7ba146ed98137o0&w=300&h=167&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0 (https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=picture+of+police+chief+brown&view=detailv2&&id=2A75ECB3A0D7C6AB89E1E32A2253A2B211695E9C&selectedIndex=45&ccid=0XiYTg%2f4&simid=607996494912357113&thid=OIP.Md178984e0ff8fb1de7d7ba146ed98137o0)

Peter1469
07-11-2016, 02:40 PM
I doubt that he would want the job.

zelmo1234
07-11-2016, 02:45 PM
I doubt that he would want the job.

Apparently no decent people do!

Peter1469
07-11-2016, 06:00 PM
Why would we?

Cletus
07-11-2016, 07:26 PM
If we are honest with each other, the 2016 presidential had a very big problem with the candidates

I can't see how anyone that is being honest can say that the Trust either one of them.

So I would like to nominate someone that is impressing me and then surpassing my opinion each and every time that I hear him speak.

So here his is, just a thought. I don't care what party he runs under I would vote for him.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=OIP.Md178984e0ff8fb1de7d7ba146ed98137o0&w=300&h=167&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&r=0 (https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=picture+of+police+chief+brown&view=detailv2&&id=2A75ECB3A0D7C6AB89E1E32A2253A2B211695E9C&selectedIndex=45&ccid=0XiYTg%2f4&simid=607996494912357113&thid=OIP.Md178984e0ff8fb1de7d7ba146ed98137o0)

If he ordered the use of explosives to execute the Dallas shooting suspect, he should sharing a cell with Clinton.

If he didn't order or approve it, he should be arresting whoever did.

Debatedrone
07-11-2016, 07:34 PM
If he ordered the use of explosives to execute the Dallas shooting suspect, he should sharing a cell with Clinton.

If he didn't order or approve it, he should be arresting whoever did.

killing by remote control bothers you? This will be policing in the 21 century.

No human is going to want to be a cop soon. We need robot cops.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjeqBIQlV8Q

Cletus
07-11-2016, 07:39 PM
killing by remote control bothers you?

Depriving Americans of their right to due process bothers me. Police using military tools and tactics against civilians bothers me. Police acting against a suspect with the INTENT to kill him bothers me.

Cthulhu
07-11-2016, 08:14 PM
Apparently no decent people do!
I'll take it.

I promise to only put in part time hours as president.

Unless we're at war. Then I'm going to the front with the troops I put there.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

Cthulhu
07-11-2016, 08:24 PM
killing by remote control bothers you? This will be policing in the 21 century.

No human is going to want to be a cop soon. We need robot cops.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjeqBIQlV8Q
Robot cops won't last long.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

zelmo1234
07-11-2016, 08:27 PM
If he ordered the use of explosives to execute the Dallas shooting suspect, he should sharing a cell with Clinton.

If he didn't order or approve it, he should be arresting whoever did.

I know it would have been much better and your friend could have killed 6 or 7 more officers had they not used the robot, but I am glad they used the robot, and saved the lives of innocent officers. And lets face it in TX that sucker was dead anyway, he just saved the people a lot of money.

But you can still morn the loss of your friend that is OK with me.

zelmo1234
07-11-2016, 08:30 PM
Depriving Americans of their right to due process bothers me. Police using military tools and tactics against civilians bothers me. Police acting against a suspect with the INTENT to kill him bothers me.

Sorry be this dude was killing them, they don't have to die, so you can feel better. Not if the person was as bank robber and had not already shot 12 cops and killed 5. Not that person does not get to kill more people so you can feel better

Cletus
07-11-2016, 08:32 PM
I know it would have been much better and your friend could have killed 6 or 7 more officers had they not used the robot, but I am glad they used the robot, and saved the lives of innocent officers. And lets face it in TX that sucker was dead anyway, he just saved the people a lot of money.

But you can still morn the loss of your friend that is OK with me.

Zelmo, you say a lot of stupid shit and I generally let it pass. I don't care about your little fantasies or the image you want people to believe here, but you just crossed the Rubicon.

Ethereal
07-11-2016, 08:36 PM
It does raise important questions about escalation of force and due process rights.

Do we really want to give police the power to execute someone who doesn't pose an immediate threat to others? Couldn't they have tried to wait him out or use nonlethal means of neutralizing him like tear gas?

Cletus
07-11-2016, 08:41 PM
It does raise important questions about escalation of force and due process rights.

Do we really want to give police the power to execute someone who doesn't pose an immediate threat to others?

It would seem that some here do.

Ethereal
07-11-2016, 08:43 PM
It would seem that some here do.

I understand the impulse, but the law needs to be unencumbered by raw emotion. We have to consider the broader implications of such an act instead of viewing it in isolation.

Cletus
07-11-2016, 08:45 PM
I understand the impulse, but the law needs to be unencumbered by raw emotion. We have to consider the broader implications of such an act instead of viewing it in isolation.

Absolutely.

zelmo1234
07-11-2016, 09:04 PM
Zelmo, you say a lot of stupid $#@! and I generally let it pass. I don't care about your little fantasies or the image you want people to believe here, but you just crossed the Rubicon.

So!

Cletus
07-11-2016, 09:08 PM
So!

So, now you might want to recreate yourself again. This time into something believable.

Think about it after you sober up.

zelmo1234
07-11-2016, 09:09 PM
I understand the impulse, but the law needs to be unencumbered by raw emotion. We have to consider the broader implications of such an act instead of viewing it in isolation.

I am totally OK with discussing the ethics of using a robot. But in this situation it appear that this shooter knew what he was doing. He told the police that there were IED and that many more cops were going to die? He likely was in a position that the only approach would have made them open targets and they knew that their vest were not going to help.

In that position the choice was easy in my opinion.

zelmo1234
07-11-2016, 09:10 PM
So, now you might want to recreate yourself again. This time into something believable.

Think about it after you sober up.

That is easy I have been the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I need to create nothing. I have truly been blessed. but you are free to think what you wish? I have been called worse by better.

Ethereal
07-11-2016, 09:11 PM
I am totally OK with discussing the ethics of using a robot. But in this situation it appear that this shooter knew what he was doing. He told the police that there were IED and that many more cops were going to die? He likely was in a position that the only approach would have made them open targets and they knew that their vest were not going to help.

In that position the choice was easy in my opinion.

There could be many situations where a suspect has barricaded themselves and refuses to cooperate. So does that mean every time that happens police can send in a bomb-laden robot?

Cletus
07-11-2016, 09:14 PM
That is easy I have been the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I need to create nothing. I have truly been blessed. but you are free to think what you wish? I have been called worse by better.

No, you really haven't.

You opened your mouth and said something was incredibly stupid, even for you. You can bet it is going to come back and bite you in the ass.

zelmo1234
07-11-2016, 09:16 PM
There could be many situations where a suspect has barricaded themselves and refuses to cooperate. So does that mean every time that happens police can send in a bomb-laden robot?

I don't think so.

But in every Situation where they have already shot 12 officers killed 5 wounded 2 civilians and were promising that there were bombs and more White cops were going to be killed?

I think in every one of those cases it would be OK

zelmo1234
07-11-2016, 09:18 PM
No, you really haven't.

You opened your mouth and said something was incredibly stupid, even for you. You can bet it is going to come back and bite you in the ass.

So what do you think that I said that I should have Karma pay me a visit for? The fact that I don't think the murdering SOB in Dallas should have been able to kill more cops? Well I don't think he should have been able to. I glad he did not get the chance. You apparently feel differently.

Ethereal
07-11-2016, 09:19 PM
I don't think so.

But in every Situation where they have already shot 12 officers killed 5 wounded 2 civilians and were promising that there were bombs and more White cops were going to be killed?

I think in every one of those cases it would be OK

What if they shot eleven officers, killed four, and wounded one civilian? Still okay?

What if they shot two officers and killed one of them? Still okay?

Where do you draw the line?

And keep in mind, it's not always clear who actually committed the crime. The presumption of innocence still needs to inform interactions between police and suspects.

Ethereal
07-11-2016, 09:21 PM
So what do you think that I said that I should have Karma pay me a visit for? The fact that I don't think the murdering SOB in Dallas should have been able to kill more cops? Well I don't think he should have been able to. I glad he did not get the chance. You apparently feel differently.

You accused him of being friends with a mass murderer. That seems pretty unfair.

Dr. Who
07-11-2016, 09:23 PM
I understand the impulse, but the law needs to be unencumbered by raw emotion. We have to consider the broader implications of such an act instead of viewing it in isolation.
Agree. Due process is ultimately the difference between justice and vigilantism. Whether the vigilantes are ordinary citizens or police officers, the right to a speedy trial by a jury of one's peers is a sixth amendment fundamental guarantee. A society without such protections is untenable. It is either wild west "justice" or a police state. Neither situation results in freedom, but instead the ultimate oppression of potentially being tried and convicted without benefit of evidence, counsel or any trier of fact but instead on emotionalism, fear and the desire for vengeance or political expediency and little regard for guilt or innocence or even more subtle concepts like competency to distinguish right from wrong in the case of the mentally ill. As William Blackstone so eloquently stated it:

All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.

zelmo1234
07-11-2016, 09:28 PM
What if they shot eleven officers, killed four, and wounded one civilian? Still okay?

What if they shot two officers and killed one of them? Still okay?

Where do you draw the line?

And keep in mind, it's not always clear who actually committed the crime. The presumption of innocence still needs to inform interactions between police and suspects.

You don't have to draw a line. If it really bothers the people, then they should vote and make it illegal to use that option.

If it remains a legal option then you have to ask question. And I understand how many people would not be comfortable with the police making the call

But the questions should be as follows.

#1 are we 100% sure that the suspect is in fact the killer. If it is not a killer then of course this should never be an option.

#2 Has the killer proven that he or she has the skill to commit the acts that they are promising to commit.

#3 Are there any other options that would have a reasonable probability of success.

#4 If this person were to escape, would they be a clear and present danger to the community

#5 have the communications completely broken down with no chance of a positive outcome.

I think that if you have solid answers to those questions and I am sure that you might be able to think of a few more. Then you can make an educated decision.

zelmo1234
07-11-2016, 09:29 PM
Agree. Due process is ultimately the difference between justice and vigilantism. Whether the vigilantes are ordinary citizens or police officers, the right to a speedy trial by a jury of one's peers is a sixth amendment fundamental guarantee. A society without such protections is untenable. It is either wild west "justice" or a police state. Neither situation results in freedom, but instead the ultimate oppression of potentially being tried and convicted without benefit of evidence, counsel or any trier of fact but instead on emotionalism, fear and the desire for vengeance or political expediency and little regard for guilt or innocence or even more subtle concepts like competency to distinguish right from wrong in the case of the mentally ill. As William Blackstone so eloquently stated it:

All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.

So would you say that Police officers don't have a right to self defense then??

zelmo1234
07-11-2016, 09:31 PM
You accused him of being friends with a mass murderer. That seems pretty unfair.

You are right. I am a little on edge tonight with the crap that happened in MI!

That was out of line! I extend my apology to Cletus on this. I was out of line.

Ethereal
07-11-2016, 09:31 PM
Agree. Due process is ultimately the difference between justice and vigilantism. Whether the vigilantes are ordinary citizens or police officers, the right to a speedy trial by a jury of one's peers is a sixth amendment fundamental guarantee. A society without such protections is untenable. It is either wild west "justice" or a police state. Neither situation results in freedom, but instead the ultimate oppression of potentially being tried and convicted without benefit of evidence, counsel or any trier of fact but instead on emotionalism, fear and the desire for vengeance or political expediency and little regard for guilt or innocence or even more subtle concepts like competency to distinguish right from wrong in the case of the mentally ill. As William Blackstone so eloquently stated it:

All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.

Indeed.

Ben Franklin took it ever further: "...it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

And Sam Adams said: "It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished. ... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever."

zelmo1234
07-11-2016, 09:35 PM
Indeed.

Ben Franklin took it ever further: "...it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

And Sam Adams said: "It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished. ... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever."

I would agree, but there are times when the person is a danger to society in the moment. And Clearly the person you are looking at is the person that is and can commit more murders. And I think that Murder is the key here.

At that point, are you going to put that person life above the others that he is promising to harm.

Ethereal
07-11-2016, 09:35 PM
You don't have to draw a line.

If there is no objective line, then how do we know when the law is being broken or being enforced? Instincts? Gut feelings?


If it really bothers the people, then they should vote and make it illegal to use that option.

I think it's fair to ask if such a tactic is allowable under the laws we have right now.


If it remains a legal option then you have to ask question. And I understand how many people would not be comfortable with the police making the call

But the questions should be as follows.

#1 are we 100% sure that the suspect is in fact the killer. If it is not a killer then of course this should never be an option.

#2 Has the killer proven that he or she has the skill to commit the acts that they are promising to commit.

#3 Are there any other options that would have a reasonable probability of success.

#4 If this person were to escape, would they be a clear and present danger to the community

#5 have the communications completely broken down with no chance of a positive outcome.

I think that if you have solid answers to those questions and I am sure that you might be able to think of a few more. Then you can make an educated decision.

Is 100% certainty a standard that can actually be achieved? Even in a court of law, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "100% certain".

Ethereal
07-11-2016, 09:38 PM
I would agree, but there are times when the person is a danger to society in the moment. And Clearly the person you are looking at is the person that is and can commit more murders. And I think that Murder is the key here.

At that point, are you going to put that person life above the others that he is promising to harm.

I agree that there are times when deadly force is entirely justified. But only when the person presents an imminent threat to others at that moment.

zelmo1234
07-11-2016, 09:39 PM
If there is no objective line, then how do we know when the law is being broken or being enforced? Instincts? Gut feelings?

Is 100% certainty a standard that can actually be achieved? Even in a court of law, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "100% certain".

I can see that.

I think it's fair to ask if such a tactic is allowable under the laws we have right now.

I don't know the answer to that question? If it is, then it should not have happened, and someone needs to be held accountable

I do know that things are going to get a lot worse before they start to get better. And it will be the people that are crying out for the police to take back the streets.

If there is a person shooting at you, I think you can have a 100% assurance that he is not celebrating your health. But I understand what you are saying.

zelmo1234
07-11-2016, 09:41 PM
I agree that there are times when deadly force is entirely justified. But only when the person presents an imminent threat to others at that moment.

So if he had planted IED around the city and had a remote detonator? Like he said? would that be a bad thing?

If they knew his name, and we don't know if that is the case, they would have known that he was x military.

Ethereal
07-11-2016, 09:43 PM
So if he had planted IED around the city and had a remote detonator? Like he said? would that be a bad thing?

If they knew his name, and we don't know if that is the case, they would have known that he was x military.

We can only speculate about that. And I think speculation should play a minimal role in the use of deadly force.

zelmo1234
07-11-2016, 09:47 PM
We can only speculate about that. And I think speculation should play a minimal role in the use of deadly force.

That is a tuff in the moment call.

That is why the question can this person likely carry out their actions? And would it be reasonable that the possess the skills to pull it off.

Clearly this person exhibited some marksmanship skills. I don't know if they knew he was X military and if he was, would they have known what he did in the military? But that would certainly be a factor.

Dr. Who
07-11-2016, 09:53 PM
So would you say that Police officers don't have a right to self defense then??
I'm not debating self-defense, I am debating whether due process may have been sacrificed in favor of expediency and ultimately fear. If a police officer is in no imminent danger nor any citizens, he or she has no authority to use lethal force. That is the law. If a perp is firing randomly at nothing at all, just to prove that he has a weapon or threaten, and neither the police nor anyone else is even remotely in the line of fire, then no one can claim self-defense, if they then use an RPG to blow him up. If the perp suddenly starts firing upon the police position or in the direction of civilians, then all bets are off.

Cletus
07-11-2016, 10:34 PM
So what do you think that I said that I should have Karma pay me a visit for? The fact that I don't think the murdering SOB in Dallas should have been able to kill more cops? Well I don't think he should have been able to. I glad he did not get the chance. You apparently feel differently.

I know the internet can make you appear talented or wise or experienced or tough. Unfortunately for you it can't actually make you any of those things.

zelmo1234
07-12-2016, 01:07 AM
I know the internet can make you appear talented or wise or experienced or tough. Unfortunately for you it can't actually make you any of those things.

True. I did apologize for my statement earlier as "E" pointed out that I went to far.

But you are correct the Net has not made me any of those things, I can only imagine how small you feel.

Cletus
07-12-2016, 11:23 AM
True. I did apologize for my statement earlier as "E" pointed out that I went to far.

But you are correct the Net has not made me any of those things, I can only imagine how small you feel.

I am not the one who feels a need to pretend he is something he is not.

What are you going to be next week? Maybe you could be an astronaut... or a pony.

Tahuyaman
07-12-2016, 12:18 PM
This particular police chief impresses me, but that's as a chief of police. This doesn't necessarily transfer to being an effective POTUS.