Law Enforcement Posts

[Texan2]

Some folks lack of grasp regarding the 1st amendment makes me smh .

 

[Koinonia]

i'm a little amused that a board that so vehemently stands for one amendment - wants to squash the comments and thoughts of those who have a differing opinion

Just curious. Are we congress?

 

[Davetex]

I would just add that for every controversial event regarding LEOs there are probably 100 good deeds/things done by said LEOs.

The media is silent on those things almost all of the time so nobody hears about that side of the coin.

I respect LEOs as they have a tough job to do. Hell, I've never left for work wondering if I was going to get shot at today, or if I was going to have to shoot someone else.

Stay out of Mogadishu, the weather sucks this time of year, even with the discount.

 

[just jk]

Some folks lack of grasp regarding the 1st amendment makes me smh .

and yet i didnt even mention the first amendment in my post did i?

because it doesnt matter or apply on a private message board

the point in the post was the principle.......some folks lack of ability to grasp a simple concept makes me smh

lots and lots of people hate cops or are anti LEO....they're allll over the place, most of them have a paranoia based fear.....some of them post on the internet

big deal!

 

[just jk]

Just curious. Are we congress?

who is "we" - you and somebody else?

can you be more specific?

 

[Koinonia]

who is "we" - you and somebody else?

can you be more specific?

We, as in people. You know, "We the people?"

As you posted in your just previous post - 'We' are not Congress, nor are 'we' representing Congress. There is no law telling me that I can't tell someone to shut up, stop talking, or censor anything.

 

[TX69]

Relevance? You seem to be doing exactly what the OP asked you not to do .

....and goodbye lol

 

[just jk]

We, as in people. You know, "We the people?"

As you posted in your just previous post - 'We' are not Congress, nor are 'we' representing Congress. There is no law telling me that I can't tell someone to shut up, stop talking, or censor anything.

i am clearly not a member of congress

nor did i say there was a law or not a law telling anybody that they cant tell someone to shut up, stop talking or censor anything


here's an exercise - you show me how much control you have over my words and thoughts

tell me to shut up or whatever choice of words you wish to use


and..........GO!

 

[Texan2]

and yet i didnt even mention the first amendment in my post did i?

because it doesnt matter or apply on a private message board

the point in the post was the principle.......some folks lack of ability to grasp a simple concept makes me smh

lots and lots of people hate cops or are anti LEO....they're allll over the place, most of them have a paranoia based fear.....some of them post on the internet

big deal!

Oh, did you think I was referring to you?

 

[Koinonia]

*Rolls eyes*

You didn't get it.

The Admins and Mods can squash anyone's comments they feel like, on a whim because they want to. You complain that the forum supports one over the other. ("'m a little amused that a board that so vehemently stands for one amendment - wants to squash the comments and thoughts of those who have a differing opinion")

Damn right. Freedom of speech is a right that Governmental powers can't prevent, it says nothing of Private powers. Second amendment is (supposed to be) one that Neither Governmental, or Private powers can prevent.

 

[just jk]

*Rolls eyes*

You didn't get it.

The Admins and Mods can squash anyone's comments they feel like, on a whim because they want to. You complain that the forum supports one over the other. ("'m a little amused that a board that so vehemently stands for one amendment - wants to squash the comments and thoughts of those who have a differing opinion")

Damn right. Freedom of speech is a right that Governmental powers can't prevent, it says nothing of Private powers. Second amendment is (supposed to be) one that Neither Governmental, or Private powers can prevent.

no shit sherlock - i clearly got that - and i clearly used the words "devils advocate" in my post

i'm as LEO friendly as you'll find - you wont see me bashing them...... i fully understand the 1st amendment doesnt apply here - i even posted that

 

[Koinonia]

*Sigh*

Righto.

 

[just jk]

*Sigh*

Righto.

so we're crystal clear

i never said there was a law prohibiting the censorship - or that anybody had a legal right to post their thoughts

clearly the owner/operators of this board can squash whatever they like

i simply pointed out that we're all grown ups and we can probably shoulder the incredible pain of another internet poster having a different opinion

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Just curious. Are we congress?

Congress? That's absurd.

I'm actually secretly Barack Obama though (shhh, don't tell anyone). My NSA guys told me I could find you here.


Water boarding is just baptizing terrorists with freedom.

 

[just jk]

Congress? That's absurd.

I'm actually secretly Barack Obama though (shhh, don't tell anyone). My NSA guys told me I could find you here.


Water boarding is just baptizing terrorists with freedom.

just how long have you been listening in?

 

[Koinonia]

Congress? That's absurd.

I'm actually secretly Barack Obama though (shhh, don't tell anyone). My NSA guys told me I could find you here.


Water boarding is just baptizing terrorists with freedom.

If it took the NSA for you to find me here, I'm slightly less worried. ^_^

 

[vmax]

I would think that the good LEOs out there wouldn't mind exposing the corruption and heavy handed tactics that seem to be being put out there with a little more frequency. It is apparent that some of these organizations need to be doing it better than they are. A lot of citizens are waking up from their slumber and becoming more aware of their God given rights. I've seen baiting happen from citizens and LE so the finger pointing can go both ways.

 

[Shorts]

So when posting threads that do involve LEOs, how should they be titled? I've copied and pasted the exact title of the article in an effort not to be biased when posting. Most times I do not comment on my OP so that only the article is read and not the article slanted with my opinion (I do participate after the thread gets rolling). And as pointed out the media will sensationalize the title of an article or report which can bias the event one way or the other. With that said, what would be an acceptable way to title a thread without coming off as biased or bashing?

 

[Texan2]

I would think that the good LEOs out there wouldn't mind exposing the corruption and heavy handed tactics that seem to be being put out there with a little more frequency. It is apparent that some of these organizations need to be doing it better than they are. A lot of citizens are waking up from their slumber and becoming more aware of their God given rights. I've seen baiting happen from citizens and LE so the finger pointing can go both ways.

Good LEOs actually DO want to bounce the bad ones... And fast. The problem on the forum tends to be those that want to pile on a cop when all they have is a news snippet. One from the MSM that they have screamed about for the last decade as being biased and one sided. You don't want to be convicted without due process. Neither do cops.

 

[Texas1911]

My problem is every thread started to point out some LE wrong doing is biased from the get go. "Guy only gets three years for murder cause he is a cop". Does it ever stop, cop shoots dog".

I could go on and on, but the theme is "see, cops fucked up, thats all they do.". Most often with little or no real facts to make a judgment. Often those who do make judgments have no idea about policy, procedures, or have ever been involved in use of force. It is fine to ask questions, but these posts start out denigrating the entire profession.

I could pick YOUR profession and post negative news articles about the actions of people in it. For example, I know we have a mechanic as a member. I could do a number on that. Often. Truck drivers, etc.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

There's been several incidences where you were batting for the other team ... without the facts, without the experience, etc.

You are a classic example of a "back the badge" type of mentality that people talk about. You are no different than the person that has some grudge against the police.

That being said, neither person is "wrong" ... frankly we're just tired of playing daddy when someone gets their butt hurt on the internet. And to the other point made by another poster, people can't handle arguments on the internet. Everyone wants to be right and has to dry hump the other person until they run into a mental wall, then they start calling names and everything else.

The police **** up ... a lot, just like EVERYONE else. We only know about this because of the voyeurism that seems to track the police due to an inherent mistrust of the police. There's just cause for this, the police can very easily **** your life. Just the same as a politician, judge, or any other person in a position of power. That's why police ****-ups are news and Wendy's fucking your order up are roadbumps at best.

Does this mean that the police are out to get us? No. 90% of the police are trustworthy and hardworking individuals that are in it for the right reasons. The other 10% are what **** it up for the rest. Those 10% and the outcry from the admittedly undereducated populous give you the "us vs. them" mentality that is purported by BOTH sides. For every cop that blindly backs his buddy in blue, lies for them, and picks a side there's further cause for the public to be alarmed.

Personally I respect Texan2 for his methods and ways of talking about police matters. It's transparent and honest ... and well, that's my honest opinion.