Context matters. Unless, perhaps, you mean how over a hundred thousand officers make dozens of MILLIONS of encounters every year yet the media and obsessed keyboard warriors care only about the 0.00001 percent? I argue a "problem" may be a collective of "adults" (a term used lightly) who continue to comment on issues they have no experience/knowledge on. But it's the internet, and it would be naive to assume the better.
A link to Trump's history of incitement of violence. Not hard to find unless you choose to base your opinions on being ignorant. It's a choice, albeit not a good choice.
What should the media do? Not report the news? Not report obvious proof of police brutality to protect scumbags in uniform because in your opinion, it's just 0.00001%?
I'd argue that most adults don't want to be harassed by the police constantly when they're not committing criminal acts. Or, you know, not get killed because they get their wallet or they're holding a phone, regardless if they commit a crime or not. Or better yet, not get killed by a bunch of incompetent trigger-happy cops while sleeping in her own bed, who got the wrong address. But hold up, obvious criminal acts by the police cannot be criticized by the average commoner so sayeth the "professionals."
And if a police officer does commit a criminal act, ah.... you know... hold them accountable. Not hard but perhaps it triggers the "law and order" crowd.
But sure, if that's all you got, because peaceful "protests" require highlighting the importance of wearing all unified coloring (not identifying clothing), no tattoos, and definitely not revealing your face! Because peaceful protests wouldn't ever highlight the gravity of arrest, for again, peaceful protest. Peaceful protest wouldn't necessitate the highlighting of bringing items to combat anti-dispersal agents, because why would "peaceful" protests require highlighting such items? I wonder. Hmm. Again, it's merely posturing from a disgusting and revolting political avenue. And they have the right to do as they please, and I wouldn't argue otherwise for orwellian thought, unlike some, their opinions does not dictate my line of thinking.
It's a peaceful protest until the police start shooting teargas when your buddy Trump wants a photo-op. Perhaps it's protection against the police who can't differentiate a peaceful protest or a riot as evidenced with some BLM protests and the Jan. 6 riot during the initial part.
At least you gave an effort though, but if that's all you got on a completely unrelated reply, then I look forward to what future comes to pass.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of the "law and order" trumpettes who think a trail against Trump's criminality is unrelated? Also pointing out how a "law and order" supporter thinks an impeachment trail against Trump is nonsense despite the obvious facts?
@Stevo_the_gamer: so it's cool to incite an insurrection if I'm popular enough and right and wrong go out the window?
Really depends on what aisle you're on when it comes to political posturing. But I come from a profession where politicians were encouraging protest, and encouraging acts of violence by promising to bail/bond out the arrested, along with advertising how to avoid detection.
Perhaps it's because your profession is the problem as evidenced numerous times in the past decade. But even then, this has been ongoing. It's just now out in the open thanks to video.
Also, that post was not encouraging and/or inciting violence. Encouraging people to protest is not a crime and the post itself has nothing criminal to it. It even said not to bring a weapon.
You're desperately reaching for something that doesn't exist, but I guess that comes with a profession that seeks to charge minority groups for frivolous criminal acts while protecting your own kin and now the politicians that suck up to thugs in uniform that commit violent, unconstitutional acts.
Where as Trump and his cohorts have encouraged violence numerous times from the 2016 election to end it all with a political insurrection that left several dead - including an officer (I guess he was on the wrong side of "backing the blue") - and many injured on Jan. 6.
Yeah you and the trumpettes are as "law and order" as tofu is meat.
An insurrection by right wing extremists and 400,000 people dead due to Covid isn't a big deal but Bernie Sanders wearing mittens is a trigger for trumpettes.
The current party will protect him, much like the old party protected the ones from the civil war.
And the country suffered for that. Reconstruction failed, black codes and Jim Crow, and the KKK and white supremacist politicians gained prominence in the southern states. We should go hard on those who attempt to destroy the republic but this nation is too politically correct against white supremacists.
Trump will get away with his crimes and his supporters will continue to support these criminals no matter what, regardless of their perceived support for "law and order."
@drunk_pi: I tend to steer clear from hyperbolic silliness, including any reaching to despotism and supporting of orwellian thought-control. Law enforcement, like many other careers, have to abide by their policy when exercising their rights off duty which includes public actions and private social media posting.
Law enforcement isn't like most careers where a person holds certain privileges and authority to enforce the law, especially when a person's beliefs allow them to enforce the law unfairly and unjustly as seen numerous times in the history of this country.
@drunk_pi: Yes, the dozens (or even hundreds) of individuals who damaged federal property and forced entry into the Capitol were going to successfully overthrow the government, successfully take control of 2 million military personnel, and install a "dictator" to then dissolve the federal systems, then dissolve the local state governments, county and municipalities across the country. Sounds like an internet warrior mindset.
Again, if you don't like a private citizen exercising their first amendment rights to assemble. See prior post, your baiting is as weak as the rioters attempt to "stop the steal."
That was their intention, was it not? Or was it just for funsies? Your evasiveness is as sad as Trump's claim to the presidency for a second term. And see my previous post. Trump supporters and its enablers are far more interested in making this country despotic.
It's irrelevant whether or not they were highly organized and/or just stupid. Their intent was to stop the certification of the election through violent means as evidenced with what was reported. Historically, insurrections do not have to be super-organized to be effective so you dismissing it is irrelevant.
The issue is someone who holds a position of authority espousing prejudiced and conspiratorial viewpoints that have and led to violent acts as seen on the capitol grounds. So again, do you support a police officer who espouses racist and/or conspiratorial viewpoints? It's not a first amendment issue as those type of people can lead to greater abuse as police officers against minority groups, thus leading to greater mistrust between police and the population it's suppose to protect.
Or do you want to evade some more and just end it as a "we'll agree to disagree?" ;)
Log in to comment