Dilbert Gets Canceled

[Perspektiv]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

"Force" does NOT extend to physical injury. If a cop can't handle the perp by himself, he needs to get backup.

You're treading very close to Trump's 'slam their head against the door jam' territory.

Injuries are possible, when handling someone resisting arrest.

All the more reason not to resist a lawful arrest. The police officer arresting you doesn't need to ask your permission. That right was waived when that person decided to commit a crime and resist.

You need to read up on acceptable and lawful uses of pain compliance.

Also, having backup won't mean a thing if you're dealing with someone on hard drugs with the strength of 10 men due to the hysteria.

Its not pretty to watch, but unless you know textbook techniques and when to apply them, your opinion would be meaningless.

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Usually that they are too LAZY to do their job right, if they are white.

If they are black, it could mean something different.

I saw a video clip that looked like Rodney King 2.0 recently. Black man getting the tar kicked out of him by police. Upon closer inspection, I could see them was BLACK cops.

And I'm thinking,

so now what boobylein?

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

"Force" does NOT extend to physical injury.

Force should not, but can. 

If a cop is chasing you, after say a situation I saw on news, after you try to run over an officer and pedestrian with a car, the cop is lawfully within their rights to use lethal force. In this instance, there was a child in the car, so the officer held his fire while he had a clear shot. They would up ramming the car. Again, use of force was justified, based on the threat. IE kidnapping, attempted murder, etc.

When dealing with unpredictable people fighting you, pain compliance methods can injure even if the force used was measured and lawful. You can cite your opinion, but the law justifies use of force necessary to get suspect to comply. Of course, this eludes to approved pain compliance methods.

I have seen a woman fighting with an officer, try to spit in his face, then take a swing at him. He grabbed her arm, she refused to comply, and she kept trying to assault him. He forcefully drove the arm up from behind her back, immediately causing pain, and thus compliance, and then tackled her, as she refused to comply. Looks horrible on the news, but is textbook and perfectly acceptable and lawful. If anything, the officer deserved a raise for keeping their cool until the 4th strike.

He was in the right, as she attempted to assault him several times, and he used his training to control her body, and eventually cuff her.

No strikes were landed, but she was injured during her fall. 

She was black, he was white. People looking at the arrest likely would have cried foul, but police were called as she was terrorizing store patrons and assaulted some.

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

You're treading very close to Trump's 'slam their head against the door jam' territory.

Look up lawful pain compliance.

I am against illegally striking anyone. As much as possible, cops should attempt to deescalate.

However, refusing to comply with lawful orders allows the officer to use force, if you're under arrest.

You know nothing about the law if you think an officer can't use force against you, within the permissible tactical means they have been trained on, if the situation calls for it.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

I have spent my entire life living down the stupid stuff some of my peers do.

Just like there isn't an honest cop that doesn't despise crooked cops, who make their jobs miserable.

All the honest cop has to do is get the crooked cops arrested and charged. Poof, no more.

[Perspektiv]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

All the honest cop has to do is get the crooked cops arrested and charged. Poof, no more.

There is snitching consequences in the black community. 

Imagine, a rapper recently shot a woman in the foot, and she was ridiculed in the industry for "telling on him".

She can't record another hip hop album and have street cred after telling. She essentially can kiss her career goodbye.

Same forces keep cops silent. 

Especially high ranking cops with government powers.

There needs to be swift consequences for any cops breaking the law, and praise for those who get them arrested.

But until it becomes unacceptable throughout the force, you will continue to get bad apples.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Injuries are possible, when handling someone resisting arrest.

All the more reason not to resist a lawful arrest. The police officer arresting you doesn't need to ask your permission. That right was waived when that person decided to commit a crime and resist.

You need to read up on acceptable and lawful uses of pain compliance.

Also, having backup won't mean a thing if you're dealing with someone on hard drugs with the strength of 10 men due to the hysteria.

Its not pretty to watch, but unless you know textbook techniques and when to apply them, your opinion would be meaningless.

Except blacks have legitimate reasons to distrust cops trying to arrest them.

Eric Garner is a classic example. He wasn't even resisting very much but was KILLED for selling loose cigs.

George Floyd and Tyre Nichols, too. Too many to recount now.

Laquon McDonald, too. 16 cops LIED about what happened.

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, Perspektiv said:

There is snitching consequences in the black community. 

Imagine, a rapper recently shot a woman in the foot, and she was ridiculed in the industry for "telling on him".

She can't record another hip hop album and have street cred after telling. She essentially can kiss her career goodbye.

Same forces keep cops silent. 

Especially high ranking cops with government powers.

There needs to be swift consequences for any cops breaking the law, and praise for those who get them arrested.

But until it becomes unacceptable throughout the force, you will continue to get bad apples.

There are WORSE consequences for allowing crooked cops to get away with murder.

[robosmith]

9 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Force should not, but can. 

If a cop is chasing you, after say a situation I saw on news, after you try to run over an officer and pedestrian with a car, the cop is lawfully within their rights to use lethal force. In this instance, there was a child in the car, so the officer held his fire while he had a clear shot. They would up ramming the car. Again, use of force was justified, based on the threat. IE kidnapping, attempted murder, etc.

When dealing with unpredictable people fighting you, pain compliance methods can injure even if the force used was measured and lawful. You can cite your opinion, but the law justifies use of force necessary to get suspect to comply. Of course, this eludes to approved pain compliance methods.

I have seen a woman fighting with an officer, try to spit in his face, then take a swing at him. He grabbed her arm, she refused to comply, and she kept trying to assault him. He forcefully drove the arm up from behind her back, immediately causing pain, and thus compliance, and then tackled her, as she refused to comply. Looks horrible on the news, but is textbook and perfectly acceptable and lawful. If anything, the officer deserved a raise for keeping their cool until the 4th strike.

He was in the right, as she attempted to assault him several times, and he used his training to control her body, and eventually cuff her.

No strikes were landed, but she was injured during her fall. 

She was black, he was white. People looking at the arrest likely would have cried foul, but police were called as she was terrorizing store patrons and assaulted some.

Look up lawful pain compliance.

I am against illegally striking anyone. As much as possible, cops should attempt to deescalate.

However, refusing to comply with lawful orders allows the officer to use force, if you're under arrest.

You know nothing about the law if you think an officer can't use force against you, within the permissible tactical means they have been trained on, if the situation calls for it.

The law allowing it does not make it right. Plenty of laws are passed for the CONVENIENCE of the cops at the behest of their UNION.

Choke holds USED TO BE LEGAL. Until they were ABUSED all the time and killed too many perps.

[Rebound]

20 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

White shame is the teaching that in doing nothing as a white person, they are complicit to this. 

Most teachers are objective, but some have been caught teaching this with an agenda.

You see news, and others talking about the past with an agenda.

Having to apologize, bow down for what people have done generations ago.

No, this is just the work of racist white people who don’t want to acknowledge the facts of American history.  Slavery, Segregation, and the treatment of American Indians were terrible. We should learn about them. I don’t feel ashamed of it, and people who feel guilty about it have problems of their own. 

[Perspektiv]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Slavery, Segregation, and the treatment of American Indians were terrible.

Slavery was abolished for a reason. 

The US isn't the only country with a history of slavery. 

The US also nuked an entire city full of citizens. These two countries aren't letting that past get between their friendship. The US acknowledged what they did, and rightfully so, apologized for it. 

Obsessing about the past gains you nothing. 

You should use the past, in order to develop laws and initiatives vs look at how horrible things were.

History us littered with horrible stuff. Humans were horrible. Still are. Just that we have laws that prevent or dramatically reduce how bad this can be.

Acknowledging the past, prevents you from repeating it.

 

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

 The US acknowledged what they did, and rightfully so, apologized for it. 

I was surprised to read this. But when I looked up President Obama's visit to Japan some years ago, it clearly says no apology was made.

[Perspektiv]

33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

says no apology was made.

Technically none is needed. They retaliated to what was a grave threat to their own country.

Lethal and devastating force was justified.

Educating people about what happened, is the extent of what should be taught regarding slavery.

Telling people how horrible it was, inserts a narrative. It should be facts only. This includes when it happened, to how many how and when it was outlawed.

This presents an objective picture of how barbaric things were, and how far from it that the country has moved.

[Rebound]

On 3/1/2023 at 12:20 PM, Legato said:

So what do cops say when they kill an unnamed white man?

“Stop resisting”