What's new
By:
Filters

Coronavirus...post your thoughts here...

Colin_T said:
Well the Australian protests have been and gone. Protesters were yelling "black lives matter". One guy got arrested for saying "white lives matter too", but nobody else did. I'm not sure what the cops are going to charge him with because he wasn't aggressive, violent, threatening, racist, or breaching the pandemic laws, (most of the other people were breaching the pandemic laws). None the less, the cops handcuffed him and took him away.

The part that annoys me about the Australian protesters is a lot of the deaths in custody are people killing themselves. Then their families say the person shouldn't have been in jail to begin with because they weren't doing anything wrong. Yet the person was caught red handed with stolen goods, drugs, weapons, etc. Years ago I filmed some indigenous people riding motorbikes on a public park when they came over and attacked me. One of them got arrested and claimed they were innocent even though there was video footage clearly showing his face and the offence.

Then there are the people that claim to be Aboriginals but they are whiter than me, and I am nocturnal and haven't seen sunlight for years. To be Aboriginal, you have to have some pigment in your skin, not have blonde hair, blue eyes and white skin.

Ok, they want the Police to treat everyone equal and that is fine. They want the Police to be held accountable when the cops overstep their boundaries and that is fine. But if someone commits a crime, that person should be held accountable.

None of this should overshadow the American situation where a subdued black guy was killed by the cops, but the Australian protesters need to stop blaming authorities for things their family and friends do.
Click to expand...
As a UK resident, this is relatable. I fully support the BLM movement. I am well aware there is institutionalised racism at high levels within our country and things need to change, absolutely. However, in my opinion, the protests in Britain have been far to focused on the situation in the U.S and it just doesn't form a relevant argument over here. Guns and police brutality are not common place here, minorities are certainly mistreated in some ways. However, police murdering people on our streets is almost unheard of therefore, the protesters arguing against police brutality and such like are, whilst well intentioned, picking an ineffective argument to see any real change here. Just my opinion.


Somebody approaching the cops is not an excuse for any level of brutality. If an officer stoops to them levels they are incapable of doing the job and are nothing but a thug in a fancy uniform.
 
BoningKnife said:
Somebody approaching the cops is not an excuse for any level of brutality. If an officer stoops to them levels they are incapable of doing the job and are nothing but a thug in a fancy uniform.
Click to expand...
If it is a regular cop, I 100% agree with you. But these were mob cops, dealing with a large mob.

What did you expect them to do? Say, "Stop! Or I'll yell stop again!"?

They were mod cops and they had 1 job to do. They did their job and they got in trouble for it.
 
When they saw the old guy unconscious and bleeding from the head, they should have helped him.

Mob cops are just normal cops in riot gear.
 
Colin_T said:
When they saw the old guy unconscious and bleeding from the head, they should have helped him.
Click to expand...
Its not there job. They repeatedly told all of the people to stay back from the cops. The people didn't listen.

Besides, how did they know that he wasn't a threat? When he started approaching him, he could have had a gun. He could have acted all friendly and shot 4. Who knows? Its the old guys fault.
 
No such thing as a 'mob cop'. The original incident was standard on duty officers. There may be some cops who are specialised as riot police, however the vast majority are normal beat police officers but given riot equipment and specific orders.
Killing unarmed citizens is never the job of the police, ever.
Any police officer who resorts to brutality is fundamentally incapable of doing the job. The entire role is to uphold the law. To protect and serve as you say in the states. Your arguments are showing your age and life experience.
He did not have a gun. He did not shoot four shots. If you are carrying a badge and being paid to uphold the law then you cannot be making decisions based on 'could have, would have, should have' that's the entire problem right there.
Also, if its not there job, who's job is it? I think you will find that is EXACTLY there job, if an officer is incapable of doing it, they are incapable of being a cop.
 
BoningKnife said:
Also, if its not there job, who's job is it? I think you will find that is EXACTLY there job, if an officer is incapable of doing it, they are incapable of being a cop.
Click to expand...
I also think it is funny that everyone are blaming cops and service members, when they are the ones putting their life on the line to protect you and your family. The media and people only see the bad in things/people/situations.
 
I am ex military. If we can have rules of engagement in active war zones to avoid the 'could have, should have, would have' situation there is zero conceivable reason for the police to act with such brutality.
Most cops are good I agree, however, if you are incapable of seeing the problems that says more about your own mentality on the subject than it does about the media. I am not some dingbat who believes everything I read. However to try to deny the fundamental issues and to blindly defend the police regardless of the facts isn't helping anyone.
 
Well the military's rule of engagement is "If they shoot at us, we shoot at them, and neutralize the threat".

Cops don't have that luxury...
 
No, it isn't.
Rules of engagement can vary. However as a general rule, you ain't gonna fire shots until a weapon is in sight. Wherever possible you are going to give clear verbal warning. Wherever possible, if a situation is escalating you are going to fire a warning shot or two before you shoot upon a target. If you do need to use force, then you only use as much force as is necessary, admittedly we were not trained to shoot to wound but once a target was down we certainly didn't continue shooting unless the target clearly still posed a threat. Also, once a target was felled, our immediate response was to see if we could medically help said target. Even though we may have just shot them once they are no longer a threat it was our duty to try and save there life.
If military forces can, mostly, manage to follow them sort of rules where there are insurgents actively hunting you. Where you are literally walking around with a target on your back and no idea who in the vicinity may well be your enemy there is zero acceptable reason that the police cannot operate on a similar basis and when they fail so miserably in such a clear abuse of power there is absolutely no defence of that.
 
Anytime you use force you need to be able to explain why. It needs to be a concrete explanation. Long and short of it, it needs to come down to you reasonably believed that your life or the lives of others around you was in immediate danger. If you can't honestly say that, there's absolutely no reason for anybody to be dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PygmyPepperJulli
Sudden Pearl Gourami Death- concerned for tankmates
Replies
12
Views
555
PygmyPepperJulli
PygmyPepperJulli
connorlindeman
Aquatic Plants for Beginners
Replies
3
Views
265
CassCats
CassCats
S
Get a fish they said . . .
Replies
12
Views
577
MuddyWaters
MuddyWaters
plebian
What you should know about discus
2 3
Replies
35
Views
1K
fishorama
F
AlexT
Really interesting old article on fish food/ingredients
Replies
10
Views
790
AlexT
AlexT

Most reactions

Useful Links

Back
Top