Peaceful Marches and Armored Vehicles

LOL!

I'm trying to look up all the types of buildings that were burned by the peaceful BLM rally crowd.

I can't seem to find any Post Offices...

You really need to learn to read a bit more.

First, this doesn't appear to be on NBC at all. I'm guessing you are referring to the NYT photo gallery with that title.

Ironic that it's a photo gallery, with literally two sentences and you're upset.

Guess the sentences?

"Unrest in Kenosha, Wis., continued after the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black resident. Peaceful demonstrations earlier in the day gave way to chaos as law enforcement faced off with protesters."

So yes. Something can be peaceful at one time and not peaceful at another.

Time is difficult for you?

Whine, whine, and whine, they should have tazed him. Drop him and be done with it. They did their job.

I've actually seen no indication he was convicted of domestic violence. He's been charged. That's significantly different.

"no way to know" is a terrible excuse. By that logic a cop can shoot anyone on the street under any circumstance. Cops could shoot anyone getting into a car... because they might use their vehicle as a weapon.

He was not, to the best of my understanding, even the reason for the call they were there for.

Again... not a valid justification.

an officer is human, but has to be able to differentiate other events from the circumstances that he/she is dealing with at the moment...treat each interaction as a separate and isolated encounter...

we have always treated attacks on law enforcement officers as serious offenses, and those who commit them should expect to be judged harshly...

too often, though, law enforcement officers who don't meet the highest standards are not held accountable, and this is the issue that our society is struggling with now

My entire life I have been told we are supposed to respect the police, because they're putting their lives on the line etc etc etc.

Now I'm finding that 98.2% of them engage in behavior intended to minimize the risk to their life, while increasing the risk to the public.

Every time a cop shoots an unarmed man because "he might have been reaching for a weapon" they are saying that their life is more valuable than the public's they are intended to serve. They are making that risk calculation, and deciding the chance that the person they are interacting with might have a weapon is great enough that they would rather kill a member of the public without trial, than put their life at risk.

"Respect the police because they're going to risk their lives a little, but in the end find you disposable if there's any chance they think you might be a risk to their lives" isn't really a marketable phrase.

Perhaps if they were more honest and just said "We're the law and there's 0 chance we're risking our lives, so do what we say or you're going to get shot" they would get more respect for at least being honest.

it is ingrained in every block of police training...your safety comes first, second and third...your responsibility is to go home at the end of the watch...police recruits were weeded out for a lot of things when I went through the academy...

failure to consider officer safety was a big reason at the academy and also during probationary training periods at the beginning of a career...

that message of officer safety being most important is heavily emphasized whereas the importance of the life of each individual that they serve is barely mentioned...yet all policies on the use of deadly force do state a reverence for human life...

There's an irony to it that it essentially makes the world more dangerous for your average citizen (the theoretical opposite effect that the police are advertised as doing).

Think about it. What's the majority of police involvement in the US. It's not swooping in and stopping murders, break-ins, rapes, crimes in process... As every 2nd amendment supporter will tell you, 9-1-1 won't get to your house in time, so you need a gun to protect yourself. That means the police usually arrive after the fact for these scenarios. They take reports.... crate off the bodies. Most of their interactions with citizens are not actually happening during split-second life or death situations. But by having them in non-life-or-death situations, you add a 3rd element, who happens to have a gun, and happens to be worried about protecting their life. All you've done is make a situation more complex, and added a deadly weapon when there may not have been one before.

You're trying too hard.

Sure, I got my NBC and NYT mixed up. Big whoop.

And I know it's a photo gallery headline. Doesn't matter. Read the headline. You might as well read it out loud, your lips are moving anyway.

The headline is misleading, considering the rape of that town by BLM.

THE FBI-SSG AGENTS THAT I BATTLED WITH For over 5+ years ran around in groups armed to the teeth...just waiting for me to make a move on their sorry sick illegal felon azzes while implemEnTing their choreographed GaNGSTALKInG program directed at me 24-7-365...day in...daY oUT...they wAnted me dead BigTImE...

StiLl do... to this verY dAy...

F***Kem and the horse they rode in on...

Look at the Seattle sh*t hole self proclaimed as CHAD.

No cops.

How long did it take for that environment to self implode?

Your insight is not very insightful, if you ask me. It's not untrue, per se, but it misses the mark.

The reason cops are visible at events isn't to catch a criminal, or stop a crime in process. It's to prevent it from happening in the first place. And on a grander scale, that's why police are out and about rather than behind a desk. Visibility is key.

These deaths are tragic, regardless of whether they're avoidable.

But the next video I see of a cop shooting someone complying with their demands will be the first.

Speaking of misleading headlines. A burned building or two is not "the rape of that town".

The headline appears to be trying to juxtapose the daytime peaceful protests and the night time less peaceful protests.

In fact, that's literally the only two lines in the linked article.

Or to make it more clear... a person who gets their information from just the headlines of a news article is an idiot.

You're new here. So I'll allow your mistake regarding the 98.2%.... this is a cbid number used when one is trying to point out that they are pulling a number out of their ass.

As for the rest... you're an idiot.

Yes. And regardless of whether or not they are avoidable, they should not happen.

Dude... "implode"? CHAD was a occupy type movement. It didn't "implode". And it certainly wasn't the lack of cops that caused it to fail. It failed because that's what those things do. A bunch of starry eyed hippies think they can live all happy without the necessary support systems provided by the city. Eventually they get tired of sh$tting in portapotties. It was never going to last. Not because it was a "no cop zone" but because those are always limited by the attention span of the people involved.

And you think "visibility" is key? Meh. I won't argue that it has some effect. But that becomes a question of whether the presence of armed police reduces crime more than the presence of armed police increases the chance of someone being shot by the armed police.

As for your last sentence... I'm not sure what's more troubling, that you think non-compliance is valid reason to be dead, or that it's already happened, you just haven't seen it.