LEO thoughts on recent events

[phylodog]

There is no explanation due to you and there is nothing to explain. You are just attacking the messenger because you can't counter the message.

I agreed with the message of the thread, you're the one who crapped in it..

 

[Chewie]

Like I owe you an explanation for why I join any thread.

Maybe if you presented a cognitive thought when you join rather than some vague statement you would get a more reasonable response from people on this sight who would be willing to explain their reasoning. But I guess when you feel that no explanation is required for your action you fit into a certain sterotype.

 

[Chewie]

There is no explanation due to you and there is nothing to explain. You are just attacking the messenger because you can't counter the message.

What you are doing is like walking into a bar and yelling "you are all worthless pieces of crap" and expecting everyone to welcome you with open arms! Ain't gonna happen ANYWHERE young padwan.

 

[Stickfight]

What you are doing is like walking into a bar and yelling "you are all worthless pieces of crap" and expecting everyone to welcome you with open arms! Ain't gonna happen ANYWHERE young padwan.

Actually it isn't anything like that at all. This was more akin to overhearing someone saying they don't beat their wife, and I produce a photo of them beating their wife. Then they say "don't take a big **** in my conversation you whiner. I was saying I might not beat her tonight and you're picture is of me beating her last night". Then I produce pictures of the person beating numerous times over numerous days and he says "yeah but you don't know the context. Maybe I had a good reason to beat her"

 

[wtfd661]

Actually it isn't anything like that at all. This was more akin to overhearing someone saying they don't beat their wife, and I produce a photo of them beating their wife. Then they say "don't take a big **** in my conversation you whiner. I was saying I might not beat her tonight and you're picture is of me beating her last night". Then I produce pictures of the person beating numerous times over numerous days and he says "yeah but you don't know the context. Maybe I had a good reason to beat her"

No actually you overhear a husband saying he doesn't beat his wife, then you produce a picture from another country of a male beating a woman and say or implying that all husbands beat their wives because you can find pictures of males beating females on the internet.

 

[Destro]

you have yet to present any evidence that unlawful orders have been given in any meaningful numbers

 

[Stickfight]

A) that wasn't a question. Questions have question marks at the end of them. You are welcome for the lesson.

B) that isn't true in the first place.

 

[phylodog]

Actually it isn't anything like that at all. This was more akin to overhearing someone saying they don't beat their wife, and I produce a photo of them beating their wife. Then they say "don't take a big **** in my conversation you whiner. I was saying I might not beat her tonight and you're picture is of me beating her last night". Then I produce pictures of the person beating numerous times over numerous days and he says "yeah but you don't know the context. Maybe I had a good reason to beat her"

Please, please, please find a picture, report, allegation or suggestion that I have carried out an unlawful or unconstitutional order since you've decided that I'm the guy who "beats his wife" which justifies your involvement in the thread.

 

[Stickfight]

No actually you overhear a husband saying he doesn't beat his wife, then you produce a picture from another country of a male beating a woman and say or implying that all husbands beat their wives because you can find pictures of males beating females on the internet.

I never wrote anything close to even implying that all cops follow unlawful orders. Not did I post only examples from other countries. I drew them from the nearly bottomless pool of examples that exist for every country there is.

 

[ifr2]

Our General Orders require us to follow lawful orders. Would the order to harass citizens engaged in a lawful business be viewed as a lawful order? Not by me.

 

[Stickfight]

Please, please, please find a picture, report, allegation or suggestion that I have carried out an unlawful or unconstitutional order since you've decided that I'm the guy who "beats his wife" which justifies your involvement in the thread.

I'm not in the thread for you, but you seem to be here for me. And no I have no idea if you follow unlawful orders. But if you don't, there aren't enough if you to matter, which is the point.

 

[Destro]

A) that wasn't a question. Questions have question marks at the end of them. You are welcome for the lesson.

B) that isn't true in the first place.

It was not a question, it was a statement. Since you seem to have a problem backing up the claims you make...I guess I can expect an answer....never

 

[SSGSAD]

With the LEO presence on this thread, let me pose some food for thought... or perhaps a general question.

I've experienced first hand how the media twists things a number of times, including an incident today as a matter of fact. What many don't realize is that they have certain Constitutional rights which protect them as well. Therefore, they have the ability to "interpret" whatever they're reporting on as "how they see it." Of course, between their perception of an event and what is actually going on is a VERY wide difference most of the time. But, it is what it is.

The problem however, is that SO many people believe what they feed them at face value. They don't even stop to consider this aspect of interpretation half the time. Depending on how they choose a few select words or phrases you can believe someone is anything from a crazed and violent man, to a heroic savior. With this ability of interpretation and people's naive nature to trust in the good of others, it grants great power to those in charge of big organizations with influence over the rest of the community such as media and LE.

For instance, if your higher ups told you to go to a house and confiscate a man's weapons and/or detain him....I imagine that more than likely you do so without question. You simply trust in WHATEVER they're telling you as accurate. Of course, a warrant is supposed to be required and all of that, but what I'm getting at is this. Without being witness or otherwise privy to certain undertakings, we are forced to rely on what information we are told by others. It is based on that intel that we must act. Yet, just as we see with the media and government, how reliable is that information with the ability to interpret it after all?

When I see stories on the news of "a crazy man barricaded in a house with an arsenal" it makes me wonder what was his actual crime. I mean, simply refusing to leave your home and the fact that you have several guns does not make you criminal, however with media interpretation that's how they make everyone perceive it. Could the same effect be used in the LE community by higher ups to where responding officers don't actually KNOW the circumstances leading up to what they're being told to do in a given point in time? That ability would grant a great deal of power in that the boots on the ground feel that they are doing what IS right and legal based on what they were told. While yet, unknown to them they are being told interpreted information for other purposes that you may not know.

Obviously, I'm not very privy to the detailed working inside police action in this regard. However, I can see where certain things could play out to keep the enforcers in a state of ignorance thereby maintaining their plausible deniability. They wouldn't morally object to an order if they truly felt what they were doing is warranted and called for. How difficult would it be to accomplish that if someone in higher authority wanted to?

Just thinking out loud here, but it's something which has always come to mind on these issues.

Reminds me of the "Need to know", and YOU don't need to know .....

 

[phylodog]

I'm not in the thread for you, but you seem to be here for me. And no I have no idea if you follow unlawful orders. But if you don't, there aren't enough if you to matter, which is the point.

Apparently articles written to stimulate thought about the concept are a waste of time and posting pictures of things that have happened in the past is a better idea. We sure wouldn't want any police officers out there to be reminded that they have a duty to refuse to obey unlawful orders, it's much more fun to post pictures of **** on the Internet instead.

Now I get why you're here. Thank you so much for your productive input and participation. You've truly added significant meaning to an otherwise pointless thread. Not sure what we would have done here without you. Troll on.

 

[Rookie]

He's next to go. Hopefully soon.

 

[Stickfight]

Now I get why you're here. Thank you so much for your productive input and participation. You've truly added significant meaning to an otherwise pointless thread. Not sure what we would have done here without you. Troll on.

Keep telling yourself I'm trolling. Keep telling yourself you know why I joined the thread. Keep telling yourself I owe you an explanation for why I did.

What you should never ever ever never do, is offer any sort of explanation at all as to why things are different now. Just get mad and insult me and hope I will go away.

 

[Stickfight]

He's next to go. Hopefully soon.

What site rule have I violated?

 

[phylodog]

What you should never ever ever never do, is offer any sort of explanation at all as to why things are different now. Just get mad and insult me and hope I will go away.

Did you bother to read the article? Was it not intended to bring to light the fact the police officers have the responsibility to consider their oath and question orders which violate that oath? I would consider this as potentially moving in the right direction. Apparently you find it an opportunity to whine about what has happened in the past. I'm sorry the entire point of the thread was beyond your comprehension. I'm sorry if the lack of support for your position in this thread doesn't serve as an indication that you're out of line. I'm sorry you don't know when to call it quits.

You aren't winning. You have not improved your position. You have not converted anyone to your childish viewpoint.

 

[Chewie]

Keep telling yourself I'm trolling. Keep telling yourself you know why I joined the thread. Keep telling yourself I owe you an explanation for why I did.

What you should never ever ever never do, is offer any sort of explanation at all as to why things are different now. Just get mad and insult me and hope I will go away.

It's called Quid pro quo

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Keep telling yourself I'm trolling. Keep telling yourself you know why I joined the thread. Keep telling yourself I owe you an explanation for why I did.

What you should never ever ever never do, is offer any sort of explanation at all as to why things are different now. Just get mad and insult me and hope I will go away.

There is no need for any of us to tell ourselves you are trolling. Your picture is next to the dictionary definition of "troll" (along with some others.) You apparently seem to think that law enforcement officers worldwide (or at least European-wide ) follow the same set of rules. I'm guessing you've never been to any countries outside the US, and you certainly haven't evinced any understanding of how different our Constitution makes us from other countries - even other "democracies".

You were asked to provide relevant examples of AMERICAN law enforcement officials obeying "unlawful orders" and all you could come up with was the events on Ruby Ridge which, although an FBI agent was convicted, is not necessarily a good example of a cop following an unlawful order, but which may be a very good example of how authorities may be able to manipulate events to get cops (or soldiers) to follow what are eventually determined to be "unlawful orders."

You COULD have either provided more internet photos (with no explanatory context, naturally) to make your point, or, failing that, you could have attempted to make a coherent argument for your point of view. Instead, you argued unconvincingly and got snotty when you were called on it. It's no wonder you can't seem to gain any traction in these arguments.

So, since you can't make - or refuse to make - coherent arguments, or respond to criticisms with coherent rebuttals, and you like to get snotty with folks, you definitely fit the category of "troll."