LE Leaks show treatment of pro BLM protestors vs conservative militias

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-29-2020, 05:23 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: That's  a weak aside.

Most protestors just see people joining in; they're not performing DICA background checks on their fellow man.

Oh, I agree.  I certainly don't expect the crowd to be running real time background checks on each other.  I just found it telling that so many these "protesters" who end up engaged in violence have significant criminal histories.  It's almost like being anti-law enforcement and pro criminal attracts criminals. 

(08-29-2020, 06:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Hmm, what do you suggest for people who want to admit the protesting and rioting is awful but has no faith that the other side is going to fix it?  My inability to believe that one side is good and one is evil is really making me feel hopeless and anti-american?

All I see is people doing terrible things getting a big ol' reward in 2020 regardless of which side wins.  I should probably just find something else to obsess over.

I'd suggest avoiding any protests in which violence has occurred. I'd suggest either leaving immediately once you see violence perpetrated or turning the violent people over to the police.  I do agree, neither side is interesting in fixing this.  The Dems can't, because they've thrown their lot in with the rioters.  The GOP won't, because it's great campaign fodder for them.

(08-29-2020, 11:38 PM)samhain Wrote:  
Are you seriously going to tell me that you can look at the pictures of him crammed into the cop cosplay outfit and not think that he's Augustus Gloop from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory crossed with Eric Cartman?  LOL.  Yeah, I'm sure he just bought the AR to defend himself from the mob of young ladies trampling each other to earn his favor.

The AR was his friend's rifle.  The rest of this paragraph is a little judgmental.

Quote:His mom had to remove him from school.  Lots or kids, perhaps even most, experience bullying.  How many cope so poorly that they have to be removed from social interaction with their peers.  It's not the norm, for sure.

 
No, not the norm to be sure.  Does it not being the norm mean it's this kid's fault?  That seems to be your position.

Quote:Also not saying he's "right".  I don't think a 17 year old patrolling a riot zone with an AR is a good idea on any level.

I don't think people rioting, looting and burning down buildings is a good idea either.  I don't think attacking the police on a nightly basis is a good idea on any level.  Yet, they both continue, regardless.

 

Quote:Does the military let 17-year-olds enlist?

With parental permission, yes.

 

Quote:I am open to the idea that he was indeed defending himself, but I'm not ready to build a statue of the pudgy fella in DC to honor his heroism as the right seems prepared to do.  

No statue needed.  We're only discussing the criminal charges and whether they were warranted.

Quote:I dunno, maybe the people that venerate him can send him a care package of some donuts and cheesy poofs to help him cope.

Ugh.  I'm going to ignore this bit.  

[samhain]

Welp, with the early and admittedly incomplete reports from last night's Portland murder coming in, it sounds as if a Patriot Prayer member/associate was indeed the victim. It also sounds as if he was spraying bear mace at counterprotesters when he was wounded and killed.

I wonder if the counterprotester that killed this man will be celebrated by the self-defense crowd if this turns out to be the case.

[*bfine32*]

(08-30-2020, 04:05 PM)samhain Wrote: Is anyone forcing him to read disparaging comments?  Was he at the re-education camp in A Clockwork Orange or something?  

Of course I didn't say anyone forced him to read it. but here's a news flash. You don not know what was written until you read it. You stance on bullying and cyber bullying is something that should be universally condemned. But it wont in here; it'll be applauded. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-30-2020, 09:28 PM)samhain Wrote: Welp, with the early and admittedly incomplete reports from last night's Portland murder coming in, it sounds as if a Patriot Prayer member/associate was indeed the victim.  It also sounds as if he was spraying bear mace at counterprotesters when he was wounded and killed.  

I wonder if the counterprotester that killed this man will be celebrated by the self-defense crowd if this turns out to be the case.

What was the person that killed him defending? Answer that and I'll let you know if I offer any defense. 

[samhain]

(08-30-2020, 09:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What was the person that killed him defending? Answer that and I'll let you know if I offer any defense. 

Himself from getting sprayed with bear mace, I'd venture.  

[samhain]

(08-30-2020, 09:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I didn't say anyone forced him to read it. but here's a news flash. You don not know what was written until you read it. You stance on bullying and cyber bullying is something that should be universally condemned. But it wont in here; it'll be applauded. 

What evidence do you have that he left school for being bullied online?  I know you frequently express the multitude of times everyone here is so mean to you, so maybe you're projecting your own traumas on this one.  I'm sincerely sorry if I've hurt you, dude.  

[*bfine32*]

(08-30-2020, 09:46 PM)samhain Wrote: Himself from getting sprayed with bear mace, I'd venture.  

So you don't know. Get back with me when you do. 

[*bfine32*]

(08-30-2020, 09:50 PM)samhain Wrote: What evidence do you have that he left school for being bullied online?  I know you frequently express the multitude of times everyone here is so mean to you, so maybe you're projecting your own traumas on this one.  I'm sincerely sorry if I've hurt you, dude.  

I've got proof from about every post you've made in this thread that he has been bullied online. Now you can assume you're the first if it makes you feel better.

I'm not hurt nor am I traumatized.

[BmorePat87]

Did they confirm if the video of him allegedly beating up a girl last month was actually him?

Not that it has any bearing on this, but it would be enlightening to know if that was actually him getting his ass kicked by 5 guys that saw him doing it. Sheds some light on his love of guns and willingness to kill people.

[fredtoast]

(08-30-2020, 08:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, I agree.  I certainly don't expect the crowd to be running real time background checks on each other.  I just found it telling that so many these "protesters" who end up engaged in violence have significant criminal histories.  It's almost like being anti-law enforcement and pro criminal attracts criminals. 

It is the same for both sides.  Violence attracts violence.  Look at the criminal activity of the Proud Boys and the other alt-right groups that incite violence at protests.

And, obviously the pro-cop crowd is going to be less likely to be charged with a crime. Just look at ho many people sport pro-cop bumper stickers to avoid being pulled over.  And the "get out of jail free" cards that police hand out to supporters. Those things also effect the criminal record of an individual.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-31-2020, 04:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is the same for both sides.  Violence attracts violence.  Look at the criminal activity of the Proud Boys and the other alt-right groups that incite violence at protests.

It looked like Portland was doing fine with its violence quotient prior to the Proud Boys showing up.  Just saying.

Quote:And, obviously the pro-cop crowd is going to be less likely to be charged with a crime.

Obviously?  An LEO is obligated by law to arrest anyone they witness commit a misdemeanor, let alone a felony.  I do understand that the left leaning governments in Portland, etc. have prohibited the police from performing their duty, but I don't think that was to assist the "pro-cop" side.

Quote:Just look at ho many people sport pro-cop bumper stickers to avoid being pulled over. 

I can tell you from personal experience that almost no one ever has not been pulled over because they sported the type of sticker you describe.

Quote:And the "get out of jail free" cards that police hand out to supporters. Those things also effect the criminal record of an individual.

I assume from this statement that you have empirical evidence to back it up?  I only ask as I'm always required to provide it, so it seems only fair.

[Dill]

(09-01-2020, 02:08 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I assume from this statement that you have empirical evidence to back it up?  I only ask as I'm always required to provide it, so it seems only fair.

Indeed it is fair.  I'd like to see everyone get into the habit.

That police in NY hand out "Get out of Jail free" cards is not in dispute.

And there seems to be quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that they reduce the bearers chances of receiving traffic tickets.

Police union slashes number of ‘get out of jail free’ cards issued
https://nypost.com/2018/01/21/police-union-slashes-number-of-get-out-of-jail-free-cards-issued/

he city’s police-officers union is cracking down on the number of “get out of jail free” courtesy cards distributed to cops to give to family and friends.

Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association boss Pat Lynch slashed the maximum number of cards that could be issued to current cops from 30 to 20, and to retirees from 20 to 10, sources told The Post.

The cards are often used to wiggle out of minor trouble such as speeding tickets, the theory being that presenting one suggests you know someone in the NYPD.

The rank and file is livid.

Why are Cops Issuing 'Get Out of Jail Free' Cards?
https://www.newsweek.com/why-are-cops-issuing-get-out-jail-free-cards-788356

Readers who'd never heard of the practice before reacted with shock that this form of petty corruption could be so normalized that there would actually be official cards, openly distributed by police departments or their unions, for the explicit purpose of placing friends, family, and donors above the law—even if only for relatively minor infractions.

The idea that family of police might get more lenient treatment was not particularly surprising, but many seemed taken aback that the practice could be so shamelessly institutionalized on such a large scale.

Is there, after all, any conceivable non-corrupt reason for issuing wallet-sized cards identifying the bearer as a relative of police?

That sense of shock was, I immediately recognized, the correct reaction. As long as laws are enforced by human beings, a bit of small-scale local nepotism in the enforcement of the law is probably unavoidable.

[GMDino]

This could go in any of the violence/riot related threads but I'll leave it here.

[GMDino]

The President said the Trump Flag Carrying folks shooting apintballs and macing people as they drove down the street were just fine with him.

Today’s press conference made it clear: we are all less safe because Donald Trump has failed at his job.

We need a President who will stop violence — not incite it. pic.twitter.com/AhGNZCDQkr

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 1, 2020

 


He continues to support violence as a means to handle the protests.  He is a weak leader.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-01-2020, 03:43 AM)Dill Wrote: Indeed it is fair.  I'd like to see everyone get into the habit.

That police in NY hand out "Get out of Jail free" cards is not in dispute.

And there seems to be quite a bit of anecdotal evidence that they reduce the bearers chances of receiving traffic tickets.

Police union slashes number of ‘get out of jail free’ cards issued
https://nypost.com/2018/01/21/police-union-slashes-number-of-get-out-of-jail-free-cards-issued/

he city’s police-officers union is cracking down on the number of “get out of jail free” courtesy cards distributed to cops to give to family and friends.

Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association boss Pat Lynch slashed the maximum number of cards that could be issued to current cops from 30 to 20, and to retirees from 20 to 10, sources told The Post.

The cards are often used to wiggle out of minor trouble such as speeding tickets, the theory being that presenting one suggests you know someone in the NYPD.

The rank and file is livid.

Why are Cops Issuing 'Get Out of Jail Free' Cards?
https://www.newsweek.com/why-are-cops-issuing-get-out-jail-free-cards-788356

Readers who'd never heard of the practice before reacted with shock that this form of petty corruption could be so normalized that there would actually be official cards, openly distributed by police departments or their unions, for the explicit purpose of placing friends, family, and donors above the law—even if only for relatively minor infractions.

The idea that family of police might get more lenient treatment was not particularly surprising, but many seemed taken aback that the practice could be so shamelessly institutionalized on such a large scale.

Is there, after all, any conceivable non-corrupt reason for issuing wallet-sized cards identifying the bearer as a relative of police?

That sense of shock was, I immediately recognized, the correct reaction. As long as laws are enforced by human beings, a bit of small-scale local nepotism in the enforcement of the law is probably unavoidable.

While I appreciate you sticking up for Fred you're not addressing the point I challenged, which is his statement that the "get out of jail free" cards affect a person's criminal record.  What you're describing above are traffic infractions, not criminal offenses.  

[fredtoast]

(09-01-2020, 11:33 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: While I appreciate you sticking up for Fred you're not addressing the point I challenged, which is his statement that the "get out of jail free" cards affect a person's criminal record.  What you're describing above are traffic infractions, not criminal offenses.  

It cracks me up when people try to make this argument  "Sure, you can prove police are crooked about SOME things, but they have to be 100% honest about everything else."  When it is proven that cops are corrupt about the small things then it is not unreasonable to assume they are also corrupt about big things.

But even if it is just for "minor infractions" we all know about the "broken window" theory of law enforcement where minnor infractions are just used as a tool to search for guns or weapons or other contraband that could lead to criminal charges,  So just letting people walk on "minor infractions" allows them to escape the other criminal charges that are only discovered through the enforcement of "minor infractions".

For example, in the story that Dill linked the guiy was expecting a sobriety test when his friend got pulled for running a stop sign.  Thios leads me to believ that there was some probabale cause for a sobriety test.  Yet none was conducted.  So avoinding a traffic ticket probably led to avoiding a DUI.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-01-2020, 02:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It cracks me up when people try to make this argument  "Sure, you can prove police are crooked about SOME things, but they have to be 100% honest about everything else."  When it is proven that cops are corrupt about the small things then it is not unreasonable to assume they are also corrupt about big things.

LEO's have discretion as to when they do, or do not, issue a citation.  While I agree that these cards are a poor idea they still don't address the point you attempted to make, which is affects a person's criminal record.  Since I correctly pointed out that traffic citations are not criminal infractions you're now changing your position.  Not unexpected, but tedious.

Quote:But even if it is just for "minor infractions" we all know about the "broken window" theory of law enforcement where minnor infractions are just used as a tool to search for guns or weapons or other contraband that could lead to criminal charges,  So just letting people walk on "minor infractions" allows them to escape the other criminal charges that are only discovered through the enforcement of "minor infractions".

Speaking completely hypothetically, which is what you are doing, possibly.  Of course if an LEO has a reason to want to search a car you and I both know that one of those cards wouldn't stop them from doing it.

Quote:For example, in the story that Dill linked the guiy was expecting a sobriety test when his friend got pulled for running a stop sign.  Thios leads me to believ that there was some probabale cause for a sobriety test.  Yet none was conducted.  So avoinding a traffic ticket probably led to avoiding a DUI.

It leads you to believe?  I suppose that's a flowery way of saying you're guessing.  As you are guessing your use of the word "probably" in the last sentence is inappropriate.

[fredtoast]

(09-01-2020, 03:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: LEO's have discretion as to when they do, or do not, issue a citation.  While I agree that these cards are a poor idea they still don't address the point you attempted to make, which is affects a person's criminal record.  Since I correctly pointed out that traffic citations are not criminal infractions you're now changing your position.  Not unexpected, but tedious.

Not changing my position at all.  Getting away with minor infractions allows people to avoid criminal charges that are only discovered during enforcement of minor infractions.

(09-01-2020, 03:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course if an LEO has a reason to want to search a car you and I both know that one of those cards wouldn't stop them from doing it.

Actually i know 100% for certain that police will let some people go when they are aware they have illegal drugs on them.  I have seen it happen.

[fredtoast]

(09-01-2020, 03:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It leads you to believe?  I suppose that's a flowery way of saying you're guessing.  As you are guessing your use of the word "probably" in the last sentence is inappropriate.

The term "leads to believe" is used in criminal investigations.  It has nothing to do with "guessing".  Instead it is reaching a conclusion based on evidence.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-01-2020, 06:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not changing my position at all.  Getting away with minor infractions allows people to avoid criminal charges that are only discovered during enforcement of minor infractions.

Possibly.  You stated it as a fact.  

Quote:Actually i know 100% for certain that police will let some people go when they are aware they have illegal drugs on them.  I have seen it happen.

I won't ask how. 

(09-01-2020, 06:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The term "leads to believe" is used in criminal investigations.  It has nothing to do with "guessing".  Instead it is reaching a conclusion based on evidence.

You don't conduct criminal investigations, and if you did, you're not doing one here.  It's odd, you inferred a lot in another thread but don't apply the same standard here.