Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 80

Thread: An example of people's stupidity?

  1. #1
    Regular Member sawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    437

    An example of people's stupidity?

    We are discussing an issue on another forum I post to, about what qualities a LEO should have. Many of the posters were belligerently posting about how awful it was to have female LEOs. 'Oh the typical female LEO is just too weak to do the job...' and other comments like that.

    IMO, I'd much rather have a polite, knowledgeable female LEO who has a law degree, to deal with me should I ever get stopped. I do not care about her physical characteristics. LEOs work best as a team using group tactics as needed, calling for back up. Why in the world would any law-abiding person want big 'roided out cops on the force? I want a nice LEO who knows the law.

    In reality these people are just showing their hostility towards women in a 'man's profession', and not understanding what they're asking for when they say only big tough males should be cops. People are so prejudiced and stupid sometimes.
    A firearm is a tool of convenience, not effectiveness - Clint Smith, Thunder Ranch

  2. #2
    Regular Member bforbaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    London, KY
    Posts
    16
    It's isn't because they are prejudiced, it's just if some "felon" or "criminal" gets pulled over on the side of the interstate at 11-12-1 at night, and sees a normal sized woman walk up to his window, he most likely thinks he can "handle" her.

    I'm not against woman LEO's. I actually think they work well with the other LEO's in a group. Woman just handle some situations differently than men would. They have their role in certain area's as a LEO.

  3. #3
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by sawah View Post
    IMO, I'd much rather have a polite, knowledgeable female LEO who has a law degree,
    A Juris Doctor LEO is credentialism run amok!

    ETA:
    "It doesn't mean anything here," said Inchscape. "They all take law degrees. That qualifies them to become second assistant stamp-lickers in the civil service." "Guy says all the Rumanian girls are intelligent." "They're quick."(Balkan Trilogy, Manning)
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 02-08-2012 at 11:01 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    437
    Quote Originally Posted by bforbaker View Post
    It's isn't because they are prejudiced, it's just if some "felon" or "criminal" gets pulled over on the side of the interstate at 11-12-1 at night, and sees a normal sized woman walk up to his window, he most likely thinks he can "handle" her.

    I'm not against woman LEO's. I actually think they work well with the other LEO's in a group. Woman just handle some situations differently than men would. They have their role in certain area's as a LEO.
    How a LEO is treated by a felon is their business and not my concern. It's a subject for their training. I prefer LEOs who know the law and who use their brain not brawn.

    As a counter point I do believe that FIREMEN should be brawny, because they might have to drag a victim out of a fire by themselves. But a LEO has the option of calling backup. For someone to say they PREFER a big hulking guy to be a LEO is prejudiced and stupid.
    A firearm is a tool of convenience, not effectiveness - Clint Smith, Thunder Ranch

  5. #5
    Regular Member gunns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    270
    My cousin is a LEO, she is 5 foot and about 100 pounds. Well now she is a detective, but she was on the beat.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Quote Originally Posted by sawah View Post
    How a LEO is treated by a felon is their business and not my concern. It's a subject for their training. I prefer LEOs who know the law and who use their brain not brawn.

    As a counter point I do believe that FIREMEN should be brawny, because they might have to drag a victim out of a fire by themselves. But a LEO has the option of calling backup. For someone to say they PREFER a big hulking guy to be a LEO is prejudiced and stupid.
    Saying that an LEO always has the ability to call back-up is like saying you always have the ability to call the police. You don't, and they don't either. LEOs frequently encounter violent individuals when they are alone.

    Enough defending LEOs. I agree with the OP. I would rather have an officer that knows the law then one that could win a strong man contest.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by sawah View Post
    How a LEO is treated by a felon is their business and not my concern. It's a subject for their training. I prefer LEOs who know the law and who use their brain not brawn.

    As a counter point I do believe that FIREMEN should be brawny, because they might have to drag a victim out of a fire by themselves. But a LEO has the option of calling backup. For someone to say they PREFER a big hulking guy to be a LEO is prejudiced and stupid.
    Hypothetical: So, a female (of the average stature) LEO rolls up to you in your burning car, a brawny LEO would come in pretty handy at that moment. As would that brawny LEO in any number of situations where the brawny firefighters are likely too far away to save you.

    Firefighters do not typically ride around looking to help folks, they gotta get called to someplace to help someone. It is not a matter of male vs. female, it is a matter of can they do the job that they may be required to perform. One of the things they are required (well, maybe not required) to perform is actually being capable of helping folks in need right then and there, instead of securing the scene and awaiting back-up in the hopes that brawny LEO shows up before a brawny firefighter shows up.

    If you are not capable of meeting all of the potential requirements of the job, regardless of whether or not the requirement is officially part of your job, then find another job. Sometimes brains are not as valuable as brawn.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    All cops should be women.

  9. #9
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    'Go Daddy' kind of women.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Hypothetical: So, a female (of the average stature) LEO rolls up to you in your burning car, a brawny LEO would come in pretty handy at that moment. As would that brawny LEO in any number of situations where the brawny firefighters are likely too far away to save you.

    Firefighters do not typically ride around looking to help folks, they gotta get called to someplace to help someone. It is not a matter of male vs. female, it is a matter of can they do the job that they may be required to perform. One of the things they are required (well, maybe not required) to perform is actually being capable of helping folks in need right then and there, instead of securing the scene and awaiting back-up in the hopes that brawny LEO shows up before a brawny firefighter shows up.

    If you are not capable of meeting all of the potential requirements of the job, regardless of whether or not the requirement is officially part of your job, then find another job. Sometimes brains are not as valuable as brawn.
    Spoken like someone who has a lot of one and not the other...

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    'Go Daddy' kind of women.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    A lot of what, compared to what?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448
    Non-PC warning!

    I work in EMS. I have worked in Fire and Law Enforcement. There are lots of women (and some men) who cannot perform the basic physical functions of the job. They are there because of PC BS that waters down the standards. Public safety personnel do not have to be WWE superstars but they DO need to be capable of doing their jobs without calling for help every day or refusing assignments because they are unable to complete them. I applaud the women who are capable of doing their jobs. I have worked with several. Not everyone is cut out to be a cop, firefighter, EMT, cook, clerk, trash collector, factory worker, etc. If the powers that be want to carve out a special place for the weaklings, fine, but don't put them in a position they can't handle. Newsflash: Public safety personnel sometimes have to act immediately without waiting for help. Do you want a 110 pound female (or male) 'model' or a 220 pound male (or female) bruiser on the traffic stop outside your house when the fleeing felon makes a gun grab and takes the LEO to the ground?

    So ends my neanderthal moment for the day.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by sawah View Post
    How a LEO is treated by a felon is their business and not my concern. It's a subject for their training. I prefer LEOs who know the law and who use their brain not brawn.

    As a counter point I do believe that FIREMEN should be brawny, because they might have to drag a victim out of a fire by themselves. But a LEO has the option of calling backup. For someone to say they PREFER a big hulking guy to be a LEO is prejudiced and stupid.
    Personally I like the idea of female LEOs, but that might be off topic...
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    226
    Law-savvy vs brawn is a false dichotomy; some combination is out there.

    That being said, I support citizens taking responsibility for being self-reliant and mutually supportive, thus eliminating much of the role of LE. I self-apply that statement. The less 911 is called for situations that someone could have been prepared for/capable of handling with a modicum of prior training and mindset, the less we need LE. I am speaking generally, not only to deadly force issues.

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    911 is a valuable resource....no one can ever prepare for not getting their correct order at the McDonald's drive thru.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    82
    You've been softened up by a lifetime of feminist propaganda. Women shouldn't be doing men's jobs. If a woman is dumb enough to want to wrestle thugs, it's her prerogative, but I will never allow my woman or my daughters to become "law enforcement" or to fight on the front lines in any wars.

    Personally, I don't like anyone who is "law enforcement". I prefer the time when we had "peace officers", who's job was to serve and protect THE PUBLIC. Today, "law enforcement" does nothing but collect revenue for the state, in the form of money, or holding your body as collateral. Their job is simply to serve the system by enforcing laws. They are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help in any way, shape, or form. I don't even care to talk to any law enforcement, because they might use what I say against me.

  18. #18
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Quote Originally Posted by XD9mmFMJ View Post
    You've been softened up by a lifetime of feminist propaganda. Women shouldn't be doing men's jobs. If a woman is dumb enough to want to wrestle thugs, it's her prerogative, but I will never allow my woman or my daughters to become "law enforcement" or to fight on the front lines in any wars.

    Personally, I don't like anyone who is "law enforcement". I prefer the time when we had "peace officers", who's job was to serve and protect THE PUBLIC. Today, "law enforcement" does nothing but collect revenue for the state, in the form of money, or holding your body as collateral. Their job is simply to serve the system by enforcing laws. They are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help in any way, shape, or form. I don't even care to talk to any law enforcement, because they might use what I say against me.
    "Feminist propaganda"? I served with a succession of female soldiers who were every bit as good, and in some cases better, as their male counterparts. I still remember one young woman who just barely met the minimum height standards and who barely weighed a hundred pounds soaking wet. She worked her male counterparts into the ground and was still going strong.

    She could also put those male counterparts, all of whom were taller and heavier, on the ground and out cold. You did not want the girl to get ticked at you. If she had been faced with dragging someone from a burning car, I have no doubt that she would have done it.

    Had we ever been faced with combat, I would have wanted her watching my back as I would have watched hers. She was a great soldier.

    The other side of the coin is that, off-duty, she was one of the more feminine women I ever met.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Ugh, feminists. They want equal treatment right up until they can't physically handle something and then they want to be treated special because they are "women." Personally I don't care about male or female cops. But I'm with those that say there should be a single standard for doing the job and not one standard for men and another for women. To put it nicely, it makes me so angry that women get different PT/uniform standards in the military than men. Either we're equal and we all follow the same standards, or we aren't equal and we accept that fact and work within our means.

    A story that my dad told me from before he retired from the AF is this. He was in when they started letting women become maintainers. He HATED having women maintainers. Not because he hated women. But because the recruiter would just grab pretty much any woman in order to fill his quota and it didn't matter if she could do the job or not. This often meant that my dad would have to send a man out with the woman because most of the women that he had were too weak to carry all their tools out to the flightline. It basically cost him manpower because things that "should" have been a 1-person job were now a 2-person job if a woman was assigned to do it. If they were strong enough to carry their tools then he didn't mind them; but typically they weren't.

    As for the original question. I have no problem with a woman being an LEO. But I do have a problem with ANYONE (man or woman) who isn't strong/fit enough to do their job. And due to nature the fact is that typically women just aren't as strong as men so you see far more women who can't handle doing physical jobs than you see men who can't handle it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    "Feminist propaganda"? I served with a succession of female soldiers who were every bit as good, and in some cases better, as their male counterparts. I still remember one young woman who just barely met the minimum height standards and who barely weighed a hundred pounds soaking wet. She worked her male counterparts into the ground and was still going strong.

    She could also put those male counterparts, all of whom were taller and heavier, on the ground and out cold. You did not want the girl to get ticked at you. If she had been faced with dragging someone from a burning car, I have no doubt that she would have done it.

    Had we ever been faced with combat, I would have wanted her watching my back as I would have watched hers. She was a great soldier.

    The other side of the coin is that, off-duty, she was one of the more feminine women I ever met.
    Congrats, you had a good female troop and one who sounds like she could actually handle the job. I've met plenty in my short career (currently coming up on eight years) who struggled with the easier standards that the AF has set for them. Nevermind trying to ask them to do the standards that are set for the men. Not to say that I haven't come across women who could also run circles around me, but they have been the exception and not the rule.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    "Feminist propaganda"? I served with a succession of female soldiers who were every bit as good, and in some cases better, as their male counterparts. I still remember one young woman who just barely met the minimum height standards and who barely weighed a hundred pounds soaking wet. She worked her male counterparts into the ground and was still going strong.

    She could also put those male counterparts, all of whom were taller and heavier, on the ground and out cold. You did not want the girl to get ticked at you. If she had been faced with dragging someone from a burning car, I have no doubt that she would have done it.

    Had we ever been faced with combat, I would have wanted her watching my back as I would have watched hers. She was a great soldier.

    The other side of the coin is that, off-duty, she was one of the more feminine women I ever met.
    Yup. Feminist propaganda. Learn to recognize it. I will never condone putting women on the front lines in a war. Fluoride has done it's job well.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by XD9mmFMJ View Post
    Yup. Feminist propaganda. Learn to recognize it. I will never condone putting women on the front lines in a war. Fluoride has done it's job well.
    I have absolutely no issue with women being on the front lines so long as they are truely capable of handling it. But then again I feel that if we are going to truly integrate women into the military that we should have communal bath/living quarters just as how we do for blacks now. Of course I know that our society can't handle that right now, but for proper integration there needs to be zero segregation and only one standard.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    I have absolutely no issue with women being on the front lines so long as they are truely capable of handling it. But then again I feel that if we are going to truly integrate women into the military that we should have communal bath/living quarters just as how we do for blacks now. Of course I know that our society can't handle that right now, but for proper integration there needs to be zero segregation and only one standard.
    HUH?????? Communal baths? Women on the front lines? That's just commie garbage there. That kind of stuff was never heard of until the commies gained control of Europe. Any man who would put a woman on the front lines of a battle doesn't have testicles or testosterone. Of course, they killed General Patton before he could warn America about these rats. Man am I ever glad we don't live in a world that goes by your standards.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by sawah View Post
    We are discussing an issue on another forum I post to, about what qualities a LEO should have. Many of the posters were belligerently posting about how awful it was to have female LEOs. 'Oh the typical female LEO is just too weak to do the job...' and other comments like that.

    IMO, I'd much rather have a polite, knowledgeable female LEO who has a law degree, to deal with me should I ever get stopped. I do not care about her physical characteristics. LEOs work best as a team using group tactics as needed, calling for back up. Why in the world would any law-abiding person want big 'roided out cops on the force? I want a nice LEO who knows the law.

    In reality these people are just showing their hostility towards women in a 'man's profession', and not understanding what they're asking for when they say only big tough males should be cops. People are so prejudiced and stupid sometimes.
    if there is one thing i am acutely aware of, it is that having a law degree DOES not mean one knows criminal/procedural/constitutional law better than a decent (say 5 yrs experience) street cop.

    i know cops who ARE attorneys, and those who aren't/

    the problem with people who are physiically weak and/or tactically unskilled, is that they frequently must use a substantially higher level of force when they meet with resistance. that's REGARDLESS of gender. also, in a civil trial/shooting review board, etc. a smaller, less physically capable officer IS given MORE leeway vis a vis force since the presumption is that they will be overpowered using the same force a stronger officer would have to use

    you are most likely a law abiding citizen. cops frequently deal with criminals who physically resist

    given a situation where verbal judo does NOT work, a more physically capable cop is less likely to have to use higher level of force, and less likely to cause the suspect or himself physical injury

    this is REGARDLESS of gender.

    it's kind of like saying a cop shouldn't need a gun. 99% of the time, they don't. but when they do, it's nice to have. SPD uses force, for example, in a fraction of 1% of all contacts. iow, it's not needed frequently, but when it IS needed, it makes a big difference

    i have had the pleasure of training with the strongest woman lb for lb in the country. this isn't a gender issue. women CAN get strong, but they have to work much harder at it than men, and are on average much weaker than men

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by XD9mmFMJ View Post
    You've been softened up by a lifetime of feminist propaganda. Women shouldn't be doing men's jobs. If a woman is dumb enough to want to wrestle thugs, it's her prerogative, but I will never allow my woman or my daughters to become "law enforcement" or to fight on the front lines in any wars.

    Personally, I don't like anyone who is "law enforcement". I prefer the time when we had "peace officers", who's job was to serve and protect THE PUBLIC. Today, "law enforcement" does nothing but collect revenue for the state, in the form of money, or holding your body as collateral. Their job is simply to serve the system by enforcing laws. They are not obligated to even respond to your calls for help in any way, shape, or form. I don't even care to talk to any law enforcement, because they might use what I say against me.
    setting aside your rhetoric about today's LEO's supposedly not being peace officers, ...

    being a cop is not a MAN's job.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •