Japanese Police issued Paintball guns

[smoking357]

imported post

Dispatcher wrote:

Some comments of concern from "smoking357" .... I'll just lift out some of the more disgusting comments in here:

"The police will be much safer when they disarm, improve their manners and attitudes, and adopt a service ethic.
It's not a dangerous job, as it is. We'll improve their safety when we get them disarmed and out of the "law enforcement" business."

Safer when they disarm? Are you even aware of the purpose of this forum? Being an Officer is one of the most dangerous jobs around.

Officers often pull cars over for minor traffic violations

Pay attention, and do your homework prior to posting, so we don't have to read this gibberish. You can't wander into a discussion, completely ignorant of the subject matter and the lessons previously taught and expect to be coherent.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

Dispatcher wrote:

Even the Brady Bunch isn't advocating Officer disarmament.

Why would they? They have the same political philosophy as the cops.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

But 357 has a warped sense of reality and is being one sided. Disarming cops to make things safer is only intended to make the public safer. He could care less about the cop and their protection. Death would just come with the job.

At long last, we see your true colors.

We now see you and yours as enemies of the people. Your only concern as a servant is the safety of those you serve. If your own safety is diminished to make the public's safety greater, you must support such a course. Yet, you have taken the other side. You choose your safety above those you serve.

Enemy, indeed.

It is disgusting to see servants consider it "warped" to strive for greater public safety.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

Actually not a "sucky job" or I wouldn't have been doing it all these years, I punch no time clock and pretty much run my railroad as I see fit, and I ain't starving. But I am well aware of the fact that a sociopath does not see a taxi, he sees a piggy bank with his name on it.

Therefore I use every means available to me to weed out trouble. Just the response to the simple question "where to?" can provide valuable clues as to what you are dealing with. And I observe every part of the element I am in. One night I got a call to pick up someone at a gas station. When I arrived, two thug-looking guys stepped around from the side of the building. Why? My guess was they did not want to be observed waiting for me. I snapped a "reverse J' turn and got the HELL outta there. (When I was a USAF cop, I took an Ohio State Patrol driving course, it was so cool!) And of course I am not required to haul a "disorderly" passenger, and I have a VERY FLEXIBLE definition of disorderly.

Before anyone asks, I do NOT discriminate against black passengers. Were I to do so I would very quickly be out of business NOT because of complaints but because they are such a large proportion of my ridership. And the closest I ever came to being murdered on the job was when I passed up a white kid in the middle of a white neighborhood in the middle of the day in the middle of the week, because he seemed to have called as opposed to having randomly decided to hail a cab. This kid was picked up by a good friend of mine who had taken the call. Jesse James (no kidding) Cowell is doing life without parole - and I hope he likes licorice lollipops - and I say a little prayer when I pass Don Gray's grave in the cemetery off lLee Highway in Falls Church.

This past winter we had a driver murdered. When I found out I immediately went home and armed myself and stayed armed until the SOBs were caught. I do not usually take this step because I have to go into DC usually 3 or 4 times a shift, where posession of a firearm in public is a felony. As for those "barriers"; if the time ever comes when I feel that I have to stuff people in a cage, that's the day I get outta this racket.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Actually not a "sucky job" or I wouldn't have been doing it all these years, I punch no time clock and pretty much run my railroad as I see fit, and I ain't starving. But I am well aware of the fact that a sociopath does not see a taxi, he sees a piggy bank with his name on it.

...

I did not mean it in that way... I love driving around too. It just sucks that you do not know WHO is getting in the cab with you and while they sit behind you.. they could attack you or even skip out on the fare at any time.

I think most everyone knows that your job is one where you take a great risk picking up strangers and giving them a ride.What do they teach us?? "Don't pick up hitchhikers!!"

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

Yeah I got a laugh recently when I said that since I pick up strangers at night for money and carry a firearm I might be kinda considered a cross between a cop and a hooker.:celebrate

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Yeah I got a laugh recently when I said that since I pick up strangers at night for money and carry a firearm I might be kinda considered a cross between a cop and a hooker.:celebrate

See.. You need one of these paintball devices. When they run off without paying.. you can mark them and call the cops. I will find the guy and get you paid!

:lol:

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Dispatcher wrote:

Being an Officer is one of the most dangerous jobs around.

No, it's not.

http://money.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P63405.asp


Dispatcher wrote:

What would you tell the two security officers whom stopped the Holocaust Museum Massacre with their firearms?

I have no problem with private security being armed on private property. Properly applied liability mitigates the potential for abuse, in theory and in practice. That, and people can vote with their wallet if a business hires thugs for security.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Your fix for a minor event is to create more danger to the police that you pay to protect your community.

Minor event?

Then again, what do I expect from a career apologist, a professional shill.

By the way, not only do police have no duty to protect, they are constitutionally incapable of preventing crime (not their fault, to be fair). We don't hire police to protect us, we hire them to keep us in line. This is why we should fire all of you, in my own opinion.

Dispatcher wrote:

Even the Brady Bunch isn't advocating Officer disarmament.

They actually believe that Officers are the only ones that should have a gun.

OF course they do. They're statists of the highest order. You say "even" like it's surprising, like there's somehow an implied contradiction.


LEO 229 wrote:

I suspect his agenda is to allow citizens to self police. No cops necessary and the people can decide on their own who needs to be killed. Street justice at its finest.

Straw man. Who advocated elimination of a court-based justice system? Not I (although reform is in order).

Justice worked just fine before police were invented. Somehow, people still found their way to court. :quirky

Ending the "papers please" police state doesn't entail a reliance on street justice. Nobody said the sheriff himself couldn't exist, or that he couldn't employ deputies for legitimate warrant-service.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

But 357 has a warped sense of reality and is being one sided. Disarming cops to make things safer is only intended to make the public safer. He could care less about the cop and their protection. Death would just come with the job.

At long last, we see your true colors.

We now see you and yours as enemies of the people. Your only concern as a servant is the safety of those you serve. If your own safety is diminished to make the public's safety greater, you must support such a course. Yet, you have taken the other side. You choose your safety above those you serve.

Enemy, indeed.

It is disgusting to see servants consider it "warped" to strive for greater public safety.

QFT.

 

[Dispatcher]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

Dispatcher wrote:

Some comments of concern from "smoking357" .... I'll just lift out some of the more disgusting comments in here:

"The police will be much safer when they disarm, improve their manners and attitudes, and adopt a service ethic.
It's not a dangerous job, as it is. We'll improve their safety when we get them disarmed and out of the "law enforcement" business."

Safer when they disarm? Are you even aware of the purpose of this forum? Being an Officer is one of the most dangerous jobs around.

Officers often pull cars over for minor traffic violations

Pay attention, and do your homework prior to posting, so we don't have to read this gibberish. You can't wander into a discussion, completely ignorant of the subject matter and the lessons previously taught and expect to be coherent.

The best way to attempt to debunk a rival philosophy? Label the other party incompetent and call their argument uneducated. All hallmarks of the defeated.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

Dispatcher wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

Dispatcher wrote:

Some comments of concern from "smoking357" .... I'll just lift out some of the more disgusting comments in here:

"The police will be much safer when they disarm, improve their manners and attitudes, and adopt a service ethic.
It's not a dangerous job, as it is. We'll improve their safety when we get them disarmed and out of the "law enforcement" business."

Safer when they disarm? Are you even aware of the purpose of this forum? Being an Officer is one of the most dangerous jobs around.

Officers often pull cars over for minor traffic violations

Pay attention, and do your homework prior to posting, so we don't have to read this gibberish. You can't wander into a discussion, completely ignorant of the subject matter and the lessons previously taught and expect to be coherent.

The best way to attempt to debunk a rival philosophy? Label the other party incompetent and call their argument uneducated. All hallmarks of the defeated.

Also the hallmarks of the schoolmaster. You're not a peer; you're neither a rival nor a philosopher, and your argument was so defective in its formation that its thesis was never considered.

Instead of reviewing your lessons, you've chosen to retort with the feelings you experienced appurtenant to your dismissal. This cheap course also earns low marks.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

Know what also earns low marks? This thread. Unwatch topic.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Straw man. Who advocated elimination of a court-based justice system? Not I (although reform is in order).

Justice worked just fine before police were invented. Somehow, people still found their way to court. :quirky

Ending the "papers please" police state doesn't entail a reliance on street justice. Nobody said the sheriff himself couldn't exist, or that he couldn't employ deputies for legitimate warrant-service.

As we say in Philosophy, "reality is the enemy of imagination." People forget that humans went centuries with no police. Robert Peel's reforms came only in the 19th Century. Police were originally seen as a means of bringing peace to tumultuous and dangerous cities, but we've seen such drastic mission creep that has police growing from being protectors of the people to being predators upon the people.

We must all reject the concept of "law enforcement," which permits that all the actions of every person be monitored to uncover any violation, and demand a return to "peace officers." Laws are to be enforced only to the extent necessary to keep the peace. Laws serve no other purpose. There are no abstract victims, and police must not be allowed to be their own complainants.

 

[Dispatcher]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Know what also earns low marks? This thread. Unwatch topic.

Done myself.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

We don't hire police to protect us, we hire them to keep us in line. This is why we should fire all of you, in my own opinion.

LOL why hold back, marshaul? Tell us what you really think?

All this theory of disarming police or going back to a simple sherrif/peace officer system is interesting, but it's lost on most people, including most of this thread's participants. Arguing with LEO229 is like arguing with Dr Sbaitso (bonus points if you remember what that is). You will not change his mind. Worse, you get his fans to come on here and post in solidarity with him to make themselves feel like they're hanging out with the cool kids.

Better to concentrate your energy on something which lies in the realm of the possible: getting tighter restrictions place on the use of force by police officers, especially this repugnant practice of using tasers to gain compliance or just to deal out pain for fun.

As for you guys "unwatching topic", are you proud of the fact that you announced it here in this topic? Stick around and converse or take your ball and go home.