While a characteristic post by a serial offender is ignored.
Goodness, aren't you sharp today. Yes Cliff, that was precisely the point and thinly-veiled jab I was making by pointing out that I don't expect that sort of post from Captain Otto. The joke is in what I didn't say.
I don't call out my dog for sh-tting on the lawn either, I don't see what point there is in doing so when a forum member consistently sh-ts in a thread and with impunity. That's one for the moderators.
While a characteristic post by a serial offender is ignored.
One of the curious things about this forum is people who are routinely belligerent #######s rarely get called out. I guess it’s because the #######s are savvy enough to deploy their drive-bys in the service of popular opinions.
That has always been a characteristic of this board. There is a vocal minority who support an opinion, generally based on virtue signally and they pound their chests and insult anyone who disagrees. I think it generally just makes them feel better. That they're some woke representative of the people.
I mean look at the last response by tinum. There's literally zero acknowledgment of anything contrary to his own opinion. None. Zero. That maybe his experience or belief is may not reality.
Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk
Last edited by Captain Otto; 04-11-2022 at 07:01 PM.
First, I didn't say any of that. You're preconceptions are clear, but don't project that onto me.
Spoiler!
Paraphrasing, and apologies in advance if this isn't accurate:
Locke: "The Us vs Them symbolism is problematic...We are the them and the police are us...its Police on one side and the public on the other".
Well, no, that's not what it means, and that's clear. The police force are the "thin blue line" while either side of the line is society, the 'us' Locke must be referring to. The other side of the 'thin blue line' is those that are a threat to our civilized society. It is in no way symbolic of the divide between the police force and law abiding citizens.
Sliver: "Cop wearing TBL badge in my shop...thinks he's Rambo...get real, its Calgary."
So what if the officer was doing exactly the same thing but without the TBL patch? Would he be a Rambo wannabe because he's wearing the police uniform? If that's the case, you're projecting your feelings about the management of the Police onto individual officers, which is whack. And if not, it's remarkable that you would be willing to condemn a person for displaying what was, until very very recently, an allowed symbol. One in which you have very limited personal investment, certainly less so than any officer. It's clear Sliver's position on the symbol is at odds with what an officers might be. Attacking en masse the character of anyone who
disagrees is deplorable.
Krovikan: "Its a racist flag". You can't just announce something and have it be fact. All the injustice carried out by police forces all over north america are not inextricably supported by this symbol.
Whoever the hell: "Desecration of the Fla
g!" K, than you must take issue with the City's latest decal campaign where they've taken the Flag, put the City logo in the middle and plastered some slogan on it? That's government issued man.
"Your boss tells you not to wear something, its that simple". We all know damn well if LGBTQ+ members wanted to wear a pride flag, these same posters would be arguing for their right to do so. Or BLM. Or Cancer Ribbons. #### man, we make exceptions all the time, including headwear.
It's a symbol that has a meaning that is apparently quite different for different people. That's not abnormal. The difference here is that people have a lot of distrust, hatred, or disdain for the police. Without meaningful consultation and discussions regarding what it actually represents to those who wear it, we've accomplished nothing but further discredit the police.
I'll fully admit my bias. I do not have the rosy coloured view of our society that apparently some here have. Calgary has ~20 000 violent crimes a year. Yeah, I value their service.
The Flag in itself is the thing invoking this us vs them mentality, we're just responding to it.
And the idea that any individual member or small cohort of a police force is making a substantial contribution to a thin blue line between us and total anarchy is a rather dim view of our polity, you said it yourself on any given day 0.003% of Calgarians might be involved in a violent interaction this ain't inner-Chicago.
Couple that with the relative safety of their job in comparison to other jobs that aren't afforded the respect they feel they deserve for putting themselves in "harms" way. for context https://www.insurdinary.ca/what-are-...jobs-in-canada
The whole thing is just them liking the smell of their own #### a little too much and going out of their way to shove other peoples faces in it, in the most offensive way possible, while on our payroll. Everyone has a career, most people try to feel good about what they do, but don't expect that it will be packaged up with a special place in society to be held above others.
To not see why people would be offended by this thing is pretty obtuse, imo. And to not understand that public employees can be held to standards of speech by the government that private employees cannot, is an interesting take to say the least.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
The Flag in itself is the thing invoking this us vs them mentality, we're just responding to it.
And the idea that any individual member or small cohort of a police force is making a substantial contribution to a thin blue line between us and total anarchy is a rather dim view of our polity, you said it yourself on any given day 0.003% of Calgarians might be involved in a violent interaction this ain't inner-Chicago.
Couple that with the relative safety of their job in comparison to other jobs that aren't afforded the respect they feel they deserve for putting themselves in "harms" way. for context https://www.insurdinary.ca/what-are-...jobs-in-canada
The whole thing is just them liking the smell of their own #### a little too much and going out of their way to shove other peoples faces in it, in the most offensive way possible, while on our payroll. Everyone has a career, most people try to feel good about what they do, but don't expect that it will be packaged up with a special place in society to be held above others.
To not see why people would be offended by this thing is pretty obtuse, imo. And to not understand that public employees can be held to standards of speech by the government that private employees cannot, is an interesting take to say the least.
CPS allegedly has black vehicles because of cost savings. So why are all other city vehicles white, including peace officers like bylaw and transit? I'm sure they could use some budget trimming as well.
CPS allegedly has black vehicles because of cost savings. So why are all other city vehicles white, including peace officers like bylaw and transit? I'm sure they could use some budget trimming as well.
Because other city departments don't buy specific police built vehicles that are manufactured black, so don't have to pay a premium to get white ones like the police would
Edit: The reason for this is Ford, for example, their biggest police customers are departments like the California Highway Patrol and the LAPD, so 10 years ago decided to save money and build mostly only black vehicles, and charge extra for any other colours. That's why you saw the vast majority of big police departments across North America change to black and white as well, not just Calgary
We've seen the City of Calgary really downsize their decals to save money as well. Newer city vehicles don't have nearly as much striping, and they don't even say what department they're from anymore. Just a unit #, single high vis stripe, and big Calgary - 311 sign on the side, rather than the multiple signs they used to have
Last edited by btimbit; 04-11-2022 at 08:07 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to btimbit For This Useful Post:
I’ve made literally 2 (well I guess this is the third) posts on the topic in my entire life. I’m not repeatedly doing ####, so relax. I stated I disagreed with comments, and was asked to expand so I did.
I can see plenty of merit to anyone’s position. It doesn’t mean I agree with it, and I’m sure as hell not anywhere asking someone to prove their position. I just specified what I didn’t agree with, because someone specifically asked me to. Get off whatever high horse you’re on right now man.
Also, yeah, using my exact words to counter a statement is arguing the point, just rather immaturely and unproductively. The very same type of behaviour I think should be kept out of evaluating the importance or integrity of our police force.
__________________
No, no…I’m not sloppy, or lazy. This is a sign of the boredom.
That has always been a characteristic of this board. There is a vocal minority who support an opinion, generally based on virtue signally and they pound their chests and insult anyone who disagrees. I think it generally just makes them feel better. That they're some woke representative of the people.
When we give social license for people to indulge their most obnoxious impulses as long as they’re championing righteous causes, we shouldn’t be surprised when obnoxious behaviour runs rampant.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
When we give social license for people to indulge their most obnoxious impulses as long as they’re championing righteous causes, we shouldn’t be surprised when obnoxious behaviour runs rampant.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
When we give social license for people to indulge their most obnoxious impulses as long as they’re championing righteous causes, we shouldn’t be surprised when obnoxious behaviour runs rampant.
Totally.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
I’ve made literally 2 (well I guess this is the third) posts on the topic in my entire life. I’m not repeatedly doing ####, so relax. I stated I disagreed with comments, and was asked to expand so I did.
I can see plenty of merit to anyone’s position. It doesn’t mean I agree with it, and I’m sure as hell not anywhere asking someone to prove their position. I just specified what I didn’t agree with, because someone specifically asked me to. Get off whatever high horse you’re on right now man.
Also, yeah, using my exact words to counter a statement is arguing the point, just rather immaturely and unproductively. The very same type of behaviour I think should be kept out of evaluating the importance or integrity of our police force.
I lumped you in with Captain Otto, and in retrospect that's not really fair to you. (Especially given his tone...)
Sorry for that.
The reason I did lump you in with him is, as I read it, you were arguing essentially the same point with the same argument: there's no proof that the "thin blue line" flag is a hateful symbol, and people can't just say e.g. "it's a racist flag" without some sort of "proof".
I used your own words against you in the hopes that if you saw your own criticisms could be levied against you then maybe the point you were trying to make doesn't hold water. I do think it's very hypocritical to tell Krovikan and Locke (and me) that they "can't just say the flag is racist" or "can't just say the 'us' being separated from the 'them' is 'police' vs. 'the rest of us', that's not what it means", because you're doing the very same thing. By your own logic why shouldn't I call you out for just saying it's not a racist symbol? For just saying "no, the thin blue line separates the law-abiding from the criminals"? You're making pronouncements when your point, as I read it, was "you can't just make pronouncements like that".
Knowing some members of the CPS who don't really care about the symbol itself, they all say the same thing - it's that THIS particular issue is what the commission takes a stand on? Out of EVERYTHING wrong with CPS, this is the thing the CPC felt was most important? They are silent on almost everything else and provide no support for other far more important issues. The problem is, is that those more important issues don't get them votes.
Well duh. Mostly cause they aren't voted in.
But what are these more important things? Apparently making marginal people feel at ease with the Calgary police isn't important, something probably both sides will agree with lol.
I’ll start by saying for reasons I’m not about to get into, I have more reason than most people to not trust the police and not want to give them the benefit of the doubt in a lot of situations. I don’t think they should be allowed to wear something on their uniform just because they want to, but I also think there has to be some recognition from the police commission as to why the officers wearing the pin for reasons not related to racism or believing they should be above the law are doing so. (This appears to be the case now that they are having formal discussions with the police association)
With that being said, there’s a big difference between breaking the law and insubordination. The police commission has agreed to let them continue wearing the pin while they have some discussions about it over the next couple of weeks, not sure how what they’re currently doing could be considered as illegal or insubordinate.
If we don’t want the police being held to a different standard of law, well then we can’t hold them to a different (or made up)standard of the law when we find it convenient.
...
The Police Commission is not 'allowing' them to wear the symbol. The CPC has issued a direction that it must no longer be worn as of April 1, 2022 and that has in no way been rescinded. Since the decision was announced (after a year-long consultation including the two police associations representing CPS members) the CPC has reiterated it was the correct decision and that it is expected to be followed.
The Chief announced that for the purpose of implementing the CPC directive (which he described as lawful, and acknowledged he had a legal duty to implement and enforce) he would not actively enforce the directive through disciplinary measures until attempting to obtain voluntary compliance during a 2 week period.
But, make no mistake about it, any officer wearing the symbol since April 1, 2022 is breaking the law. And not some made up law, the Alberta Police Act Section 31(2) is unequivocal:
Quote:
(2) Every police officer
(a) is, after the establishment of a commission, subject to the jurisdiction of the commission, and
(b) shall obey the directions of the commission.
The incomprehensible thing is that if the Thin Blue Line did not symbolize police treating themselves as above the law before, then officers quickly made it symbolize that very thing by openly and publicly declaring they would disobey the direction of the CPC by continuing to wear the Thin Blue Line symbol. Such police officers have in essence drawn a line between police officers and the civilians who legally control the police using the Thin Blue Line. It is an astounding own-goal.
For those who belatedly wish to challenge the merits of the decision - fine. Carry on the off-duty public debate forever if you think it is that important. Maybe one day you will succeed in making it an election issue and through lawful channels available in a free and democratic society, you will get a reversal of the decision. But until then, the on-duty debate is not a thing. There is no debating a lawful direction of the Commission. The Chain of command and the rule of law established by the legislature on behalf of Albertans has said the symbol is prohibited on the uniform.
Don't like being legally obligated (secured by your own sworn oath) to follow the lawful orders of your superiors in a paramilitary police organization? You have full rights to resign and move on.
The rule of law is non-negotiable. Some laws may be 'better' or more 'necessary' than others depending on one's perspective. But sworn officers of the law do not get to select the ones they would like to follow and ignore the others. And it really is irrelevant how good of a reason you have for your personal views to the contrary.
Also, the Police Act does not give exclusive enforcement jurisdiction to the Chief of Police. So while it is possible he can adequately justify his decision to not instigate any Chief of Police initiated disciplinary proceedings for the two week period, an individual civilian does not need to permit same and can file a complaint for violation of section 31(2) of the Act against any officer defying the CPC direction. Civilians can commence enforcement themselves by submitting a complaint within the criteria of section 42.1 of the Act.
What would happen with the investigation and proceedings after that might get complicated - but it would not be because CPS officers have permission to continue wearing the symbol. They have no such permission.
The Following 33 Users Say Thank You to MBates For This Useful Post:
Because other city departments don't buy specific police built vehicles that are manufactured black, so don't have to pay a premium to get white ones like the police would
Edit: The reason for this is Ford, for example, their biggest police customers are departments like the California Highway Patrol and the LAPD, so 10 years ago decided to save money and build mostly only black vehicles, and charge extra for any other colours. That's why you saw the vast majority of big police departments across North America change to black and white as well, not just Calgary
On the contrary, the vast majority of big police departments don't have black-and-white cars. The 10 biggest departments in the US are New York, Chicago, LA, Philly, Houston, DC Metro, Dallas, Miami-Dade, Phoenix and Las Vegas Metro, and of those 10:
New York, Chicago, Philly, DC Metro, Miami-Dade and Phoenix are white,
LA, Houston, Dallas and Las Vegas Metro are black-and-white, and
of those four who run black-and-white, only LA and Vegas Metro had them immediately prior to the demise of the Ford Crown Vic. Dallas switched in 2009, Houston in 2012.
In Canada the largest police forces are RCMP, OPP and Toronto, and they have white, black-and-white, and grey-and-white respectively. OPP switched to black-and-white in 2009.
The Following User Says Thank You to timun For This Useful Post:
The Police Commission is not 'allowing' them to wear the symbol. The CPC has issued a direction that it must no longer be worn as of April 1, 2022 and that has in no way been rescinded. Since the decision was announced (after a year-long consultation including the two police associations representing CPS members) the CPC has reiterated it was the correct decision and that it is expected to be followed.
The Chief announced that for the purpose of implementing the CPC directive (which he described as lawful, and acknowledged he had a legal duty to implement and enforce) he would not actively enforce the directive through disciplinary measures until attempting to obtain voluntary compliance during a 2 week period.
But, make no mistake about it, any officer wearing the symbol since April 1, 2022 is breaking the law. And not some made up law, the Alberta Police Act Section 31(2) is unequivocal:
The incomprehensible thing is that if the Thin Blue Line did not symbolize police treating themselves as above the law before, then officers quickly made it symbolize that very thing by openly and publicly declaring they would disobey the direction of the CPC by continuing to wear the Thin Blue Line symbol. Such police officers have in essence drawn a line between police officers and the civilians who legally control the police using the Thin Blue Line. It is an astounding own-goal.
For those who belatedly wish to challenge the merits of the decision - fine. Carry on the off-duty public debate forever if you think it is that important. Maybe one day you will succeed in making it an election issue and through lawful channels available in a free and democratic society, you will get a reversal of the decision. But until then, the on-duty debate is not a thing. There is no debating a lawful direction of the Commission. The Chain of command and the rule of law established by the legislature on behalf of Albertans has said the symbol is prohibited on the uniform.
Don't like being legally obligated (secured by your own sworn oath) to follow the lawful orders of your superiors in a paramilitary police organization? You have full rights to resign and move on.
The rule of law is non-negotiable. Some laws may be 'better' or more 'necessary' than others depending on one's perspective. But sworn officers of the law do not get to select the ones they would like to follow and ignore the others. And it really is irrelevant how good of a reason you have for your personal views to the contrary.
Also, the Police Act does not give exclusive enforcement jurisdiction to the Chief of Police. So while it is possible he can adequately justify his decision to not instigate any Chief of Police initiated disciplinary proceedings for the two week period, an individual civilian does not need to permit same and can file a complaint for violation of section 31(2) of the Act against any officer defying the CPC direction. Civilians can commence enforcement themselves by submitting a complaint within the criteria of section 42.1 of the Act.
What would happen with the investigation and proceedings after that might get complicated - but it would not be because CPS officers have permission to continue wearing the symbol. They have no such permission.
I'm going to point this part out because I essentially said the same thing just a few pages back.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
