For example if speed enforcement was just for the purpose of speed enforcement and you couldn’t use giving a speeding ticket to then justify a search of the vehicle could you safely eliminate guns being involved in traffic stops.
How do you figure? Even if the speed enforcement officer wasn't empowered to arrest someone for anything besides speeding, he's presumably going to, for example, run the plates of the vehicle he stopped and see if it's a stolen car, or that it belongs to a guy who's wanted for the murder of three people. What does he do then? Call the "gun police" and wait? Doesn't the murderer in the car he just pulled over immediately shoot him to try to prevent him from making that call?
Or would you prefer that the "speed enforcement police" never attempt to determine whether the person he pulled over is wanted for anything and remain wilfully blind to who they've pulled over? In which case, who is at fault when he drives away with his speeding ticket and kills someone else?
Moreover, now you've got an unarmed person who's intentionally had information withheld from him or her that the state could have given them about the dangerous person they're going to interact with. If you're the sort of person who might shoot a police officer, do you think it's at all likely that you're going to go "no problem, s/he's just going to give me a speeding ticket, no need to get worked up"? Or do you think that officer is in immediate mortal danger while handing out that ticket, without even knowing it? Because I'm thinking it's the latter.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Yeah...traffic stops have to be the most inherently dangerous thing a cop does in his day to day duties. Countless stories of someone getting pulled for speeding or erratic driving, walking up to the vehicle and getting shot.
Its a dangerous job and they have to have the means to defend themselves or no one will ever want to do the job to begin with.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to transplant99 For This Useful Post:
How do you figure? Even if the speed enforcement officer wasn't empowered to arrest someone for anything besides speeding, he's presumably going to, for example, run the plates of the vehicle he stopped and see if it's a stolen car, or that it belongs to a guy who's wanted for the murder of three people. What does he do then? Call the "gun police" and wait? Doesn't the murderer in the car he just pulled over immediately shoot him to try to prevent him from making that call?
Or would you prefer that the "speed enforcement police" never attempt to determine whether the person he pulled over is wanted for anything and remain wilfully blind to who they've pulled over? In which case, who is at fault when he drives away with his speeding ticket and kills someone else?
Moreover, now you've got an unarmed person who's intentionally had information withheld from him or her that the state could have given them about the dangerous person they're going to interact with. If you're the sort of person who might shoot a police officer, do you think it's at all likely that you're going to go "no problem, s/he's just going to give me a speeding ticket, no need to get worked up"? Or do you think that officer is in immediate mortal danger while handing out that ticket, without even knowing it? Because I'm thinking it's the latter.
Calgary Transit Peace Officers do not carry firearms. When they write a ticket to a citizen for riding the train without a valid fare, they check an inter-agency database to determine if the person has any outstanding arrest warrants or is a known dangerous criminal. If the check comes back positive, they do indeed call in the "gun police" and wait. If that model of law enforcement works for non-violent offenses like transit fare-skipping, why couldn't it also work for non-violent offenses like traffic violations?
The Following User Says Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
I don't pretend to know what happened beyond doubting police side of the story. I look at the input - a call to protect a woman, and an output - the woman is shot by police who was called to protect her. I then humbly posit, that the police massively screwed up at best and is guilty of murder at worst. Aren't they responsible for handling the call? Based on the outcome, wasn't call somewhat mishandled?
This. It never seizes to amaze me how low the standard for adequate policing is on that side of the pond.
Calgary Transit Peace Officers do not carry firearms. When they write a ticket to a citizen for riding the train without a valid fare, they check an inter-agency database to determine if the person has any outstanding arrest warrants or is a known dangerous criminal. If the check comes back positive, they do indeed call in the "gun police" and wait. If that model of law enforcement works for non-violent offenses like transit fare-skipping, why couldn't it also work for non-violent offenses like traffic violations?
Because this is Canada and there's a infinitesimally low likelihood that the person riding the train has a deadly weapon concealed on their person and is going to use it to murder an officer before fleeing on foot, whereupon they would almost certainly be caught?
Just the fact that someone is in a motor vehicle makes an enormous difference to the situation. You can't see them as you approach, can't make any assessment about what kind of situation you might be walking into.
I'm certainly open to the idea that there may be some functions currently being performed by police in the US that could be performed by other state actors who aren't armed, but traffic stops is just not a good example of one.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
This predates the recent events, but is part of the discussion of police corruption and the notion police have that civilians have to obey their commands. Also, it's hilarious just to see a corrupt officer called out like that.
And I know, consider the source. The Young Turks is a far left source and cringey even for me at times, but I agree with the points they are making here.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 06-05-2020 at 12:10 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
There is a difference between having the tools to defend yourself, and whatever policing has become in the States. We are seeing it now in Canada, as well. The militarization of police is absolutely terrifying.
There is no reason why any police, other than SWAT/fast response, should have a military grade vehicle, or look like anything intimidating. There is no reason why everything should be black in color. There is no reason why a cop should be wearing flashbangs, tear gas, various other implements of war hanging off of his/her bulletproof vest. They should not have military grade armaments.
They should have exactly the tools to get the job done. They should be wearing baby blues, with a simple vest. If a situation is beyond what the are armed to handle, which happens very very rarely, then you deescalate and call in the appropriate backup.
No kid in the world would be comfortable walking up to a police officer in the States and asking for directions, when the cops look like that. The cops and RCMP in the Calgary area look as intimidating as hell.
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Harry Lime For This Useful Post:
There is a difference between having the tools to defend yourself, and whatever policing has become in the States. We are seeing it now in Canada, as well. The militarization of police is absolutely terrifying.
There is no reason why any police, other than SWAT/fast response, should have a military grade vehicle, or look like anything intimidating. There is no reason why everything should be black in color. There is no reason why a cop should be wearing flashbangs, tear gas, various other implements of war hanging off of his/her bulletproof vest. They should not have military grade armaments.
They should have exactly the tools to get the job done. They should be wearing baby blues, with a simple vest. If a situation is beyond what the are armed to handle, which happens very very rarely, then you deescalate and call in the appropriate backup.
No kid in the world would be comfortable walking up to a police officer in the States and asking for directions, when the cops look like that. The cops and RCMP in the Calgary area look as intimidating as hell.
Anyone else remember this argument on Cp a while back? I remember me and others being mocked for saying this same thing, and specifically the colour of police cars.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to White Out 403 For This Useful Post:
This video is a day or so old, from Candace Owens, whom doesn’t agree with George Floyd’s martyrdom. I searched her by name in this thread, and nothing returned.
Candace Owens hates being black more than I hate Trump.
The Following User Says Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
There is a difference between having the tools to defend yourself, and whatever policing has become in the States. We are seeing it now in Canada, as well. The militarization of police is absolutely terrifying.
There is no reason why any police, other than SWAT/fast response, should have a military grade vehicle, or look like anything intimidating. There is no reason why everything should be black in color. There is no reason why a cop should be wearing flashbangs, tear gas, various other implements of war hanging off of his/her bulletproof vest. They should not have military grade armaments.
They should have exactly the tools to get the job done. They should be wearing baby blues, with a simple vest. If a situation is beyond what the are armed to handle, which happens very very rarely, then you deescalate and call in the appropriate backup.
No kid in the world would be comfortable walking up to a police officer in the States and asking for directions, when the cops look like that. The cops and RCMP in the Calgary area look as intimidating as hell.
Yup. There was a thread on here a few years ago about the Calgary Police Service adopting a new aggressive/black/militaristic colour scheme for their vehicles. So many posters, including some participating in this thread, criticized those of us who saw this as a huge problem as being namby-pamby liberal pussies.
Edit: beaten by White Out 403
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
There is a difference between having the tools to defend yourself, and whatever policing has become in the States. We are seeing it now in Canada, as well. The militarization of police is absolutely terrifying.
No argument here.
EDIT: Although I do think there's some revisionist history happening. I don't recall much of the CPS discussion being about certain posters being "pussies". I remember most of it being around costs. But I don't even think I participated in the discussion so maybe I'm remembering incorrectly.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
There's some real racism. And if you're not black? This should prob be a ban.
Yeah if you're not black maybe don't say that, but it wouldn't be a hot take nor remotely offensive as it's the majority opinion on social media. A fake ally is more detrimental to us than our enemy.
If you're a white Canadian, I fail to see how any of this could offend you.
The Following User Says Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
"It's the majority opinion on social media" is really not a good justification for anything. I think that regardless of the colour of your skin, accusing someone of being a race traitor or an Uncle Tom or anything of the sort is a pretty ugly thing to do.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
"It's the majority opinion on social media" is really not a good justification for anything. I think that regardless of the colour of your skin, accusing someone of being a race traitor or an Uncle Tom or anything of the sort is a pretty ugly thing to do.
Is it the "hate Trump" part that's offensive or the "Candace Owens hates being black"...? I honestly don't know why that would offend white Canadians who knew nothing of Candace Owens until seeing that video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Out 403
This thread is filled with soft bigotry.
I have no issues conceding I'm a bigot. 30 years of being treated like a second class citizen maybe plays a role.
Is it the "hate Trump" part that's offensive or the "Candace Owens hates being black"...? I honestly don't know why that would offend white Canadians who knew nothing of Candace Owens until seeing that video.
I have no issues conceding I'm a bigot. 30 years of being treated like second class citizen will do that to ya.
Corsi had it right. You're accusing Owens of being a race traitor. It's really racist and nasty and you should be having a time out.
Corsi had it right. You're accusing Owens of being a race traitor. It's really racist and nasty and you should be having a time out.
I'd argue that Candace Owens is racist and nasty, but sure "white out 403". I'll gladly take the timeout.
I and many others don't support her as she has time and time again elevated white interests above ours. The fact that you're pretending like you care or that this offends you is hilarious.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
I'd argue that Candace Owens is racist and nasty, but sure "white out 403". I'll gladly take the timeout.
I and many others don't support her as she has time and time again elevated white interests above ours. The fact that you're pretending like you care or that this offends you is hilarious.
I disagree that you should be banned, not that my opinion really means anything. I just don't think you should say someone "hates being black" because they happen to hold views that you disagree with. There are probably plenty of black people who disagree with these protests, and the fact that they're black doesn't disentitle them to their opinion in any way. If you have a problem with the substance of what she said, go ahead and say so, but don't suggest that she shouldn't think what she thinks because of her race.
That actually does offend me, but I'm not sure why you should care that it does. I do think you should care that you're, first of all, attacking someone for apparently failing to fall in line with her race (which, you know, isn't a great place to stand), and second, not actually engaging with her points (which in this case seem fairly easy to rebut).
Now, if you want to come down on Republicans for cynically exploiting the fact that she's black to cover for their own issues, be my guest.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Yup. There was a thread on here a few years ago about the Calgary Police Service adopting a new aggressive/black/militaristic colour scheme for their vehicles. So many posters, including some participating in this thread, criticized those of us who saw this as a huge problem as being namby-pamby liberal pussies.
Edit: beaten by White Out 403
Arguing the colour scheme is the problem is still ridiculous. It’s the aggressive bumpers on the front that makes then look intimidating.
