Try not to insert fallacies into what I post, I never said ALL in any of my posts, you invented that red herring.
Because obviously, you don't know what "anarchy" actually means even when it's described to you and you need help breaking down the definition. And especially when you see "wack job conspiracy nonsense" in the term "anarchy" or in the factual history of this nation. Any revolution is anarchy against the established government.
Should schools teach students how not to be killed by police? Shoot first? Police families won't thank you!
Anarchy is clearly defined as anti government and that means any government. The very first thing the founders did was establish a government.
Governments are the central committees of the local boss-class, and anarchism means doing without them. Unfortunately the mugs are so brainwashed that you need a Party, with all its dangers, to keep them to the job in hand.
And that was anti-government in itself, the established monarchy. Not only that, but it was far from the very first thing the founders did. Before that happened, there many other anti-government acts. Man you don't even understand what you post.
you must be young, back in my day that's what kids did, go to parks, ect.. by themselves or with friends.... we even had bicycles to get us there.. pedal power just be home by when the street lights came on...
The founders did nothing until they established a continental congress and formed the continental army. Random acts of protest by civilians preceded that with things like the Boston tea party but the founders founded a government to replace the one they wanted gone. This is the exact opposite of anarchy.
Ok I'm done with your silliness, the founders decided to create a new government for no reason other than they wanted the old one "gone". Nothing happened prior to that. You're right, it wasn't anarchy, it was the "rule of law". Sorry you make zero sense other than you insist on defending your fallacy.
Ah yeah .... and no. Not young, and grew up in the same kind of conditions you did. Kids wandering the streets unsupervised, was usual. TODAY, it's not usual. And more to the point, today there is potential threat associated with people doing so - hence the terrible dilemma for police. Back in our day, there wasn't the potential threat, so police behaved accordingly. Street thuggery was confined to very specific inner city areas, outside of which police would not regard random kids in the street as dangerous. They might regard them as potential 'trouble-makers', but not of the threat to life and limb variety.
No, it is not the responsibility of school to teach children how not to get shot by the police. As a matter of fact, the question is rather skewed or just poorly phrased. First off, a good way to not get shot by the police is by not getting into trouble. Here the responsibility is on the shouldets of the parents and not on school/society - if you raise your child to be a decent citizen, the chances of him getting involved with the police are low. Which in turn means a lower risk of getting shot. Now, tnere are of course some psyvhotardians in the police force and here, I guess, the responsibility is on the police academy and police departments not to recruit imbeciles who shot innocent people for no reason.
Yeah we can see what a joke protection from criminals is in Europe. You keep your ways and we'll keep ours. I won't impress you with tales about the two times I've had to use weapons to protect myself a friend and my home. I wasn't happy about it and its none of your business, especially since you live in a country where people refuse to be able to protect themselves and don't want their police to be armed either. You can sod yourself and call me a backward arsed person. The odds are that I'll be alive after an encounter with a criminal but can you say the same? You are English? Look what happened to Lee Rigby a few years ago right there in broad daylight on a London street. And there are dozens of other examples.
There's only one place below your waist you stuck a fork. You didn't even grasp your own posts, what a joke.
Implicit in such training is the assumption that the lives of cops are worth more than the lives of the citizenry they are supposed to protect. It's a strange "protector" that sacrifices your life to save himself, no? But police culture states that deaths of innocent civilians like Daniel Shaver are acceptable if cops' lives are at risk (as though cops weren't the ones who signed up for risk). And that culture makes the most sense when you consider that people who seek positions of power over others are largely the people who think they are better than their fellow man in the first place.
if only that were true, we have seen many example of innocent people being killed by cops, some cops that get scared easy and kill, some that are control freaks that try to escalate situations to give them an excuse to kill even
If I wanted to say ALL I would have done so. You're the who continued (and continues) down this path despite that I stated it was YOUR fallacious ASSumption in prior posts. Don't ASSume anything, read for comprehension and ask the poster if you believe there is some implication in the post.
Okay, so here's the 64-dollar question: what would YOU do to change the way we are policed? Two basic possibilities: (1) No serious change can be made. Police are a necessary evil, because of the far greater evil they keep in check. It's like those vaccinations which save the lives of hundreds of thousands, but also kill a dozen who would probably have lived had they not been vaccinated. If this is the case, then all that can be done is more training for police, more non-lethal weapons -- why weren't the Mesa police given a powerful bean-bag gun? If there is a whole team responding, then one can be armed with that for precisely such situations as they were in. -- etc. Small reforms, but no expectation of radical change. Or, (2) some deep, radical change in the system, such that police shootings of innocent people become extremely rare. Now ... what might that change be? Over to you. Footnote: it would be nice to know, if someone can do the research, what the actual number of killings of innocent people are. Note that some of these killings are not of innocent people, but that there are powerful forces in the US who are perfectly happy to coolly lie about a case, in order to undermine the existing order. The Ferguson Missouri killing -- Michael Brown, the bogus "hands-up-don't-shoot" person -- was one such. Leftists are still spreading this lie, whether out of sheer maliciousness, or malicious ignorance, I don't know.
Ok then set the record straight. Do you hate the police in general, not just the bad ones but all police?
I would suggest implementing deep psychological testing and profiling in the police academies before they take to the streets and weeding out the ones who fail the test. Also requiring new hires to attend the academy for all departments regardless of the size of the town or department. Possibly even testing the ones who are currently serving now as well. As a person who has served on the police department in the past I know I would not have objected to that kind of screening.
First, stick to the topic and that topic is not me. It's not about hating police, it's about doing what needs to be done for real police oversight. It's about the many unjust laws and corruption (often as a result) that infests government from top to bottom. For example, there's nothing in the Constitution that reasonably enforces it on those who take an Oath to defend, preserve and protect it. So the Oath is just lip service, something required to get the job. That needs an appropriate Amendment, preferably one that includes citizen oversight, not government oversight on government. That's the fox watching the hen house. All parts of government should have some mechanism for oversight by The People, they are supposed to be the masters of their government but they are far from that. As a result, we have out of control government from the municipalities (which of course includes police) all the way up to the 3 branches. And we all know (or should know) voting is not that mechanism because we are here despite voting. But before anything can be done, the problem needs to be exposed for those who are unaware or asleep. Education is the first step in remedying a problem. Sweeping the problem under the rug or marginalizing it does nothing other than the opposite. One has to acknowledge the problem, not make excuses in defense of corruption or other lawlessness.
Forum right wingers have no trouble with putting all minorities in the same category such as claiming that all members of BLM are radical commies or anarchists. This even though the vast majority of BLM protesters were peaceful and the majority of those who protested in their group here in Minneapolis were white, not black. Suffice it to say, there are FAR more corrupt police than we know of because crooked cops suppress evidence that would throw their sorry, criminal asses in jail where they belong. If you were a victim of their criminality you would readily agree. By the way, where are my forum right wing 2d Amendment rights advocates? Why aren't they calling for the use of weaponry against criminal government cops????
Did your armed police prevent 9/11?? Did they stop all your school massacres? Funny isn't it how we used metal detectors at airports instead of prancing round with guns to vastly superior result. You have adopted our security measures. We have not adopted yours. I wonder why. We can all be knobs mate. Not just you. Yes, with the benefit of hindsight ,I can say the odds are I will survive an encounter with a criminal. Having had thousand upon thousand of encounters with criminals I can safely say I don't feel much in the way of fear. Nor do I feel in anyway unable to protect myself. Neither do I feel any concern about teaching the children of this country about how not to be killed by my government. It simple isn't an issue here. So while your gun owners all cry about the right to defend themselves from their government, their ability to do so is considerably less than my own. Which is why they all know how to surrender. And want to teach others to surrender not die. @jogoins I don't think profiling police is the answer to anything. Even the most perfect of human beings has an off day. To expect policemen to face these kind of scenario's and never get it wrong, never over react... it's a hiding to nothing. They can't hope to meet overly high expectations.