Correction: A charging knife-wielding domestic-disturbance suspect with a track record of stabbing people. Police got called out to a domestic disturbance yesterday and were immediately confronted by Ricardo Munoz, who chased after the officers with a knife. The police officer’s body cam shows how quickly the call turned deadly (caution — disturbing):
Re: Next Up: Lancaster PA
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2020 6:36 am
by Col Hogan
Protesters took to the streets in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, after authorities said city police officers shot and killed a 27-year-old who was brandishing a knife Sunday afternoon.
Within hours of the shooting, at least 100 people gathered to protest. Law enforcement used tear gas and made arrests overnight, and the police station was damaged during the protests.
Do people really want unarmed "Civil Peace Officers" replacing police officers to go deal with these types of people? Good luck finding anyone willing to work places that need policing the most.
Re: Next Up: Lancaster PA
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:31 am
by kalm
Pwns wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:12 am
Do people really want unarmed "Civil Peace Officers" replacing police officers to go deal with these types of people? Good luck finding anyone willing to work places that need policing the most.
I haven’t seen much on defunders saying police should never be armed. You would think a domestic dispute scenario is one of those occasions.
Re: Next Up: Lancaster PA
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:00 am
by Baldy
Pwns wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:12 am
Do people really want unarmed "Civil Peace Officers" replacing police officers to go deal with these types of people? Good luck finding anyone willing to work places that need policing the most.
Maybe the cop could have offered him a cookie and a hug instead of hot lead.
Pwns wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:12 am
Do people really want unarmed "Civil Peace Officers" replacing police officers to go deal with these types of people? Good luck finding anyone willing to work places that need policing the most.
Maybe the cop could have offered him a cookie and a hug instead of hot lead.
Hugs for Thugs..
Re: Next Up: Lancaster PA
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:17 am
by 89Hen
kalm wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:31 am
I haven’t seen much on defunders saying police should never be armed. You would think a domestic dispute scenario is one of those occasions.
You can't be armed if you don't exist.
Re: Next Up: Lancaster PA
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:21 am
by GannonFan
This will be interesting how it plays out. PA is clearly a swing state in play - will people want to tamp down or turn the volume up on any protests that come as a result of this? Does it help Biden to have this be a hot button topic in PA or not? Right in Lancaster are a cluster of colleges, including some tiny ones, but most of the county is pretty rural - it's one of the Amish hotbeds in PA.
Re: Next Up: Lancaster PA
Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:51 am
by 89Hen
GannonFan wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:21 am
Right in Lancaster are a cluster of colleges, including some tiny ones, but most of the county is pretty rural - it's one of the Amish hotbeds in PA.
Downtown Lancaster has some remarkably sketchy parts. I was just there for a wedding of my daughter's BFF from college. They live not far from where this happened.
Pwns wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:12 am
Do people really want unarmed "Civil Peace Officers" replacing police officers to go deal with these types of people? Good luck finding anyone willing to work places that need policing the most.
I haven’t seen much on defunders saying police should never be armed. You would think a domestic dispute scenario is one of those occasions.
I believe the argument is that some or all police funding should go toward other professionals such as social workers (i.e. Civil Peace Officers) that are "better" trained to deal with different situations. Maybe I'm wrong, but I interpreted that argument to mean that the social workers would not be armed. The problem is that if I was a social worker in many situations I would want an armed police escort so costs would actually increase.
The defund the police movement is naive in that it doesn't acknowledge that there are bad people in the world who would do harm to the innocent and unprotected. Trump is an evil Nazi and law enforcement is a criminal enterprise but all of those convicted of murder and other violent crimes are just misunderstood and oppressed.
I haven’t seen much on defunders saying police should never be armed. You would think a domestic dispute scenario is one of those occasions.
I believe the argument is that some or all police funding should go toward other professionals such as social workers (i.e. Civil Peace Officers) that are "better" trained to deal with different situations. Maybe I'm wrong, but I interpreted that argument to mean that the social workers would not be armed. The problem is that if I was a social worker in many situations I would want an armed police escort so costs would actually increase.
The defund the police movement is naive in that it doesn't acknowledge that there are bad people in the world who would do harm to the innocent and unprotected. Trump is an evil Nazi and law enforcement is a criminal enterprise but all of those convicted of murder and other violent crimes are just misunderstood and oppressed.
Like I mentioned at the start of the movement, “Defund” is poor branding. Then again, not as many get behind “reform”. It certainly started a dialogue.
UNI88 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:56 am
I believe the argument is that some or all police funding should go toward other professionals such as social workers (i.e. Civil Peace Officers) that are "better" trained to deal with different situations. Maybe I'm wrong, but I interpreted that argument to mean that the social workers would not be armed. The problem is that if I was a social worker in many situations I would want an armed police escort so costs would actually increase.
The defund the police movement is naive in that it doesn't acknowledge that there are bad people in the world who would do harm to the innocent and unprotected. Trump is an evil Nazi and law enforcement is a criminal enterprise but all of those convicted of murder and other violent crimes are just misunderstood and oppressed.
Like I mentioned at the start of the movement, “Defund” is poor branding. Then again, not as many get behind “reform”. It certainly started a dialogue.
"Defund" is more than just poor branding. There are people that actually believe that the police should be defunded (the ACAB crowd). There are idiots on both the left and right and these people are proud representatives of the idiot ctrl-left.
kalm wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:31 am
I haven’t seen much on defunders saying police should never be armed. You would think a domestic dispute scenario is one of those occasions.
You can't be armed if you don't exist.
Yeah not sure how that obvious detail slipped by klammy.
GannonFan wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:21 am
Right in Lancaster are a cluster of colleges, including some tiny ones, but most of the county is pretty rural - it's one of the Amish hotbeds in PA.
Downtown Lancaster has some remarkably sketchy parts. I was just there for a wedding of my daughter's BFF from college. They live not far from where this happened.
Yeah I'd put any neighborhood where a crazed knife wielding man pops out of doors and charges a cop as "sketchy".
I believe the argument is that some or all police funding should go toward other professionals such as social workers (i.e. Civil Peace Officers) that are "better" trained to deal with different situations. Maybe I'm wrong, but I interpreted that argument to mean that the social workers would not be armed. The problem is that if I was a social worker in many situations I would want an armed police escort so costs would actually increase.
The defund the police movement is naive in that it doesn't acknowledge that there are bad people in the world who would do harm to the innocent and unprotected. Trump is an evil Nazi and law enforcement is a criminal enterprise but all of those convicted of murder and other violent crimes are just misunderstood and oppressed.
Like I mentioned at the start of the movement, “Defund” is poor branding. Then again, not as many get behind “reform”. It certainly started a dialogue.
Like I mentioned at the start of the movement, “Defund” is poor branding. Then again, not as many get behind “reform”. It certainly started a dialogue.
"Defund" is more than just poor branding. There are people that actually believe that the police should be defunded (the ACAB crowd). There are idiots on both the left and right and these people are proud representatives of the idiot ctrl-left.
Yup, and the ACAB crowd is the one that will win the "argument" as the "reform" crowd has already caved to the ctrl-left crowd.
Like I mentioned at the start of the movement, “Defund” is poor branding. Then again, not as many get behind “reform”. It certainly started a dialogue.
Riots in the streets is now "dialogue"?!?
No. Politicians at every level of government is. This is how social change often goes. The violence and vandalism suck and any rational person is disappointed by it. But pretty please wasn’t fast enough.
SDHornet wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:41 pm
Riots in the streets is now "dialogue"?!?
No. Politicians at every level of government is. This is how social change often goes. The violence and vandalism suck and any rational person is disappointed by it. But pretty please wasn’t fast enough.
So you support appeasement of people using fascist tactics to intimidate and even assasinate people they disagree wth?
The anti-maskers are marching and protesting and you dismiss them. Do they need to get violent and destroy property so that you and the liberal politicians will listen to them?
No. Politicians at every level of government is. This is how social change often goes. The violence and vandalism suck and any rational person is disappointed by it. But pretty please wasn’t fast enough.
So you support appeasement of people using fascist tactics to intimidate and even assasinate people they disagree wth?
The anti-maskers are marching and protesting and you dismiss them. Do they need to get violent and destroy property so that you and the liberal politicians will listen to them?
Huh? What part of it “sucks” did you miss? I’ve said several times in previous posts that the protests were a bad idea.
Im just observing reality based on history and what’s currently happening.
So you support appeasement of people using fascist tactics to intimidate and even assasinate people they disagree wth?
The anti-maskers are marching and protesting and you dismiss them. Do they need to get violent and destroy property so that you and the liberal politicians will listen to them?
Huh? What part of it “sucks” did you miss? I’ve said several times in previous posts that the protests were a bad idea.
Im just observing reality based on history and what’s currently happening.
You can think something sucks and still support it. A lot of Trump supporters are in that camp.
UNI88 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 7:30 am
So you support appeasement of people using fascist tactics to intimidate and even assassinate people they disagree with?
The anti-maskers are marching and protesting and you dismiss them. Do they need to get violent and destroy property so that you and the liberal politicians will listen to them?
Huh? What part of it “sucks” did you miss? I’ve said several times in previous posts that the protests were a bad idea.
Im just observing reality based on history and what’s currently happening.
Pretty please isn't working for the anti-maskers and the alt-right either.
We need to be condemning this type of behavior not just saying it's bad but rationalizing it as understandable.
The really stupid thing is that it is helping Trump gain ground with moderates and working class whites. If Trump wins in November, the "protesters" will just need to look in the mirror if they want to understand why.
Huh? What part of it “sucks” did you miss? I’ve said several times in previous posts that the protests were a bad idea.
Im just observing reality based on history and what’s currently happening.
Pretty please isn't working for the anti-maskers and the alt-right either.
We need to be condemning this type of behavior not just saying it's bad but rationalizing it as understandable.
The really stupid thing is that it is helping Trump gain ground with moderates and working class whites. If Trump wins in November, the "protesters" will just need to look in the mirror if they want to understand why.
Huh? What part of it “sucks” did you miss? I’ve said several times in previous posts that the protests were a bad idea.
Im just observing reality based on history and what’s currently happening.
Pretty please isn't working for the anti-maskers and the alt-right either.
We need to be condemning this type of behavior not just saying it's bad but rationalizing it as understandable.
The really stupid thing is that it is helping Trump gain ground with moderates and working class whites. If Trump wins in November, the "protesters" will just need to look in the mirror if they want to understand why.
I agree completely on the political ramifications and I’m not rationalizing anything.
It’s similar to the wealth inequality argument. The poor just need to work harder and make better decisions. Buying a TV, car, or home you can’t afford is irrational. That doesn’t mean that at some point the serfs won’t rise up and think ‘hey...we want a bigger slice.’
Cops shouldn’t extra judiciously kill people and protestors should protest from home during a pandemic and never resort to violence and destruction.
