Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

Firehouse.com Forum Rules & Guidelines

Forum Rules & Guidelines

Not Permitted or Tolerated:
• Advertising and/or links of commercial, for-profit websites, products, and/or services is not permitted. If you have a need to advertise on Firehouse.com please contact [email protected]
• Fighting/arguing
• Cyber-bullying
• Swearing
• Name-calling and/or personal attacks
• Spamming
• Typing in all CAPS
• “l33t speak” - Substituting characters for letters in an effort to represent a word or phrase. (example: M*****ive)
• Distribution of another person’s personal information, regardless of whether or not said information is public knowledge and whether or not an individual has permission to post said personal information
• Piracy advocation of any kind
• Racist, sexual, hate type defamatory, religious, political, or sexual commentary.
• Multiple forum accounts

Forum Posting Guidelines:

Posts must be on-topic, non-disruptive and relevant to the firefighting community. Post only in a mature and responsible way that contributes to the discussion at hand. Posting relevant information, helpful suggestions and/or constructive criticism is a great way to contribute to the community.

Post in the correct forum and have clear titles for your threads.

Please post in English or provide a translation.

There are moderators and admins who handle these forums with care, do not resort to self-help, instead please utilize the reporting option. Be mature and responsible for yourself and your posts. If you are offended by another member utilize the reporting option. All reported posts will be addressed and dealt with as deemed appropriate by Firehouse.com staff.

Firehouse.com Moderation Process:
Effective immediately, the following moderation process will take effect. User(s) whose posts are determined by Firehouse.com staff to be in violation of any of the rules above will EARN the following reprimand(s) in the moderation process:
1. An initial warning will be issued.
2. A Final Warning will be issued if a user is found to be in violation a second time.
3. A 3-day suspension will be issued if the user continues to break the forum rules.
4. A 45-day suspension will be issued if the user is found to be a habitual rule breaker.
5. Habitual rule breakers that have exhausted all of the above will receive a permanent life-time ban that will be strictly enforced. Reinstatement will not be allowed – there is no appeal process.

Subsequent accounts created in an effort to side-step the rules and moderation process are subject to automatic removal without notice. Firehouse.com reserves the right to expedite the reprimand process for any users as it is deemed necessary. Any user in the moderation process may be required to review and agree to by email the terms and conditions listed above before their account is re-instated (except for those that are banned).

Firehouse.com reserves the right to edit and/or remove any post or member, at any time, for any reason without notice. Firehouse.com also reserves the right to warn, suspend, and/or ban, any member, at any time, for any reason.

Firehouse.com values the active participation we have in our forums. Please ensure your posts are tasteful and tactful. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
See more
See less

Chicken sh*t Nancy Pelosi!!!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • captnjak
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Pointless.

    If you want to compare the treatment of those ranchers with inner-city criminals, have at it.

    Obviously you believe that somehow the threat posed by both are equivalent, even though not one cop was killed or walked away injured when dealing with the ranchers and hundreds of cops are killed or severely injured each and every year dealing with armed inner-city criminals. And somehow you expect that they should both be handled in the exact same manner?

    You admit that you don't know many cops. I do ..... in a variety of working situations including the inner-city and the rural environment. You ask them, and they will tell you that's it two different worlds with 2 very different threats that require a very different response, which is not based on race by based on the likelihood that the suspect is armed, the probability that he will use his weapon, and the violence that will likely be used to resist their efforts to make arrests.

    But what do they know ... They are just a bunch of racist cops, right?
    The ranchers were engaged in criminal acts. So I think fairness and accuracy dictate that we call them criminals too. The comparison should be between "rural criminals" and inner-city criminals".

    I think your cop friends are headed for trouble if they are making assumptions beforehand when it comes to who is armed or not and who will shoot them or not.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Pointless.
    Hopeless.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    If you want to compare the treatment of those ranchers with inner-city criminals, have at it.
    Already done more than once.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Obviously you believe that somehow the threat posed by both are equivalent, even though not one cop was killed or walked away injured when dealing with the ranchers and hundreds of cops are killed or severely injured each and every year dealing with armed inner-city criminals. And somehow you expect that they should both be handled in the exact same manner?

    You admit that you don't know many cops. I do ..... in a variety of working situations including the inner-city and the rural environment. You ask them, and they will tell you that's it two different worlds with 2 very different threats that require a very different response, which is not based on race by based on the likelihood that the suspect is armed, the probability that he will use his weapon, and the violence that will likely be used to resist their efforts to make arrests.
    Which one of those cops will go on the record stating they are okay with white males pointing guns at them? But not okay with black males doing the same.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    But what do they know ... They are just a bunch of racist cops, right?
    I'll take your word for it since I don't know them.
    Last edited by scfire86; 03-29-2016, 02:28 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Pointless.

    If you want to compare the treatment of those ranchers with inner-city criminals, have at it.

    Obviously you believe that somehow the threat posed by both are equivalent, even though not one cop was killed or walked away injured when dealing with the ranchers and hundreds of cops are killed or severely injured each and every year dealing with armed inner-city criminals. And somehow you expect that they should both be handled in the exact same manner?

    You admit that you don't know many cops. I do ..... in a variety of working situations including the inner-city and the rural environment. You ask them, and they will tell you that's it two different worlds with 2 very different threats that require a very different response, which is not based on race by based on the likelihood that the suspect is armed, the probability that he will use his weapon, and the violence that will likely be used to resist their efforts to make arrests.

    But what do they know ... They are just a bunch of racist cops, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    If you want to compare the threat posed to law enforcement by those who occupied some property without any acts of violence with the threat posed by those who were running from the police or actively resisting arrest, in areas where there is a history of them carrying and more importantly, using weapons against the police, have at it. But the reality is that the police are dealing with two very different groups of people with very different histories when it comes to confrontation with the police.

    Show me where any one of these occupiers have ever taken a shot at the police? or took out a knife and cut them or stabbed them? or violently resisted arrest and injured an officer? Take your time .... I'm waiting.
    Taking over an installation by armed force and challenging the police with statements advocating they will use those weapons is an act of violence. For some reason you refuse to understand that concept since there were no kinetic acts.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I can site hundreds of examples out of thousands and thousands of incidents where the police were chasing an inner city subject an was shot, stabbed, cut, hit with bricks, tire irons or jumped by multiple subjects and were hurt or killed.
    And there are also instances where a suspect died in police custody where none of that had occurred.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    So do you really want to compare these two situations?
    Yup. Since earlier you stated:

    Sorry .. I don't buy any excuses for crime nor any excises for not complying fully with every single police instruction. Never have. Never will.
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And I'm very sure that most cops would agree that your logic just doesn't play out in the real world.
    I don't know. I don't know most cops. But I'd love for you to find me a LEO who will state they are okay with a firearm being pointed at them by a white male.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I understand that in your liberal world your view is that the police are racist and go out looking for blacks to harass and arrest, and in fact get great joy in roughing them up when at all possible. After all, in your mind they are sooooooooooooooooooooo opposed and disliked by society and most police simply want to keep them down.
    Said no such thing. But it is obvious that armed white males receive different treatment from cops that armed black males. Regardless of the circumstances.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    But the reality is that maybe, just maybe, the cops are more likely to react quicker and with more violence because of the way they react when they are being arrested.
    I have no idea how cops act when they are arrested. Do cops get arrested frequently in your little part of the world?

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    If you want to call that a double standard, so be it. To me, it's simply applying tactics and actions based on reality and what the likely actions of those that you are encountering will be..
    It's also a double standard based upon your own statements.
    Last edited by scfire86; 03-29-2016, 12:21 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • captnjak
    replied
    How many of those ranchers last year (year before?) were actually arrested? How many did law enforcement try to arrest? I don't recall many arrests.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    Wait!! What??

    You are the one claiming that you have no qualms with individuals being killed by the police when they don't obey their commands and then excuse a group that has done exactly that.

    This is an amazing disconnect.



    You can call me all the names you want. It doesn't change the fact that you are applying a double standard based upon some BS claim of probability.

    If you want to compare the threat posed to law enforcement by those who occupied some property without any acts of violence with the threat posed by those who were running from the police or actively resisting arrest, in areas where there is a history of them carrying and more importantly, using weapons against the police, have at it. But the reality is that the police are dealing with two very different groups of people with very different histories when it comes to confrontation with the police.

    Show me where any one of these occupiers have ever taken a shot at the police? or took out a knife and cut them or stabbed them? or violently resisted arrest and injured an officer? Take your time .... I'm waiting.

    I can site hundreds of examples out of thousands and thousands of incidents where the police were chasing an inner city subject an was shot, stabbed, cut, hit with bricks, tire irons or jumped by multiple subjects and were hurt or killed.

    So do you really want to compare these two situations?

    And I'm very sure that most cops would agree that your logic just doesn't play out in the real world.

    I understand that in your liberal world your view is that the police are racist and go out looking for blacks to harass and arrest, and in fact get great joy in roughing them up when at all possible. After all, in your mind they are sooooooooooooooooooooo opposed and disliked by society and most police simply want to keep them down.

    But the reality is that maybe, just maybe, the cops are more likely to react quicker and with more violence because of the way they react when they are being arrested.

    If you want to call that a double standard, so be it. To me, it's simply applying tactics and actions based on reality and what the likely actions of those that you are encountering will be..
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 03-29-2016, 09:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Ok, I officially give up.

    Not because I can't win the argument, but because there is no point in continuing. As usual, you have left me speechless and without anything much to say. Arguing with the village idiot is fun for awhile but at some point it becomes too damn silly.
    Wait!! What??

    You are the one claiming that you have no qualms with individuals being killed by the police when they don't obey their commands and then excuse a group that has done exactly that.

    This is an amazing disconnect.

    You can call me all the names you want. It doesn't change the fact that you are applying a double standard based upon some BS claim of probability.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Ok, I officially give up.

    Not because I can't win the argument, but because there is no point in continuing. As usual, you have left me speechless and without anything much to say. Arguing with the village idiot is fun for awhile but at some point it becomes too damn silly.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZvlma8ksmc
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 03-28-2016, 02:57 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And in neither places were shots fired at the police. If they had been, od had they interpreted a variable threat, they should have fired. Again, you call using deadly force a kid with a criminal history in a violent area of a community actively resisting arrest with a weapon the same situation as white guy carrying a weapon a similar situation. I don't.
    So what? In many cases involving police applying deadly force to black males there were no shots fired.

    Earlier you stated:

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The solution to this supposed war on black youth and this supposed "massacre" of black youth is really simple. Teach them to respect the police and follow all instructions. Nor were those individuals armed.

    Sorry .. I don't buy any excuses for crime nor any excises for not complying fully with every single police instruction. Never have. Never will.
    Yet here you are excusing that exact behavior. Do you ever run into yourself if you turn around too quickly? There seems to be two of you discussing this topic.
    Last edited by scfire86; 03-26-2016, 10:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    Continuing the double standard of police response.

    Double standard? Maybe you didn't notice that 68% of the suspects killed by police last year were NOT black. So where exactly is the double standard?

    What exactly are you using as a yardstick to judge your "double standard"?



    Just what I would expect from a conservative.

    I expect the law to be upheld. I expect persons to fully cooperate with the police. I expect that they will not run, fight or resist. if they do, I fully expect that the police will do whatever is needed to protect themselves and arrest the suspect. It's a choice that they make, not the police, and as such they are 100% responsible for any consequences of that choice.

    yes, conservatives believe that people are responsible for their choices, as well as any consequences that come about. Not cooperate with police. I see no issues with any consequences that come from making that choice.



    A lot more of them had the police reacted the same way they did when confronted by armed white males in NV and OR. Did I mention those were two groups you supported?


    Don't believe that I ever supported them. I did say that there was a major difference between folks taking over, peaceably, property and those that have committed violent and drug crimes against society, and have forcibly resisted arrest. To even compare the two groups and their actions makes no sense. Though I shouldn't be surprised.


    Or we should teach the police to react the same way they do when confronted by armed white males.

    And based on the fact that 68% of those killed by the police last year were non-black, they are. Again, there is a big difference between folks taking over a piece of property and having a thug with criminal history pull a gun from his waistband while running from the police. Sorry, the 2 are not similar situations.


    I've already pointed out your double standard numerous times. You excused the idiots in Bunkerville, NV and Burns, OR for doing exactly what you demand of black youth.
    And in neither places were shots fired at the police. If they had been, od had they interpreted a variable threat, they should have fired. Again, you call using deadly force a kid with a criminal history in a violent area of a community actively resisting arrest with a weapon the same situation as white guy carrying a weapon a similar situation. I don't.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Continue tio make excuses for crime and irresponsible behavior when confronted by the police for their actions. So because they are poor we are suppose to excuse their actions, not arrest them and not enforce the law?
    Continuing the double standard of police response.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And because they are poor we simply let them walk away when they are caught violating the law, not complying with police instructions, pulling weapons on the police and resisting arrest?
    Said no such thing.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Just what I would expect from a liberal.
    Just what I would expect from a conservative.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    You are right... We are such a racist and unfair society. Just let them walk because we are so cruel and terrible to blacks.
    I said no such thing.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    How many of those 132 would be alive now had they complied with instructions? Not pulled a weapon? Not resisted arrest? Not fought with the police.?
    A lot more of them had the police reacted the same way they did when confronted by armed white males in NV and OR. Did I mention those were two groups you supported?

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Likely ... Most of them.
    See previous response.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The solution to this supposed war on black youth and this supposed "massacre" of black youth is really simple. Teach them to respect the police and follow all instructions.
    Or we should teach the police to react the same way they do when confronted by armed white males.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Sorry .. I don't buy any excuses for crime nor any excises for not complying fully with every single police instruction. Never have. Never will.
    I've already pointed out your double standard numerous times. You excused the idiots in Bunkerville, NV and Burns, OR for doing exactly what you demand of black youth.
    Last edited by scfire86; 03-22-2016, 05:41 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Continue tio make excuses for crime and irresponsible behavior when confronted by the police for their actions. So because they are poor we are suppose to excuse their actions, not arrest them and not enforce the law? And because they are poor we simply let them walk away when they are caught violating the law, not complying with police instructions, pulling weapons on the police and resisting arrest?

    Just what I would expect from a liberal.

    You are right... We are such a racist and unfair society. Just let them walk because we are so cruel and terrible to blacks.

    How many of those 132 would be alive now had they complied with instructions? Not pulled a weapon? Not resisted arrest? Not fought with the police.?

    Likely ... Most of them.

    The solution to this supposed war on black youth and this supposed "massacre" of black youth is really simple. Teach them to respect the police and follow all instructions.

    Sorry .. I don't buy any excuses for crime nor any excises for not complying fully with every single police instruction. Never have. Never will.

    Leave a comment:


  • scfire86
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I don't give a damn what they went through. Crime is crime. Poverty is no excuse or justification for crime, running from the police, carrying weapons, not following police instructions or resisting arrest.
    Yet you supported a group of white males in NV and OR who did exactly that.

    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Maybe you want to make it about how horribly they are treated by society or how society is so unfair to them, but I don't. it's all about choices. Don't commit crime. Comply with police. Don't resist. Pretty simple stuff.
    Said by someone who has no clue what it means to grow up poor and with few if any options. And who landed a sweet gig funded by the taxation of others.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
    The claim is part of the larger claim that police treat armed white males differently than black males as well. I've already pointed out an example that proves my point.

    Actually you haven't proven that. And in fact, the data doesn't prove it either. If police treated armed black subjects differently there would be far more dead blacks than the data indicates. Once gain, no points will be awarded.

    And the reason is what exactly?

    The reason why blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites is not important in this discussion. The fact is, according to FBI data, they do commit crime at a higher rate.

    Getting into a bleeding heart liberal discussion as to how unfair this country is to the black population is another discussion for another time.


    See first response.

    Again, 32% of those shot by police are black. That number in and of itself proves that there is no war on black males by the police.


    Of the stupidest things you have said over the years, this one is in the top five.

    The data simply shows that there is no war on black males by the police and the police is not out "massacring " black males. Again, poverty is no justification for any type of crime. It's simply a bulls**t excuse. You want to see fewer blacks shot by the police, have them commit less crime. have them stop when the police say stop. Have them pull guns on the police less often.

    Nothing to do with poverty. It has all to do with actions and bad choices when they are confronted by the police.


    Please tell us about your harsh upbringing. I'm betting you're one of those conservatives who likes to tell everyone you were born in a log cabin you built with your own two hands. Let me get my violin.
    I don't give a damn what they went through. Crime is crime. Poverty is no excuse or justification for crime, running from the police, carrying weapons, not following police instructions or resisting arrest.

    Maybe you want to make it about how horribly they are treated by society or how society is so unfair to them, but I don't. it's all about choices. Don't commit crime. Comply with police. Don't resist. Pretty simple stuff.

    Leave a comment:


  • captnjak
    replied
    If we're going to talk about police and their treatment of armed whites vs non-whites, shouldn't we also include whether the police involved are white vs non-white? There are many non-white police officers in this country. Why should the race of the police be ignored when analyzing the race of armed criminals and how police react to them?

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X