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

  • Originally posted by captnjak View Post
    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.
    Never said that the ranchers were not committing criminal acts. One could probably argue that they were not violent acts, though they did possess weapons. And I'm sure that SC would argue that they were threatening violence.

    The point with the cops wasn't so much about assumptions beforehand but what happened most of the time. Sure, there are situations out here where the suspects run and resist, but it's a small part of the arrests. Resisting and dealing with weapons seems far more common with the friends of mine that work in the urban areas.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
      Never said that the ranchers were not committing criminal acts. One could probably argue that they were not violent acts, though they did possess weapons. And I'm sure that SC would argue that they were threatening violence.

      The point with the cops wasn't so much about assumptions beforehand but what happened most of the time. Sure, there are situations out here where the suspects run and resist, but it's a small part of the arrests. Resisting and dealing with weapons seems far more common with the friends of mine that work in the urban areas.
      The difference is the disconnect in your own statements. You stated you have no problem with police using deadly force if someone doesn't obey their command. Yet here you are again stating you are okay with a different standard of force reaction by the police because of past actions.

      If the inhabitants of Bunkerville, NV and Burns, OR had been black males I'm thinking you would be singing a different tune.
      They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

      I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
        Never said that the ranchers were not committing criminal acts. One could probably argue that they were not violent acts, though they did possess weapons. And I'm sure that SC would argue that they were threatening violence.

        The point with the cops wasn't so much about assumptions beforehand but what happened most of the time. Sure, there are situations out here where the suspects run and resist, but it's a small part of the arrests. Resisting and dealing with weapons seems far more common with the friends of mine that work in the urban areas.
        You are correct in that criminality doesn't always equate to violence or even danger. I'm glad I'm not a cop and forced to ever have to decide the difference in a split second. That's why I give the benefit of the doubt to cops. But technology has given us the ability to see a lot of things we would not have seen a generation ago. And sometimes we see cops who are flat out incompetent. Or worse.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by captnjak View Post
          You are correct in that criminality doesn't always equate to violence or even danger. I'm glad I'm not a cop and forced to ever have to decide the difference in a split second. That's why I give the benefit of the doubt to cops. But technology has given us the ability to see a lot of things we would not have seen a generation ago. And sometimes we see cops who are flat out incompetent. Or worse.
          Agreed, but the vast, and I do mean vast, they made a split second judgment that is now being critiqued at slow motion, zoom imaging and a whole bunch of technology by persons who have zero concept of having to make that decision within a second or two. That is the problem.

          Interesting thing I saw a few days ago was a demonstration which clearly showed that if he waited for a suspect to level is weapon ... give clear intent that he was going to fire .... and he had not pulled his weapon, he would be unable to get a shot off before being hit. Again , judgments being made by people about deadly force that have no clue about being in that situation.
          Train to fight the fires you fight.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
            The difference is the disconnect in your own statements. You stated you have no problem with police using deadly force if someone doesn't obey their command. Yet here you are again stating you are okay with a different standard of force reaction by the police because of past actions.

            If the inhabitants of Bunkerville, NV and Burns, OR had been black males I'm thinking you would be singing a different tune.
            If the situation was different, even with white males. But apparently the cops had no reason to believe that those persons were actually going to fire their weapons or else they (the cops) would have reacted differently.

            Placed in an urban situation where generally speaking the criminals, and yes, primarily black males, do tend to fire weapons once they have been displayed. I'm sure every cop would tell you they would have a different reaction, because based on history, there is a high likelihood that they will be shot at, and yes, the cops will discharge their weapons much sooner.

            You, as a cop, just chased a car for 5 miles at high speed or lite up a car and it took 4 blocks for him to pull over, or was involved in a foot pursuit for 5 blocks and you have a weapon pulled on you? Are you that much of an idiot to compare that situation to a very static situation in the desert where there have been no active effort to avoid being arrested?

            I know you are a liberal and like to defend the rights of those who you see as oppressed, but even you have to realize that we are talking about two very, very different threat levels.
            Train to fight the fires you fight.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
              Agreed, but the vast, and I do mean vast, they made a split second judgment that is now being critiqued at slow motion, zoom imaging and a whole bunch of technology by persons who have zero concept of having to make that decision within a second or two. That is the problem.

              Interesting thing I saw a few days ago was a demonstration which clearly showed that if he waited for a suspect to level is weapon ... give clear intent that he was going to fire .... and he had not pulled his weapon, he would be unable to get a shot off before being hit. Again , judgments being made by people about deadly force that have no clue about being in that situation.
              That's all fine and dandy. How about those who are killed by police and are unarmed? That has happened on several occasions. There was a case in Texas where a LEO pulled a woman over for failing to use her turn signal while changing lanes. He demanded she put out her cigarette and she refused. He then proceeded to take her into custody where she died (supposedly by suicide) three days later. Guess what color the officer was versus the color of the motorist. The officer had no pattern of pulling over white motorists for menial traffic infractions.

              Then there is a case of a motorist who was pulled over in NM. The onscene LEO thought he was acting suspicious. Took him into custody where they did multiple cavity searches because he was suspected of transporting contraband. Found nothing. Gave him an enema, still nothing. Took him to the local hospital where he was prepped and given a colonoscopy. Still nothing. Then he gets a $6,000.00 bill from the hospital.

              While you are certainly allowed your fealty to LEO's, it is not like they aren't known for overstepping their authority or common sense.
              They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

              I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                Are you that much of an idiot to compare that situation to a very static situation in the desert where there have been no active effort to avoid being arrested?
                Are you that much of an idiot to believe that pointing a gun at a federal agent is not an active effort to avoid being arrested? Who am I kidding? Of course you are.
                They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                  That's all fine and dandy. How about those who are killed by police and are unarmed? That has happened on several occasions. There was a case in Texas where a LEO pulled a woman over for failing to use her turn signal while changing lanes. He demanded she put out her cigarette and she refused. He then proceeded to take her into custody where she died (supposedly by suicide) three days later. Guess what color the officer was versus the color of the motorist. The officer had no pattern of pulling over white motorists for menial traffic infractions.

                  Then there is a case of a motorist who was pulled over in NM. The onscene LEO thought he was acting suspicious. Took him into custody where they did multiple cavity searches because he was suspected of transporting contraband. Found nothing. Gave him an enema, still nothing. Took him to the local hospital where he was prepped and given a colonoscopy. Still nothing. Then he gets a $6,000.00 bill from the hospital.

                  While you are certainly allowed your fealty to LEO's, it is not like they aren't known for overstepping their authority or common sense.
                  And those who are two examples out of tens of thousands (actually, hundreds of thousands) of encounters that the police have every single year.

                  So define suspicious? At what point does the officer have the right to use deadly force? In your mind does the officer have to see a gun before he is allowed to discharge his weapon? As most experts will tell you, once the officer confirms that the gun is in a position that he will be fired upon it's often to late for him to defend himself. So at what point does the officer have the right to make sure that HE will go home?

                  How many times does an officer have to tell a suspect to get out of the car or get his hands out of his pockets before he has the right to use deadly force? How many times must an officer tell a suspect to comply with orders or stop resisting before he is allowed to escalate his efforts?

                  Again, this is not complicated. Comply. Don't run. Don't resist. So why is it now the burden of the officer to explain why he felt that he was in danger with a suspect who refused to follow legal orders and refused to make it fully and completely CLEAR to the officer that he did not have a weapon and was not going to resist arrest in any way?

                  It's all up to the suspect.

                  At the end of the day it's the suspect that determines how the encounter ends. if the suspect complies fully, the vast majority of the time things go without a hitch. if he chooses to drive to evade, run, resist, not comply or demonstrate a threat, the officer, IMO, has the right to perform any action to guarantee that HE goes home. IMO the suspect has forfeited that right as he had made a clear choice.

                  One other thing ..... I like how you imply that the incident in Texas was done by the cops. I'd be very curious to hear what evidence you have to even throw that out there.

                  As far as the NM incident, can't tell you, but maybe he fit the profile. I know to you liberals, that's a dirty word, but profiling works. The stop and frisk program in NYC was very effective in reducing homicides, and yes, it was based on profiling. Sorry, but that is a tool that LE should still be able to use every single day.
                  Train to fight the fires you fight.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                    And those who are two examples out of tens of thousands (actually, hundreds of thousands) of encounters that the police have every single year.
                    Agreed. The point being made that police do stupid things under the color of authority.

                    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                    So define suspicious? At what point does the officer have the right to use deadly force? In your mind does the officer have to see a gun before he is allowed to discharge his weapon? As most experts will tell you, once the officer confirms that the gun is in a position that he will be fired upon it's often to late for him to defend himself. So at what point does the officer have the right to make sure that HE will go home?
                    I specifically cited instances where the suspect was unarmed.

                    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                    How many times does an officer have to tell a suspect to get out of the car or get his hands out of his pockets before he has the right to use deadly force? How many times must an officer tell a suspect to comply with orders or stop resisting before he is allowed to escalate his efforts?
                    See above response.

                    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                    Again, this is not complicated. Comply. Don't run. Don't resist. So why is it now the burden of the officer to explain why he felt that he was in danger with a suspect who refused to follow legal orders and refused to make it fully and completely CLEAR to the officer that he did not have a weapon and was not going to resist arrest in any way?
                    I cited instances where you are okay with suspects doing exactly that.

                    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                    It's all up to the suspect.
                    See previous response. You excuse a group for doing exactly what you believe they should NOT be doing.

                    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                    At the end of the day it's the suspect that determines how the encounter ends. if the suspect complies fully, the vast majority of the time things go without a hitch. if he chooses to drive to evade, run, resist, not comply or demonstrate a threat, the officer, IMO, has the right to perform any action to guarantee that HE goes home. IMO the suspect has forfeited that right as he had made a clear choice.
                    I've already established your double standard based upon skin color.

                    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                    One other thing ..... I like how you imply that the incident in Texas was done by the cops. I'd be very curious to hear what evidence you have to even throw that out there.
                    Do your own reading. I don't do requests for idiots.

                    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                    As far as the NM incident, can't tell you, but maybe he fit the profile. I know to you liberals, that's a dirty word, but profiling works. The stop and frisk program in NYC was very effective in reducing homicides, and yes, it was based on profiling. Sorry, but that is a tool that LE should still be able to use every single day.
                    I would very much like to hear the cops in NM side of the story. They ran and hid from any questioning by the media. The victim (I know that is a dirty word to conservatives) ended up winning a $1.6M dollar lawsuit against the city of Demming. Because of some idiot cops, the taxpayers got royally screwed.
                    They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                    I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                    Comment


                    • After much thought, I'm just letting this one go.

                      You are convinced that the situation in MN is similar to the situation that cops in urban areas find themselves in likely hundreds of times a day across this country. And you seem to be convinced that they react differently because of race, though 62% of those killed by cops are NOT black.

                      Whatever dude.

                      Have a great day in Kalifornia.
                      Train to fight the fires you fight.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                        After much thought, I'm just letting this one go.

                        You are convinced that the situation in MN is similar to the situation that cops in urban areas find themselves in likely hundreds of times a day across this country. And you seem to be convinced that they react differently because of race, though 62% of those killed by cops are NOT black.

                        Whatever dude.

                        Have a great day in Kalifornia.
                        I guess if we're going to always make it about race we should look at people who shoot at cops based on race percentages. We never seem to hear THAT number. Does that number reflect the general population by racial breakdown or is it skewered toward any particular group?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                          After much thought, I'm just letting this one go.
                          As well you should since your argument is bogus and has been proven as such.

                          Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                          You are convinced that the situation in MN is similar to the situation that cops in urban areas find themselves in likely hundreds of times a day across this country. And you seem to be convinced that they react differently because of race, though 62% of those killed by cops are NOT black.
                          You're the one that keeps saying there is no excuse for not following the orders of law enforcement and that anyone who does so deserves to have deadly force used against them. It's your standard. You established the premise and then proceeded to move the goal post. I'm still waiting for you to find a LEO who will state they are okay with white males pointing guns at them. We both know there aren't any.

                          Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                          Have a great day in Kalifornia.
                          The worst day in CA is better than the best day in Loseriana any time.
                          They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                          I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                            After much thought, I'm just letting this one go.

                            You are convinced that the situation in MN is similar to the situation that cops in urban areas find themselves in likely hundreds of times a day across this country. And you seem to be convinced that they react differently because of race, though 62% of those killed by cops are NOT black.

                            Whatever dude.

                            Have a great day in Kalifornia.
                            BTW, according to FBI statistics, more cops are killed by white males than black males. Now adjusting for population black males are five times more likely to involved in killing a LEO than white males. The numbers are infinitesimal when taken in the context of the total population. The odds that any given black man will kill a cop this year is 0.000012 percent. For white men it is 0.0000024 percent. And for women it is basically zero. The vast majority of cop killers (98%) are men.

                            I would love to meet the LEO you claim has no problem with a white male pointing a gun at them. I'm sure you can produce one since you are so well plugged into that community.
                            They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                            I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by scfire86 View Post
                              BTW, according to FBI statistics, more cops are killed by white males than black males. Now adjusting for population black males are five times more likely to involved in killing a LEO than white males. The numbers are infinitesimal when taken in the context of the total population. The odds that any given black man will kill a cop this year is 0.000012 percent. For white men it is 0.0000024 percent. And for women it is basically zero. The vast majority of cop killers (98%) are men.

                              I would love to meet the LEO you claim has no problem with a white male pointing a gun at them. I'm sure you can produce one since you are so well plugged into that community.
                              I let this go weeks ago .......... I became weary of talking to a wall.
                              Train to fight the fires you fight.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
                                I let this go weeks ago .......... I became weary of talking to a wall.
                                That and the fact that your statements were ridiculous and just plain stupid.
                                They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

                                I'm not saying you're stupid. I'm saying you have bad luck when it comes to thinking.

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X