Trump's America

[BIGREDIOWAN]

9 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I don't think that's what he's doing. He's saying there are many police departments who don't need the equipment and he personally knows of at least 1 that shouldn't have it. 

 

He's not generalizing to say that none need it or that none are capable of handling it. He's saying not all should get it.

 

He's basically doing the opposite of generalizing, by saying some police departments shouldn't get it. Instead of saying all should get it regardless of need or capibility of using it responsibly.

That's not how I read it and who's to say what departments need what? It depends on the needs of the departments at that time that's identified through several different avenues. No offense, but your average citizen has no idea what the equipment needs are for the local police department. Most don't care they'd just rather say, "Uh no, you don't need that....."

[ZRod]

About Trump and his Texas visit...

 

In fairness it's best for him to stay away for awhilr so that he doesn't hinder rescue efforts, or take away resources.

 

But he doesn't need to lie about what he has done.

[Moiraine]

10 minutes ago, BIGREDIOWAN said:

That's not how I read it and who's to say what departments need what? It depends on the needs of the departments at that time that's identified through several different avenues. No offense, but your average citizen has no idea what the equipment needs are for the local police department. Most don't care they'd just rather say, "Uh no, you don't need that....."

 

 

I'm sure BRB will reply but I believe he's saying it shouldn't be handed out willy nilly. That they should be careful about who gets it. He's not saying the average citizen should decide this.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, BIGREDIOWAN said:

And your experience with your small town police department isn't the reality in law enforcement across America so you can't take that experience and put that all on the rest of us. Classifying us all that way really isn't appropriate.

I'm not.

 

I want you to have the equipment.  AND....I know this is a very small minority of police.....believe me when I say that.

 

But....the few times the bad management or lack of training comes up....it gets plastered all over the news and many times ends up in something really bad.

[RedDenver]

23 minutes ago, BIGREDIOWAN said:

That's not how I read it and who's to say what departments need what? It depends on the needs of the departments at that time that's identified through several different avenues. No offense, but your average citizen has no idea what the equipment needs are for the local police department. Most don't care they'd just rather say, "Uh no, you don't need that....."

This is another case where a civilian oversight of the police dept could make these sorts of decisions. The police serve the average citizen, not the other way around.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

17 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm not.

 

I want you to have the equipment.  AND....I know this is a very small minority of police.....believe me when I say that.

 

But....the few times the bad management or lack of training comes up....it gets plastered all over the news and many times ends up in something really bad.

Sorry I read that wrong then.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

8 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

This is another case where a civilian oversight of the police dept could make these sorts of decisions. The police serve the average citizen, not the other way around.

And responses like this are one of the reasons I stay out of this section of the board. Doesn't take long for the discussion to start going south. I personally will never work for a department that has a civilian oversight board. I know a lot of fantastic cops that wouldn't either. It's not because I'm doing something wrong or they're doing something wrong in their daily tasks as police officers. It's because the folks that serve on those boards usually have no clue how law enforcement has to operate. All of the sudden they become experts overnight once they are put on one of these boards, but would probably never fill out an application to be a cop. We aren't there to kiss your butt which is how comments like yours are taken by police officers as most of the time they are meant in derogatory terms. "You're a CIVIL SERVANT" Enjoy that perspective from the ivory tower while the "peasants" clean up society's problems. Once again I tried to explain a different perspective and it begins to get turned around. SMH

[Moiraine]

I was enjoying your posts on it. I'm not sure why RedDenver's reply got that reaction, even if you disagree 100%. I think you're defensive because you care about your job which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I get mad when people don't get statistics and statisticians aren't normally risking their lives other than by living a sedentary lifestyle.

[teachercd]

36 minutes ago, BIGREDIOWAN said:

And responses like this are one of the reasons I stay out of this section of the board. Doesn't take long for the discussion to start going south. I personally will never work for a department that has a civilian oversight board. I know a lot of fantastic cops that wouldn't either. It's not because I'm doing something wrong or they're doing something wrong in their daily tasks as police officers. It's because the folks that serve on those boards usually have no clue how law enforcement has to operate. All of the sudden they become experts overnight once they are put on one of these boards, but would probably never fill out an application to be a cop. We aren't there to kiss your butt which is how comments like yours are taken by police officers as most of the time they are meant in derogatory terms. "You're a CIVIL SERVANT" Enjoy that perspective from the ivory tower while the "peasants" clean up society's problems. Once again I tried to explain a different perspective and it begins to get turned around. SMH

No organization should be run by people that are not "them"...school board with non-teachers?  Stupid.

Cop board with non-cops?  What, why?  That makes no sense.

[Moiraine]

46 minutes ago, teachercd said:

No organization should be run by people that are not "them"...school board with non-teachers?  Stupid.

Cop board with non-cops?  What, why?  That makes no sense.

 

 

There are and should be non teachers on school boards. The education system concerns all citizens. That doesn't mean all board members should be non teachers/former teachers.

[BigRedBuster]

51 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

There are and should be non teachers on school boards. The education system concerns all citizens. That doesn't mean all board members should be non teachers/former teachers.

Yes

[Danny Bateman]

I think BRI is in favor of the move because it's his judgment that this will help them better do their job and in his opinion, most, if not all, police departments around the US would request/use the equipment judiciously and fairly. Please correct me if I am wrong on that BRI.

 

I could see why police officers would be in favor of Trump giving them more latitude and autonomy to make their own decisions about their own equipment and other needs. There is something to be said for someone who "knows what they don't know," delegates to others who do, and just gets out of the way. I believe this was a hope that many people had for Trump as POTUS. He'd truly operate as a CEO instead of micromanaging. 

 

However, a major beef I have with him is that he DOESN'T know what he doesn't know. In fact, it seems to me that he calibrates his decisions based on which groups of people he wants to appeal to in polls. Given that, he becomes too sure of what he thinks he knows, and is far too comfortable charging headfirst toward the outcome he wants that he fails to notice what is going on around him and the steps that are taken to achieve that end. He lacks the ability to notice the details and in the process of pushing for his desired outcomes, doesn't notice when some really questionable policy decisions are made because he thinks the end result will help him. For instance, trying to "bring back coal." It's not a smart move and would be very hard to accomplish (he'd have to spit in the face of the free market conservatives so cherish to do so), but he wants to appeal to coal country, so details and nuances be damned.

 

Also, there's the whole "I'm just doing this because Obama did the opposite" thing. That's a really childish and boneheaded way to draw up your policy positions that isn't going to ultimately help America.

 

Also BRI I respect your opinion, but I'd challenge the assertion that a large swath of Americans don't trust the police. Overall, I think a lot of Americans do, but notice the racial discrepancies found in this recent Pew research.

[RedDenver]

3 hours ago, BIGREDIOWAN said:

And responses like this are one of the reasons I stay out of this section of the board. Doesn't take long for the discussion to start going south. I personally will never work for a department that has a civilian oversight board. I know a lot of fantastic cops that wouldn't either. It's not because I'm doing something wrong or they're doing something wrong in their daily tasks as police officers. It's because the folks that serve on those boards usually have no clue how law enforcement has to operate. All of the sudden they become experts overnight once they are put on one of these boards, but would probably never fill out an application to be a cop. We aren't there to kiss your butt which is how comments like yours are taken by police officers as most of the time they are meant in derogatory terms. "You're a CIVIL SERVANT" Enjoy that perspective from the ivory tower while the "peasants" clean up society's problems. Once again I tried to explain a different perspective and it begins to get turned around. SMH

That is a WAY overreaction to what I'm saying. If you don't want to work for a civil oversight panel, then that's your choice, but it's insane to think the police should operate without oversight. It's like saying the military should just do their own thing and not have oversight by Congress and the civilian government. Just bomb and invade whoever and wherever they like - that's obviously a ridiculous thing to allow, so we don't. The entire purpose of the military and the police (and all the other branches and agencies of government) is to serve the people.

 

And your ivory tower comments are ridiculous. I in no way implied anything bad about the police. If police officers want to take offense at being called civil servants, then they might be in the wrong profession. I think they generally do a good job, but they aren't infallible and we imbue them with a lot of power and authority, so asking them to be accountable to the citizens in return is pretty minor.

[BigRedBuster]

Police already work under a civilian oversite committee. It's called a City Council. 

[teachercd]

3 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

There are and should be non teachers on school boards. The education system concerns all citizens. That doesn't mean all board members should be non teachers/former teachers.

Nope