# Stuff and Things > Guns and Self Defense >  How would you restrain this man?

## DonGlock26



----------


## DonGlock26

This one:

----------


## DonGlock26

This gentlemen:

----------


## DonGlock26

A big one:

----------


## Calypso Jones

revolver.

----------


## fyrenza

Hand jobs, all around!

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

Some things just can't be unseen.

When I worked in hospital security, occasionally, I had to restrain various ODs including PCP ODs. Since they were considered to be patients, we had to use brute force without actually hurting them--as if they could actually feel anything.

The guy was brought in on a ambulance gurney laying on his belly and his hands in cuffs behind him. He was cussing up a storm calling the paramedic and cop every name in the book. He was very combative but didn't have enough coordination to walk. 

Transferring him to a hospital ER bed was fun. Keep in mind, this guy was only 5'8" tall and 140 lbs (in generally good shape). It took 7 of us to transfer him to the cart with his wrists and ankles restrained with heavy leather cuffs. He broke one wrist and one ankle restraint. After replacing the restraints, we had to tie his chest and upper legs to the bed with sheets to prevent him from gain leverage to break them again. 

Later, we had to transfer him to intensive care because that's where they took ODs and the ordeal started all over again. He fought us so hard that you could actually feel his bones bend in your hands. He could feel no pain and as a result, exhibited unusual strength even though he couldn't walk. The whole ordeal took over 4 hours from 4 am to 8am.

Well, anyway, that's how we restrained a PCP OD. It took lots of manpower. Nowdays, I would just taze him until he dropped.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-21-2014),fyrenza (05-21-2014),usfan (05-22-2014)

----------


## Calypso Jones

what took the so-called authorities so  long to arrive?

----------


## DonGlock26

> revolver.


OMG!!!   Murderess!!!!



 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Calypso Jones

Ain't no damn sense in normal people having to put up with this crap and have to endure it till someone comes.   National movement to take down these people OURSELVES is in order.  No help coming from the alleged authorities.

----------

teeceetx (05-29-2014),usfan (05-22-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Some things just can't be unseen.
> 
> When I worked in hospital security, occasionally, I had to restrain various ODs including PCP ODs. Since they were considered to be patients, we had to use brute force without actually hurting them--as if they could actually feel anything.
> 
> The guy was brought in on a ambulance gurney laying on his belly and his hands in cuffs behind him. He was cussing up a storm calling the paramedic and cop every name in the book. He was very combative but didn't have enough coordination to walk. 
> 
> Transferring him to a hospital ER bed was fun. Keep in mind, this guy was only 5'8" tall and 140 lbs (in generally good shape). It took 7 of us to transfer him to the cart with his wrists and ankles restrained with heavy leather cuffs. He broke one wrist and one ankle restraint. After replacing the restraints, we had to tie his chest and upper legs to the bed with sheets to prevent him from gain leverage to break them again. 
> 
> Later, we had to transfer him to intensive care because that's where they took ODs and the ordeal started all over again. He fought us so hard that you could actually feel his bones bend in your hands. He could feel no pain and as a result, exhibited unusual strength even though he couldn't walk. The whole ordeal took over 4 hours from 4 am to 8am.
> ...



Thank you very much for taking the time to administer a dose of reality in this sub-forum.

It's like a thimbleful of bleach in a septic tank, but I'm grateful none the less.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (05-21-2014),Sheldonna (05-21-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Ain't no damn sense in normal people having to put up with this crap and have to endure it till someone comes.   National movement to take down these people OURSELVES is in order.  No help coming from the alleged authorities.


You what is really amusing is that many of the people who get mad about the police subduing these dopers would like to get rid of the police altogether. 

The neighbors, without a police dept. available, are going to use a 12ga or an AR on the dopers, when they attack someone or begin to destroy a car.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (05-21-2014)

----------


## Calypso Jones

I gotta give credit to the big black dude who was sorta trying to control the situation.  I would have really liked to have seen him beat the naked guy down and then kick him so he stayed down.   There are MOrE OF US than this one lone freak.  DO SOMETHING.     MEN...TAKE IT UPON YOURSELVES to see he doesn't attack and harm WOMEN coming in there.  There was a kid walking around did you see that??!!

----------

Conservative Libertarian (05-21-2014),Victory (05-21-2014)

----------


## Calypso Jones

A man couldn't get away with shooting this freak simply because he is a man...but I could.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (05-21-2014),Mordent (05-21-2014)

----------


## Calypso Jones

Makes me so angry how we let loons run around like this threatening other people and we are afraid to do anything.   We won't even Protect OURSELVES!!  Or WOMEN!! 

DAMMIT!

We are letting evil take over and we are afraid to stand up AGAINST IT!

----------


## Archer

Just make sure you clear your youtube watch history...

----------

Victory (05-21-2014)

----------


## michaelr

I wouldn't beat, electrocute, shoot, jab sharp objects down the throat, or do anything else that would kill any of them. Knowing when to stop goes along way.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I wouldn't beat, electrocute, shoot, jab sharp objects down the throat, or do anything else that would kill any of them. Knowing when to stop goes along way.


Thanks, for telling us what you wouldn't do. But, how would you restrain these types of suspects?

----------


## michaelr

> Thanks, for telling us what you wouldn't do. But, how would you restrain these types of suspects?


Anything other then killing them. You're welcome.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> Anything other then killing them. You're welcome.


Well the point is no one did anything other than the mild opposition of the big black dude.  How is that in any way resembling honor?   or less?

----------


## michaelr

> Well the point is no one did anything other than the mild opposition of the big black dude. How is that in any way resembling honor? or less?


No. The point is, show an extreme to make a point that the police have the right to commit acts of brutality. It's Glock making excuses for all the killings of people that should not have not been killed. 

Want to subdue him, grab five of your buddies, and grab the son-of-a-bitch.

----------


## Calypso Jones

you can't count on police to do anything.  What is that saying?   When seconds count, the police are minutes away....if ever?

----------

michaelr (05-21-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> you can't count on police to do anything. What is that saying? When seconds count, the police or minutes away....if ever?



Hey, I held a thief at gun point for 40 minutes once. I called three times, and ask the dispatcher...I said, "you did hear that I have this gun point, right?". I let him go and the cops showed up about 10 minutes later. Ruger .40's with a sixteen round clip, gets heavy.....

I don't count on the police for nothing.

----------


## Mordent

I'd shoot him in the kneecap. Both, if the first one didn't calm his ass down.

----------

ManilaFolder (05-21-2014)

----------


## Mordent

> Makes me so angry how we let loons run around like this threatening other people and we are afraid to do anything.   We won't even Protect OURSELVES!!  Or WOMEN!! 
> 
> DAMMIT!
> 
> We are letting evil take over and we are afraid to stand up AGAINST IT!


Let people carry firearms.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (05-21-2014),DeadEye (05-21-2014),DonGlock26 (05-21-2014),Victory (05-21-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> what took the so-called authorities so  long to arrive?


Probably busy giving out $200+ tickets for taking sips of water on the train.  Gotta raise revenue to pay those monster salaries.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> No. The point is, show an extreme to make a point that the police have the right to commit acts of brutality. It's Glock making excuses for all the killings of people that should not have not been killed. 
> 
> Want to subdue him, grab five of your buddies, and grab the son-of-a-bitch.


Exactly. The guy in the video has initiated aggression. He is a threat to those around him and it's appropriate to neutralize the threat. The holster sniffers believe in the right of armed government bureaucrats to initiate aggression for whatever reason they want, because they believe that those government bureaucrats will always have good reason.

----------

DeadEye (05-21-2014),fyrenza (05-21-2014),michaelr (05-21-2014),Victory (05-21-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Anything other then killing them. You're welcome.


Michaelr, you know that's not a real answer. As one of the foremost police use of force critics here, you should be able to tell us the right way to restrain a man on PCP without risk to him, you, or the public. Can you walk the walk, Michaelr?

----------


## DonGlock26

> No. The point is, show an extreme to make a point that the police have the right to commit acts of brutality. It's Glock making excuses for all the killings of people that should not have not been killed. 
> 
> Want to subdue him, grab five of your buddies, and grab the son-of-a-bitch.


Ok, you tried that and the PCP abuser died. Are you and your buddies murderers?

----------


## DonGlock26

> you can't count on police to do anything.  What is that saying?   When seconds count, the police are minutes away....if ever?


It seemed to go on forever, didn't it? The video was a little over 3 minutes long.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I'd shoot him in the kneecap. Both, if the first one didn't calm his ass down.


LOL!!  A honest answer.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Let people carry firearms.


I think conservatives, independents, and libertarians can all agree on this much. Progressives want to disarm us all.

----------

Calypso Jones (05-21-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Probably busy giving out $200+ tickets for taking sips of water on the train.  Gotta raise revenue to pay those monster salaries.


Yeah, being a San Francisco or BART cop is easy street. LOL!!!!

----------


## michaelr

> Ok, you tried that and the PCP abuser died. Are you and your buddies murderers?


Why would he die, it's not like I'd electrocute, beat, shoot, jab sticks up his ass, or anything else, just grab, man up.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Exactly. The guy in the video has initiated aggression. He is a threat to those around him and it's appropriate to neutralize the threat. The holster sniffers believe in the right of armed government bureaucrats to initiate aggression for whatever reason they want, because they believe that those government bureaucrats will always have good reason.


Ken, will you stick around and answer this question? 

What do you mean by "neutralize the threat"? What force would you use?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Why would he die, it's not like I'd electrocute, beat, shoot, jab sticks up his ass, or anything else, just grab, man up.


Overdose, lack of oxygen due to the struggle, heart attack- there are any number of reasons. 
_
Are you and your buddies murderers?_

----------


## michaelr

> Overdose, lack of oxygen due to the struggle, heart attack- there are any number of reasons. 
> _
> Are you and your buddies murderers?_


So now your trying to say all the unnecessary deaths by the mercenaries are caused by PCP and other drugs, not the electrocutions, the beatings, the sharp objects down the throats, or shootings. Well, I got to hand it to you, when it comes to scraping the bottom of the barrel, no one, and I mean no one, holds a candle to you!

----------


## DonGlock26

> So now your trying to say all the unnecessary deaths by the mercenaries are caused by PCP and other drugs, not the electrocutions, the beatings, the sharp objects down the throats, or shootings. Well, I got to hand it to you, when it comes to scraping the bottom of the barrel, no one, and I mean no one, holds a candle to you!


Michaelr, just answer the question, then we can discuss the implications.

Do not trouble your little head about us not discussing the implications. We certainly will in great detail.

----------


## michaelr

> Michaelr, just answer the question, then we can discuss the implications.
> 
> Do not trouble your little head about us not discussing the implications. We certainly will in great detail.


Umm, gee Glock, there wasn't a question.

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> Why would he die, it's not like I'd electrocute, beat, shoot, jab sticks up his ass, or anything else, just grab, man up.


Please read my example of a real life PCP OD being restrained. It consumes lots of time and manpower. OD that have such a huge adrenalin flow are at risk of death every second they resist being restrained so that treatment can be administered. Heart and respiratory failures can occur while you are trying to restrain them. Then you have to worry about being sued if that occurs as well when all that you were trying to do was restrain them so they could get treatment.

In the particular incident that I mentioned, 7 people were involved for ~1 hour total, 5 people for ~2 hours total, 3 people for ~3 hours total, and and 2 people for ~4.5 hours total. All successive groups were a subset of the prior group. The last two were myself and a coworker that just happened to be a semi-pro football player. Yes, they left to two youngest an biggest guys on him until is PCP OD wore off enough that he was no longer a threat. I'm just glad that we didn't have a problem elsewhere on the hospital grounds that morning. Most of our security force was involved with this one guy.

Now that I'm older and wiser, I would hesitate to tase such a person that is out of control and dangerous. The reason that we treated his restraint the way that we did is because, the minute he came into the hospital on the gurney, he was officially a patient. If he was just someone out in public acting this way, I wouldn't hesitate to use dealy force if needed. I know first hand just how dangerous such a person can be.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-21-2014),fyrenza (05-21-2014)

----------


## michaelr

Oh good grief. Hey people have heart attacks too. 

Blaming PCP for all the unnecessary deaths due to the militarized police is moronic, especially when the vast....VAST majority of these deaths don't include drugs....unless the cop kicked in and killed a home owner look for drugs, just to find out it was the wrong home. That happens allot!

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> Oh good grief. Hey people have heart attacks too. 
> 
> Blaming PCP for all the unnecessary deaths due to the militarized police is moronic, especially when the vast....VAST majority of these deaths don't include drugs....unless the cop kicked in and killed a home owner look for drugs, just to find out it was the wrong home. That happens allot!


No one is, "Blaming PCP for all the unnecessary deaths due to the militarized police is moronic, especially when the vast....VAST majority of these deaths don't include drugs....unless the cop kicked in and killed a home owner look for drugs, just to find out it was the wrong home." 

Why would you make such a claim?

----------


## michaelr

> No one is, "Blaming PCP for all the unnecessary deaths due to the militarized police is moronic, especially when the vast....VAST majority of these deaths don't include drugs....unless the cop kicked in and killed a home owner look for drugs, just to find out it was the wrong home." 
> 
> Why would you make such a claim?


Thats where you're wrong. Glock is, did, and does. I said grab a few buddies and just latch on to this guy. His next comments went something like "what if he died because of PCP, would that make you a murderer". Now, we're both, you and I, smart enough to understand the meaning behind that comment.

----------


## Victory

> I gotta give credit to the big black dude who was sorta trying to control the situation.  I would have really liked to have seen him beat the naked guy down and then kick him so he stayed down.   There are MOrE OF US than this one lone freak.  DO SOMETHING.     MEN...TAKE IT UPON YOURSELVES to see he doesn't attack and harm WOMEN coming in there.  There was a kid walking around did you see that??!!


Pretty much my thoughts exactly.  Naked guy attacking women passers-by in a BART station and hardly anyone can be bothered from their daily commute to do something about it.

Must be San Francisco.  I doubt that would happen in San Antonio.

----------


## Victory

> Yeah, being a San Francisco or BART cop is easy street. LOL!!!!


Oscar Grant III.  LOL over that one.

----------


## Victory

> No one is, "Blaming PCP for all the unnecessary deaths due to the militarized police is moronic, especially when the vast....VAST majority of these deaths don't include drugs....unless the cop kicked in and killed a home owner look for drugs, just to find out it was the wrong home." 
> 
> Why would you make such a claim?


. . .'cuz just about every video Glock put in this thread deals with a guy on PCP.

Just about every reply from Glock in related threads has him wondering about the suspect of "Unwarranted Police Beatdown Number X" being on PCP.

It's his "get out of jail free" card for cops.

----------


## Victory

> I wouldn't beat, electrocute, shoot, jab sharp objects down the throat, or do anything else that would kill any of them. Knowing when to stop goes along way.


. . .unless he was on PCP of course.

----------


## Victory

> Ken, will you stick around and answer this question? 
> 
> What do you mean by "neutralize the threat"? What force would you use?


Why not address the issues brought up by people here instead of running to your "get out of jail free" card for cops?

Was Kelly Thomas on PCP?

----------


## michaelr

> . . .unless he was on PCP of course.


Well, in that case, I can just stomp my foot on the ground and the bad guy will just die.

----------


## Sheldonna

Who knew that demonic possession could be so much fun?  lol

The Cirque du Soleil should be made aware of this guy.  He's talented.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-21-2014)

----------


## Victory

> Ok, you tried that and the PCP abuser died. Are you and your buddies murderers?


Why the hell do you keep talking about PCP when nobody else is bringing that to the forum?

Can't you imagine cops killing a suspect with no PCP involved?  Happens all the time.

----------

michaelr (05-21-2014)

----------


## Victory

> Well, in that case, I can just stomp my foot on the ground and the bad guy will just die.


But if he's on PCP he'll be resurrected again in 30 seconds as a cross between Gandalf and the Incredible Hulk!  That PCP is some pretty incredible stuff!  :Geez:

----------

michaelr (05-21-2014)

----------


## Sheldonna

> Some things just can't be unseen.
> 
> When I worked in hospital security, occasionally, I had to restrain various ODs including PCP ODs. Since they were considered to be patients, we had to use brute force without actually hurting them--as if they could actually feel anything.
> 
> The guy was brought in on a ambulance gurney laying on his belly and his hands in cuffs behind him. He was cussing up a storm calling the paramedic and cop every name in the book. He was very combative but didn't have enough coordination to walk. 
> 
> Transferring him to a hospital ER bed was fun. Keep in mind, this guy was only 5'8" tall and 140 lbs (in generally good shape). It took 7 of us to transfer him to the cart with his wrists and ankles restrained with heavy leather cuffs. He broke one wrist and one ankle restraint. After replacing the restraints, we had to tie his chest and upper legs to the bed with sheets to prevent him from gain leverage to break them again. 
> 
> Later, we had to transfer him to intensive care because that's where they took ODs and the ordeal started all over again. He fought us so hard that you could actually feel his bones bend in your hands. He could feel no pain and as a result, exhibited unusual strength even though he couldn't walk. The whole ordeal took over 4 hours from 4 am to 8am.
> ...


What happens to those patients after they "dry out"?  Are they set free to drug up again?  Or do they have to go to taxpayer-funded rehab?  Do you know?  Reason I ask is.....I knew of a drug addict guy in Houston that managed to get onto social security disability for his "drug problem" and received as much or more a month than many folks that paid into the system their entire working lives.  This guy was only 23 and had only been a college student and had never worked.  It just doesn't seem fair.  But it does explain why the social security system is going broke faster than expected.

----------


## michaelr

> Why the hell do you keep talking about PCP when nobody else is bringing that to the forum?
> 
> Can't you imagine cops killing a suspect with no PCP involved?  Happens all the time.


It's his distraction. You can't have the mercenaries held accountable, so people will make up a scenario to suit their needs.

----------


## Victory

> It's his distraction. You can't have the mercenaries held accountable, so people will make up a scenario to suit their needs.


Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Anyway, let's get back to the subject of how to do your taxes while on PCP.

----------


## Sheldonna

> You what is really amusing is that many of the people who get mad about the police subduing these dopers would like to get rid of the police altogether. 
> 
> The neighbors, without a police dept. available, are going to use a 12ga or an AR on the dopers, when they attack someone or begin to destroy a car.


Well ironically, you have just hit on possible motivation and given more incentive to the anti-cops folks.  I do believe that most of them would *love* to see private citizens taking matters into their own hands and using ARs or shotguns to 'handle' criminals and drugged out wackos.

----------


## DeadEye

well, since i'm not a cop, I would shoot his dumbass. Where depends on how close he was. If I was younger I may have gone a round and punched he very hard under his arm pit followed by a swift blow to the side of his neck.

----------


## Micketto

> Hand jobs, all around!


About time.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-21-2014)

----------


## Micketto

> You what is really amusing is that many of the people who get mad about the police subduing these dopers would like to get rid of the police altogether.


They want to bitch and moan and complain and vilify them....   until the day they need them.

Anyway... great videos to promote drug legalization.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-21-2014)

----------


## Micketto

> So now your trying to say all the unnecessary deaths by the mercenaries are caused by PCP and other drugs, not the electrocutions, the beatings, the sharp objects down the throats, or shootings. Well, I got to hand it to you, when it comes to scraping the bottom of the barrel, no one, and I mean no one, holds a candle to you!


Why are lying, twisting and straw men such a large part of your constant arguing?

Don said nothing even close to that?

He's asking you a specific question and your response is "get 5 buddies".
Do you have 5 buddies on the subway with you?  
Do you let that man hurt those women and just stand by watching? (don't answer, we know that one).

Anyway, hopefully those guys all died of PCP overdoses _after_ they were in custody, so you can blame it on the cops.
Giving you fools more ammo for your "bad cop" obsessions.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-21-2014)

----------


## Micketto

> No one is, "Blaming PCP for all the unnecessary deaths due to the militarized police is moronic, especially when the vast....VAST majority of these deaths don't include drugs....unless the cop kicked in and killed a home owner look for drugs, just to find out it was the wrong home." 
> 
> Why would you make such a claim?


When one lacks substance, they are forced to put words in other peoples' mouths.

Welcome to Michaelr.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-21-2014)

----------


## Micketto

> Well, in that case, I can just stomp my foot on the ground and the bad guy will just die.


And if you're a cop, we can create stupid threads blaming you for the death and saying how bad you are.




As if I need to tell you that.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-21-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> A big one:


The authority paranoid cop haters would give each of these wackos a big ole hot tongue kiss.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-21-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Umm, gee Glock, there wasn't a question.


_Are you and your buddies murderers?_

----------


## DonGlock26

> Please read my example of a real life PCP OD being restrained. It consumes lots of time and manpower. OD that have such a huge adrenalin flow are at risk of death every second they resist being restrained so that treatment can be administered. Heart and respiratory failures can occur while you are trying to restrain them. Then you have to worry about being sued if that occurs as well when all that you were trying to do was restrain them so they could get treatment.
> 
> In the particular incident that I mentioned, 7 people were involved for ~1 hour total, 5 people for ~2 hours total, 3 people for ~3 hours total, and and 2 people for ~4.5 hours total. All successive groups were a subset of the prior group. The last two were myself and a coworker that just happened to be a semi-pro football player. Yes, they left to two youngest an biggest guys on him until is PCP OD wore off enough that he was no longer a threat. I'm just glad that we didn't have a problem elsewhere on the hospital grounds that morning. Most of our security force was involved with this one guy.
> 
> Now that I'm older and wiser, I would hesitate to tase such a person that is out of control and dangerous. The reason that we treated his restraint the way that we did is because, the minute he came into the hospital on the gurney, he was officially a patient. If he was just someone out in public acting this way, I wouldn't hesitate to use dealy force if needed. I know first hand just how dangerous such a person can be.


What a refreshing dose of reality. Thanks!!

----------


## DonGlock26

> Oh good grief. Hey people have heart attacks too. 
> 
> Blaming PCP for all the unnecessary deaths due to the militarized police is moronic, especially when the vast....VAST majority of these deaths don't include drugs....unless the cop kicked in and killed a home owner look for drugs, just to find out it was the wrong home. That happens allot!


But, if a suspect, who is resisting arrest and fighting with the police, dies of a heart attack, you consider the cops murderers, right?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Thats where you're wrong. Glock is, did, and does. I said grab a few buddies and just latch on to this guy. His next comments went something like "what if he died because of PCP, would that make you a murderer". Now, we're both, you and I, smart enough to understand the meaning behind that comment.


I never said he died from the PCP, and you still haven't given us a straight answer.




> Ok, you tried that and the PCP abuser died. *Are you and your buddies murderers?*

----------


## DonGlock26

> Oscar Grant III.  LOL over that one.


I don't find that incident funny at all. Do you?

What does it have to do with the SFPD?

Do you think being a BART cop is easy?

----------


## DonGlock26

> . . .'cuz just about every video Glock put in this thread deals with a guy on PCP.
> 
> Just about every reply from Glock in related threads has him wondering about the suspect of "Unwarranted Police Beatdown Number X" being on PCP.
> 
> It's his "get out of jail free" card for cops.


No, it's my "how would you deal with a suspect on PCP" question. I want to see what the police critics would do and frankly you folks can't give us a direct answer.

----------


## fyrenza

I was going to ask if that many folks still used PCP, because I haven't heard much about it in the past few years,

and was shocked to find this :


~ http://www.samhsa.gov/samhsanewslett...x#.U3zvqnJdWEc

Along with the ER visits going up *400%*,

WHERE they went up is telling :

New York City and Chicago, and URBAN communities.

I don't think any of us has a problem with the police REacting to a violent attack,

but the supposed "Cop Haters," 
and much of the general public,
has a BIG problem with the cops INITIATING a violent attack,
and/or treating the citizenry like they're scum-of-the-earth criminals.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (05-21-2014),DeadEye (05-21-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Why not address the issues brought up by people here instead of running to your "get out of jail free" card for cops?
> 
> Was Kelly Thomas on PCP?


Have you seen Kenneth? I think he can answer those questions, if he tried.

I am dealing with these issues. The police critics are refusing to answer some tough questions from the safety of their futons.

I don't think so. I believe he was mentally ill.

----------


## michaelr

> Why are lying, twisting and straw men such a large part of your constant arguing?
> 
> Don said nothing even close to that?
> 
> He's asking you a specific question and your response is "get 5 buddies".
> Do you have 5 buddies on the subway with you?  
> Do you let that man hurt those women and just stand by watching? (don't answer, we know that one).
> 
> Anyway, hopefully those guys all died of PCP overdoses _after_ they were in custody, so you can blame it on the cops.
> Giving you fools more ammo for your "bad cop" obsessions.


What?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Why the hell do you keep talking about PCP when nobody else is bringing that to the forum?
> 
> Can't you imagine cops killing a suspect with no PCP involved?  Happens all the time.


Because, I want to know how the police critics would deal with a PCP suspect, and so far no one is giving a direct answer. 

Sure, and we can certainly talk about that. But, I'd like to know how YOU would restrain a suspect on PCP first.

Conservative Libertarian explains in detail how resisting suspects can die in this thread. You should read his posts.

----------


## michaelr

> And if you're a cop, we can create stupid threads blaming you for the death and saying how bad you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As if I need to tell you that.


Very few people would make this comment of yours, thats how stupid it is. I don't hate, but unlike you people, I get off on them murdering people. I guess that makes you feel tough or some shit!

----------


## DonGlock26

> What happens to those patients after they "dry out"?  Are they set free to drug up again?  Or do they have to go to taxpayer-funded rehab?  Do you know?  Reason I ask is.....I knew of a drug addict guy in Houston that managed to get onto social security disability for his "drug problem" and received as much or more a month than many folks that paid into the system their entire working lives.  This guy was only 23 and had only been a college student and had never worked.  It just doesn't seem fair.  But it does explain why the social security system is going broke faster than expected.


Yes, they are free to drug up again.

That's the joy of the welfare state. You can get gov't checks for being mentally ill or a drug addict.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (05-21-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> It's his distraction. You can't have the mercenaries held accountable, so people will make up a scenario to suit their needs.


No, it's a questioning of the critics and they can't handle it.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Anyway, let's get back to the subject of how to do your taxes while on PCP.


The subject of this thread that you are voluntarily participating in is "How would you restrain this man?"

Do you have a direct answer?

----------


## Victory

> I don't find that incident funny at all. Do you?
> 
> What does it have to do with the SFPD?
> 
> Do you think being a BART cop is easy?


You're the one LOLing.  Backatcha.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Well ironically, you have just hit on possible motivation and given more incentive to the anti-cops folks.  I do believe that most of them would *love* to see private citizens taking matters into their own hands and using ARs or shotguns to 'handle' criminals and drugged out wackos.


I think they would be appalled about what would happen to the dopers in a society without police. They are upset over attempts to restrain these people. Citizens blasting them out of their socks would be a much greater use of force.

----------


## DonGlock26

> well, since i'm not a cop, I would shoot his dumbass. Where depends on how close he was. If I was younger I may have gone a round and punched he very hard under his arm pit followed by a swift blow to the side of his neck.


Thanks for having the courage to answer.

----------


## michaelr

> No, it's a questioning of the critics and they can't handle it.


Hey Glock, you style of ''wear'em out by massive postings'' isn't working. I come home from shopping for an hour and have a dozen quote notifications from you. You really need this much attention. I thought you were a cop. I guess I'm wrong, cops don't have this kind of time, making you a wannabe!

----------


## DonGlock26

> I was going to ask if that many folks still used PCP, because I haven't heard much about it in the past few years,
> 
> and was shocked to find this :
> 
> 
> ~ http://www.samhsa.gov/samhsanewslett...x#.U3zvqnJdWEc
> 
> Along with the ER visits going up *400%*,
> 
> ...


You should see this thread.

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...ed-by-deputies

----------


## Victory

Newsflash!  Hate to break it to you, man, but nobody gives a shit about the proper way of restraining a guy on PCP.

People give a shit about cops who think Kelly Thomas was on PCP, kill him, then find out his toxicology report is squeaky clean.

----------

DeadEye (05-21-2014)

----------


## Roadmaster

PCP is bad they Hallucinate and one man even ate off his own finger. You have to call for backup, if it were me back then use the wrist take down, in my 20's you carry belts, tie it around them securing their  arms, If you can't get anything around their legs let them run it out. At least they can't hurt others then with their arms secure on their side. These people are stronger on PCP and it was a problem back in the 70's. Cops still get this, molly, and other drugs. You can taze them, try to fight them but cops have been killed trying.

----------

fyrenza (05-21-2014)

----------


## Katzndogz

PCP is such a hellish drug, that they often die, or are killed before their bodies just give it up and they are subdued.   One of my clients' son  was tazed over 50 times, with wires hanging off every part of his body before he finally died of a heart attack brought on by the massive amounts of electricity.   Now we have even more drugs that mimic PCP, we have forms of marijuana that do the same thing.  

I blame the "let's legalize drugs" crowd that gives some legitimacy to drug use.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-21-2014)

----------


## Roadmaster

> One of my clients' son  was tazed over 50 times


 But there are other ways. You can take those ties you get from a hardware store, tie them together, sneak up and get it around their legs and tighten it without having to be in harms way. It will slow them down just like the belt. Now at my age today may be able to still do this but don't know if I would try.

----------


## Roadmaster

In other words it's a lot less dangerous for cops to do this first than to meet this person head on. These techniques will slow the person down so they can get cuffs on them. To be honest it works. Like roping cattle.

----------


## Mordent

> PCP is bad they Hallucinate and one man even ate off his own finger. You have to call for backup, if it were me back then use the wrist take down, in my 20's you carry belts, tie it around them securing their  arms, If you can't get anything around their legs let them run it out. At least they can't hurt others then with their arms secure on their side. These people are stronger on PCP and it was a problem back in the 70's. Cops still get this, molly, and other drugs. You can taze them, try to fight them but cops have been killed trying.


I don't care how hopped up on PCP someone is, if you put a bullet through each of their kneecaps, they're going down.

----------

DeadEye (05-21-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> I don't care how hopped up on PCP someone is, if you put a bullet through each of their kneecaps, they're going down.


I'd shove a pumpkin over his head!

----------

Mordent (05-21-2014)

----------


## Roadmaster

> I don't care how hopped up on PCP someone is, if you put a bullet through each of their kneecaps, they're going down.


 Yes, they will but are you really going to shoot with people around going after a small part of their body. If they move fast you could end up killing another person. Not everyone on PCP knew what they were taking or the first time back then. Just like Molly and other drugs, people get hot don't know what the are doing and strip.

----------


## Calypso Jones

I guess I could carry a tranquilizer gun.

----------


## Roadmaster

> I guess I could carry a tranquilizer gun.


 A regular person can use those ties, the more they struggle the more it tightens. It at least buys time unless they have a gun, then run. :Smiley20:

----------


## Dan40

Why do the authority paranoid cop haters, "think," for lack of a better word, that there is any distinction between a person out of his mind and a person out of his mind on some drug.

The person IS completely irrational and a danger to the public and to the police.

I can just imagine one of our resident authority paranoid cop haters being attacked by a crazy, drugged or not, and screaming at a cop, "Don't hurt him!"  "Talk him out of pounding my face for another half hour."  "He's just exercising his, OWWW, free speech."

----------

DonGlock26 (05-21-2014)

----------


## Roadmaster

> Why do the authority paranoid cop haters, "think," for lack of a better word, that there is any distinction between a person out of his mind and a person out of his mind on some drug.
> 
> The person IS completely irrational and a danger to the public and to the police.
> 
> I can just imagine one of our resident authority paranoid cop haters being attacked by a crazy, drugged or not, and screaming at a cop, "Don't hurt him!"  "Talk him out of pounding my face for another half hour."  "He's just exercising his, OWWW, free speech."


What I said has nothing to do with hating cops. More cops get hurt or killed by taking these subjects head on. For their safety they should try to use this first. That tazer doesn't work, they just get madder and go after them. Too many cops get back injuries, broken bones and the list goes on including death. Doing this will reduce harm to them.

----------


## Roadmaster

Here is a good example and it's a wonder a cop wasn't killed. What  are you going to do if backup doesn't arrive quick. At least with those ties you have some control. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/cri...aser-bato.html

I don't know why police don't carry this in their cars these days and those belts.

----------


## DonGlock26

> You're the one LOLing.  Backatcha.


Not about the Grant incident. That would be you.  :Geez:

----------


## DonGlock26

> Hey Glock, you style of ''wear'em out by massive postings'' isn't working. I come home from shopping for an hour and have a dozen quote notifications from you. You really need this much attention. I thought you were a cop. I guess I'm wrong, cops don't have this kind of time, making you a wannabe!


I'm not notifying you. That's the forum software than apparently you can't figure out. 

How are you wore out? You can answer the question and move on at any time. Everyone here is wondering if you ever will answer.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Newsflash!  Hate to break it to you, man, but nobody gives a shit about the proper way of restraining a guy on PCP.


You don't give a shit about controlling resisting suspects?

----------


## Mordent

> Yes, they will but are you really going to shoot with people around going after a small part of their body. If they move fast you could end up killing another person. Not everyone on PCP knew what they were taking or the first time back then. Just like Molly and other drugs, people get hot don't know what the are doing and strip.


Personally, I'd just avoid the nutbag. But if he was threatening me or mine, and I had a firearm, I'm shooting his dumb ass.

----------

DeadEye (05-21-2014)

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> What happens to those patients after they "dry out"? Are they set free to drug up again? Or do they have to go to taxpayer-funded rehab? Do you know? Reason I ask is.....I knew of a drug addict guy in Houston that managed to get onto social security disability for his "drug problem" and received as much or more a month than many folks that paid into the system their entire working lives. This guy was only 23 and had only been a college student and had never worked. It just doesn't seem fair. But it does explain why the social security system is going broke faster than expected.


I really have no idea what became of the guy. He did have legal issues related to the incident but, have no idea how that worked out for him. We never saw him again.

----------


## DonGlock26

> PCP is such a hellish drug, that they often die, or are killed before their bodies just give it up and they are subdued.   One of my clients' son  was tazed over 50 times, with wires hanging off every part of his body before he finally died of a heart attack brought on by the massive amounts of electricity.   Now we have even more drugs that mimic PCP, we have forms of marijuana that do the same thing.  
> 
> I blame the "let's legalize drugs" crowd that gives some legitimacy to drug use.



Yep, the synthetic marijuana and "bath salts" are horrible.

----------


## DonGlock26

> But there are other ways. You can take those ties you get from a hardware store, tie them together, *sneak up and get it around their legs and tighten it without having to be in harms way.* It will slow them down just like the belt. Now at my age today may be able to still do this but don't know if I would try.


By yourself in the street or swarming them?

----------


## DonGlock26

> In other words it's a lot less dangerous for cops to do this first than to meet this person head on. These techniques will slow the person down so they can get cuffs on them. To be honest it works. Like roping cattle.


How many PCP users have you snuck up on in the street and zip tied? If they can break handcuffs and shrug off tasers and pepper spray, how do you think the Radio Shack zip ties will work?

----------

Micketto (05-22-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> Yep, the synthetic marijuana and "bath salts" are horrible.


Hey, we agree. Huh, looky there.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I guess I could carry a tranquilizer gun.


_Is that a tranquilizer gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me? _ 


Be warned, if he dies, you will be called a murderer. Or, maybe that's just for cops.

----------


## Longshot

I wouldn't restrain him. Why would I need to restrain him?

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> Newsflash! Hate to break it to you, man, but nobody gives a shit about the proper way of restraining a guy on PCP.
> 
> People give a shit about cops who think Kelly Thomas was on PCP, kill him, then find out his toxicology report is squeaky clean.


I give a shit about such things because, unlike most people, I have actually done it. If I hadn't had the right group of guys with me, it could have turned out REALLY BAD for me and/or the other guys. When on PCP, pain is minimized, adrenaline is flowing, and seeming small people can exhibit levels of strength that are very dangerous for anyone on the receiving end of their rage.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Why do the authority paranoid cop haters, "think," for lack of a better word, that there is any distinction between a person out of his mind and a person out of his mind on some drug.
> 
> The person IS completely irrational and a danger to the public and to the police.
> 
> I can just imagine one of our resident authority paranoid cop haters being attacked by a crazy, drugged or not, and screaming at a cop, "Don't hurt him!"  "Talk him out of pounding my face for another half hour."  "He's just exercising his, OWWW, free speech."



You know those chili cheese fries-covered, cop-hating fingers would be a'dialing 911 and screaming about the  unacceptable response time, if the PCP boy was raping them.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Personally, I'd just avoid the nutbag. But if he was threatening me or mine, and I had a firearm, I'm shooting his dumb ass.


 If you don't have any weapon their minds are easily distracted. Point and say over there, or he wants you, is that yours to confuse them. Anything if you know you can't take him down. Then get them to a save place. Yes if I had a gun or knife I would use it.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Here is a good example and it's a wonder a cop wasn't killed. What  are you going to do if backup doesn't arrive quick. At least with those ties you have some control. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/cri...aser-bato.html
> 
> I don't know why police don't carry this in their cars these days and those belts.






> Four officers working together were finally able to control the suspect, identified as 33-year-old Stephen Lee Wise, and apply hand and leg restraints, police said.


If the suspect then died, the cop-haters would call them murderers.

----------


## Victory

> You don't give a shit about controlling resisting suspects?


 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

Holy cow this is priceless!  Try sticking to the subject just once!  Are we talking about a suspect on PCP or just high on life?  Wait!  Don't tell me.  I know the answer.

Answer:  Whateverthehell suits my agenda.  I'll push the PCP talk when I want to scare you into thinking every cop encounter involves a suspect on PCP then I'll abandon it when I want to pull your heart strings and make you think Victory doesn't give a shit about cops.  It's whatever suits my agenda.

I hope you realize people can see right through this tactic.

----------


## Roadmaster

> How many PCP users have you snuck up on in the street and zip tied? If they can break handcuffs and shrug off tasers and pepper spray, how do you think the Radio Shack zip ties will work?


 It works and slows them down.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Holy cow this is priceless!  Try sticking to the subject just once!  Are we talking about a suspect on PCP or just high on life?  Wait!  Don't tell me.  I know the answer.
> 
> Answer:  Whateverthehell suits my agenda.  I'll push the PCP talk when I want to scare you into thinking every cop encounter involves a suspect on PCP then I'll abandon it when I want to pull your heart strings and make you think Victory doesn't give a shit about cops.  It's whatever suits my agenda.
> 
> I hope you realize people can see right through this tactic.


Do you give a shit about resisting suspects or not?

Did you even tell us how you would control a resisting PCP suspect?

----------


## DonGlock26

> It works and slows them down.


Ok, have you done this on the street? Where have you seen it done?

----------


## Roadmaster

> Ok, have you done this on the street? Where have you seen it done?


It's none of your business. These ties are thick the ones used and it takes concentration to get them off. You try to put more than one. If you can while the subject is doing this then bring the belt over him.

----------


## Victory

> Do you give a shit about resisting suspects or not?


Yes.




> Did you even tell us how you would control a resisting PCP suspect?


I don't give a shit.  That's not an important topic.  PCP suspects need to be controlled.  I am unaware of any suspect on PCP in ANY of the "cops gone bad" threads here.  That's why I don't give a shit.  You're still trying to create a straw man.  You create the artificial straw man (PCP suspect) for people to knock down and then assume people actually knock down the real point of your argument and give the bad cops a break.  Ain't gonna happen.

I'm still not interested in entertaining your logical fallacy.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Yeah, being a San Francisco or BART cop is easy street. LOL!!!!


BART police have proven that they are good at killing people who are neutralized, or killing other officers. I wouldn't be cheering them on. Stolen vehicles and fare jumpers make up the bulk of their days.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Ken, will you stick around and answer this question?


What do you think I have, a government job? I can't live on the forum as you seem to expect. Maybe I should have been an armed government bureaucrat. Kill someone, get a nice paid vacation and then a cushy desk job. then I could post all day defending the right of my fellows to kill mundane citizens.




> What do you mean by "neutralize the threat"? What force would you use?


In the case of the OP, whatever is necessary to neutralize the threat. He has already attacked people and appears to be threatening more. I have no problem with any citizen, including those hired to perform security, engaging in the activities necessary to protect life or property of themselves and others. I do not believe that armed government bureaucrats should have rights that other citizens do not have, including to initiate aggression against people.

In the OP, aggression was already initiated.

What may be hard for you to imagine is that I am not against security. I am against government security because government security forces serve the government, not citizens, and they will initiate aggression against citizens if ordered to do so by their employers. That makes them a dangerous threat to liberty.

----------

DeadEye (05-21-2014),Longshot (05-21-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Holy cow this is priceless!  Try sticking to the subject just once!  Are we talking about a suspect on PCP or just high on life?  Wait!  Don't tell me.  I know the answer.
> 
> Answer:  Whateverthehell suits my agenda.  I'll push the PCP talk when I want to scare you into thinking every cop encounter involves a suspect on PCP then I'll abandon it when I want to pull your heart strings and make you think Victory doesn't give a shit about cops.  It's whatever suits my agenda.
> 
> I hope you realize people can see right through this tactic.


They and their employers have to scare people into paying their bloated salaries, early pensions, and shiny new equipment. How do you think Clinton got his "100,000 cops on the streets" rhetoric turned into reality? Fear-mongering.  Don't let these progressive holster-sniffers fool you about being for small government when they complain about Obama or some ABC agency. They love government when it fits their agenda. That's why they bring up the PCP bogeyman or some other crap. Notice they don't mention alcohol, which actually leads non-aggressive people to become aggressive and is vastly more common to encounter.

----------

DeadEye (05-21-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> In the OP, aggression was already initiated.


I agree with you. When one is being attacked and is in imminent fear of sever bodily harm, then the use of force is justified to stop that threat. One does not have a responsibility to restrain one's attacker. One may use force (including deadly force) to stop the attacker.

----------

DeadEye (05-21-2014)

----------


## Roadmaster

There is a difference between a person on PCP and a 80 year old woman when it comes to resisting arrest. If a cop can't control this woman without tazing her, he needs to find another job.

----------


## Dan40

> What I said has nothing to do with hating cops. More cops get hurt or killed by taking these subjects head on. For their safety they should try to use this first. That tazer doesn't work, they just get madder and go after them. Too many cops get back injuries, broken bones and the list goes on including death. Doing this will reduce harm to them.


I have no argument with what you're saying.

----------


## DonGlock26

> It's none of your business. These ties are thick the ones used and it takes concentration to get them off. You try to put more than one. If you can while the subject is doing this then bring the belt over him.


So, this is all speculation? Ok, I think it wouldn't work until the person was swarmed.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> There is a difference between a person on PCP and a 80 year old woman when it comes to resisting arrest. If a cop can't control this woman without tazing her, he needs to find another job.


Have you seen an 80 year old on PCP? They turn into this:





It just doesn't turn up well on camera.

----------


## Roadmaster

> So, this is all speculation? Ok, I think it wouldn't work until the person was swarmed.


One person can do this. I don't think you have ever seen this done.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a shit.  That's not an important topic.  PCP suspects need to be controlled.  I am unaware of any suspect on PCP in ANY of the "cops gone bad" threads here.  That's why I don't give a shit.  You're still trying to create a straw man.  You create the artificial straw man (PCP suspect) for people to knock down and then assume people actually knock down the real point of your argument and give the bad cops a break.  Ain't gonna happen.
> 
> I'm still not interested in entertaining your logical fallacy.



This isn't a thread about a specific incident. This is my OP about controlling difficult to control suspects and you refuse to even attempt to answer. 

Every cop critic that can't tell us how they would do it from the safety of their living room is showing what Monday morning quarterbacks they are.

----------


## DonGlock26

> BART police have proven that they are good at killing people who are neutralized, or killing other officers. I wouldn't be cheering them on. Stolen vehicles and fare jumpers make up the bulk of their days.


I guess American gun owners suck because they have accidental discharges and kill their own kids using your standards.

----------


## Sheldonna

> I think they would be appalled about what would happen to the dopers in a society without police. They are upset over attempts to restrain these people. *Citizens blasting them out of their socks would be a much greater use of force*.


You better believe it.  It would be back to the wild west version of justice.

----------


## DonGlock26

> What do you think I have, a government job? I can't live on the forum as you seem to expect. Maybe I should have been an armed government bureaucrat. Kill someone, get a nice paid vacation and then a cushy desk job. then I could post all day defending the right of my fellows to kill mundane citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of the OP, whatever is necessary to neutralize the threat. He has already attacked people and appears to be threatening more. I have no problem with any citizen, including those hired to perform security, engaging in the activities necessary to protect life or property of themselves and others. I do not believe that armed government bureaucrats should have rights that other citizens do not have, including to initiate aggression against people.
> 
> In the OP, aggression was already initiated.
> 
> What may be hard for you to imagine is that I am not against security. I am against government security because government security forces serve the government, not citizens, and they will initiate aggression against citizens if ordered to do so by their employers. That makes them a dangerous threat to liberty.


Can you describe this necessary force that you approve of? It's very vague. Who decides, if the force used in necessary? The citizen using it at the time or the internet after the media prints an article critical of the citizen?

----------


## DonGlock26

> I agree with you. When one is being attacked and is in imminent fear of sever bodily harm, then the use of force is justified to stop that threat. One does not have a responsibility to restrain one's attacker. One may use force (including deadly force) to stop the attacker.


So, the PCP man in the first video should have just been shot and killed?

----------


## Sheldonna

> Yes, they are free to drug up again.
> 
> That's the joy of the welfare state. You can get gov't checks for being mentally ill or a drug addict.


You can get government subsidized for bad choices you make in life, even while government makes life hell for folks that made a_ll good choices._   One more reason why government is EVIL.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (05-22-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> There is a difference between a person on PCP and a 80 year old woman when it comes to resisting arrest. If a cop can't control this woman without tazing her, he needs to find another job.


How would you restrain an 80 year old woman? Would you wrench her arms behind her back in order to hand cuff her?

----------


## DonGlock26

> One person can do this. I don't think you have ever seen this done.


Do you have a source for this technique? Or, perhaps a You Tube video?

----------

Conservative Libertarian (05-22-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> Who decides, if the force used in necessary?


A jury.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (05-21-2014),DeadEye (05-21-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> You better believe it.  It would be back to the wild west version of justice.


Is that what the cop haters want?

----------


## DonGlock26

> You can get government subsidized for bad choices you make in life, even while government makes life hell for folks that made a_ll good choices._   One more reason why government is EVIL.


It's progressive evil though.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (05-22-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> A jury.


I see, so you come to the woman's aid and then get put on trial.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (05-22-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I guess American gun owners suck because they have accidental discharges and kill their own kids using your standards.


The ones who kill their kids do suck. Guns are dangerous in negligent hands. There is no reason whatsoever that a gun should ever be pointed any other human being unless there is an intent by the wielder to kill the other person.
In fact, by your standards, it would be a good reason to put their heads through a plate glass window.

----------


## DonGlock26

> The ones who kill their kids do suck. Guns are dangerous in negligent hands. There is no reason whatsoever that a gun should ever be pointed any other human being unless there is an intent by the wielder to kill the other person.
> In fact, by your standards, it would be a good reason to put their heads through a plate glass window.


No, they all suck because BART sucks, Kenneth.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> You better believe it.  It would be back to the wild west version of justice.


The wild west was surprisingly peaceful, despite the fantastic stories described in dime store novels created for consumption by east coast city-dwellers. Some people will believe everything they read in the media, yet the purpose of the media is to get people to spend their money by consuming more of it, and they do that by sensationalizing stories and outright deceit. 

http://www.independent.org/publicati...icle.asp?a=803

One of the great things about a system where government is highly decentralized is that there are very few things that qualify as crimes. The "Wild West" version of justice would have been far more just than what is in place today, largely because only those actions which constituted force or fraud, or the threat of it, against another human being were considered crimes. Today there are innumerable laws on the books that make peaceful activities into crimes and therefore the subject of the criminal "justice" system.

----------

DeadEye (05-21-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> I see, so you come to the woman's aid and then get put on trial.


If you use deadly force and the DA charges you, you get put on trial, yeah.

----------


## Roadmaster

> Do you have a source for this technique? Or, perhaps a You Tube video?


 I have no idea if you tube has any but it was an old technique insane asylums and some police divisions used. In these asylums you couldn't go around killing or beating these  people and some divisions picked up their technique, even trained their officers to use because it was more affective and least likely for the officers or staff to get hurt in the process. I guess that all faded away with the tazers but these people can easily tear off those. Sometimes the old ways are the best. One person back then could restrain a person crazy or on PCP. I think they should bring it back or at least train people to do this.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Can you describe this necessary force that you approve of? It's very vague. Who decides, if the force used in necessary?


There's thing. It's probably entirely new to you, since you believe that armed government bureaucrats should be judge, jury, and executioner, called "courts" that decide these things when there is a complaint. Courts use what are called "juries" whereby local people from the community help to decide if a crime was committed.

Now, I'll grant you that the current "justice" system is pretty screwed up. It's because of progressives (like yourself) who demand that government make everything that thye don't like to be a crime, whether or not it actually harms or would harm someone. Of course, politicians, being greedy for power, are only too happy to oblige, and thus we get a bloated "justice" system and far, far too many armed government bureaucrats on the streets to enforce those political dictates.

This concept sounds strange. It probably sounds vaguely anarchic to you. After all, who can possibly imagine that the government doesn't just decide what is or is not the proper use of force and issue regulations on it? An unregulated life is far too strange and free to suit you progressives.




> The citizen using it at the time or the internet after the media prints an article critical of the citizen?


You put a lot of stock into the media. I guess that make sense. It's the primary tool of progessive policy-making. Get everyone worked up, then get politicians to "fix" it with more legislation.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I have no idea if you tube has any but it was an old technique insane asylums and some police divisions used. In these asylums you couldn't go around killing or beating these  people and some divisions picked up their technique, even trained their officers to use because it was more affective and least likely for the officers or staff to get hurt in the process. I guess that all faded away with the tazers but these people can easily tear off those. Sometimes the old ways are the best. One person back then could restrain a person crazy or on PCP. I think they should bring it back or at least train people to do this.


They would sneak up and zip tie people or knock them down and zip tie them?

People never died in  insane asylums? You know this how?

You'll have to show us some actual evidence to back up this claim- "One person back then could restrain a person crazy or on PCP."

It seems like pure speculation on your part.

----------


## DonGlock26

> There's thing. It's probably entirely new to you, since you believe that armed government bureaucrats should be judge, jury, and executioner, called "courts" that decide these things when there is a complaint. Courts use what are called "juries" whereby local people from the community help to decide if a crime was committed.
> 
> Now, I'll grant you that the current "justice" system is pretty screwed up. It's because of progressives (like yourself) who demand that government make everything that thye don't like to be a crime, whether or not it actually harms or would harm someone. Of course, politicians, being greedy for power, are only too happy to oblige, and thus we get a bloated "justice" system and far, far too many armed government bureaucrats on the streets to enforce those political dictates.
> 
> This concept sounds strange. It probably sounds vaguely anarchic to you. After all, who can possibly imagine that the government doesn't just decide what is or is not the proper use of force and issue regulations on it? An unregulated life is far too strange and free to suit you progressives.
> 
> 
> 
> You put a lot of stock into the media. I guess that make sense. It's the primary tool of progessive policy-making. Get everyone worked up, then get politicians to "fix" it with more legislation.



So, you use force to stop a PCP suspect who subsequently dies and then wait and see if you go to prison or not based on a jury's decision. Ken, do you realize that many people would call you a murderer as you call people murderers? 

You don't comment in threads based on media reports???

----------


## Longshot

> So, you use force to stop a PCP suspect who subsequently dies and then wait and see if you go to prison or not based on a jury's decision.


That's how it works. If you defend yourself with deadly force, first the DA can consider it a righteous shoot and opt not to press charges. If he does, however, your guilt will be decided by a jury.

----------


## DonGlock26

> That's how it works. If you defend yourself with deadly force, first the DA can consider it a righteous shoot and opt not to press charges. If he does, however, your guilt will be decided by a jury.


So, why do all these police critics complain and assign guilt before a jury or DA decides?

----------


## Sheldonna

> Is that what the cop haters want?


Some of them, yes.  But the ones on the left hate the fact that cops are around to curtail their criminal activities....so no, they just hate their opposition.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (05-22-2014),DonGlock26 (05-21-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> So, why do all these police critics complain and assign guilt before a jury or DA decides?


The only important decisions are those of the DA and the jury. The rest is just opinion.

----------


## Sheldonna

> It's progressive evil though.


And any government that has enough power to make life hell for good folks.....is due to progressives/leftists/Democrats (and RINOs).

That's why the country would be so much better off if Tea Party Patriots were in control.  Less government = less power = less evil.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (05-22-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Some of them, yes.  But the ones on the left hate the fact that cops are around to curtail their criminal activities....so no, they just hate their opposition.


Makes sense.

----------


## Trinnity

> How would you restrain this man?


Mace to the face and a nut shot with a steel toed boot.

----------

DeadEye (05-21-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> The only important decisions are those of the DA and the jury. The rest is just opinion.


How can a rational person come to those conclusions, when as you say a DA or jury really decides?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Mace to the face and a nut shot with a steel toed boot.


Honestly, on PCP, that might not register with mission control.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (05-22-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> How can a rational person come to those conclusions, when as you say a DA or jury really decides?


The DA and jury decide whether you will be convicted. Nobody else but them decides that.

----------


## Sheldonna

> The wild west was surprisingly peaceful, despite the fantastic stories described in dime store novels created for consumption by east coast city-dwellers. Some people will believe everything they read in the media, yet the purpose of the media is to get people to spend their money by consuming more of it, and they do that by sensationalizing stories and outright deceit. 
> 
> http://www.independent.org/publicati...icle.asp?a=803
> 
> One of the great things about a system where government is highly decentralized is that there are very few things that qualify as crimes. The "Wild West" version of justice would have been far more just than what is in place today, largely because only those actions which constituted force or fraud, or the threat of it, against another human being were considered crimes. Today there are innumerable laws on the books that make peaceful activities into crimes and therefore the subject of the criminal "justice" system.


Can't argue with that.  Except for the fact that "surprisingly peaceful" is relative.  Less centralized population = less crime.  But the "big cities" still had their fair share (or  more) of criminal activity and violence.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> A jury.


This is all the jury that the conservative authoritarian progressive needs:

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I see, so you come to the woman's aid and then get put on trial.


And.....that's why we have grand juries!

Were you busy drinking behind the barn while your civics classes were going on?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_j..._United_States

It's no wonder you people worship armed government bureaucrats. You live in fear and ignorance and have no conception of what it means to be free other than what your government and your MSM tells you.

----------


## Trinnity

> Honestly, on PCP, that might not register with mission control.


True, but if you can get him in the eyes, he can't see.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Can't argue with that.  Except for the fact that "surprisingly peaceful" is relative.  Less centralized population = less crime.  But the "big cities" still had their fair share (or  more) of criminal activity and violence.


This is true, yet the big cities were not part of the "wild west." Crime in the western frontier was remarkably low. Most people were armed, and despite what is shown in cinema, most criminals do not want to deal with armed victims and their armed neighbors. People there depended on each other for survival, and despite the lack of centralized government they formed their own constitutions and contracts and managed to maintain law and order without lots of bureaucrats running around. In fact, it was probably far easier. Much like if your homeowners association provided security instead of police forces. They aren't going to enforce every little government law. They will just enforce peace by going after those who break it.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> No, they all suck because BART sucks, Kenneth.


BART does suck. It's a government agency, like any other, populated by overpaid, over-entitled, unaccountable bureaucrats, armed or not.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> So, you use force to stop a PCP suspect who subsequently dies and then wait and see if you go to prison or not based on a jury's decision. Ken, do you realize that many people would call you a murderer as you call people murderers?


The only people I call murderers are those who kill innocent people or who use violence in far greater degree than is necessary to contain a threat. Much like you'd kill your best friend because he overstayed his welcome in your house and grabbed a bag of cheetohs on the way out. Of course, if you are a cop, that might be ok by you.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> So, why do all these police critics complain and assign guilt before a jury or DA decides?


Because the agencies which employ and arm their bureaucrats are the ones that usually investigate any complaint made against one of their employees. Those employees, being employed by government, enjoy immunities, privileges, and other protections which private citizens do not have. They protect each other from whistle-blowers, often using their privileges and immunities to shut down any criticism and possibly harming the critics through harassment and intimidation.

Therefore, the citizenry, realizing that the justice system has become corrupt and will not hold it's employees accountable, must find alternative methods to voicing their complaints.

----------


## DonGlock26

> The DA and jury decide whether you will be convicted. Nobody else but them decides that.


That's not what I asked and you are repeating yourself.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Some of them, yes.  But the ones on the left hate the fact that cops are around to curtail their criminal activities....so no, they just hate their opposition.


You realize that under the current system of justice, that you commit several crimes a day? If an armed government bureaucrat had a desire to harass you, for whatever reason, that he or she could likely pin a charge on you? A federal charge could easily ruin your life.

----------

Victory (05-22-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> The only people I call murderers are those who kill innocent people or who use violence in far greater degree than is necessary to contain a threat.


Ok, so how would you control a man on drugs or PCP that isn't "violence in far greater degree than is necessary"?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Ok, so how would you control a man on drugs or PCP that isn't "violence in far greater degree than is necessary"?


What about alcohol? It's far more likely I'm going to encounter an angry drunk than someone on PCP. PCP not only does not cause anger, it's not a common drug to begin with. Alcohol, on the other hand, is exceedingly common and millions of people imbibe it every night in clubs and homes restaurants all over the country. Shouldn't they face the same amount of violence as the PCP user?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Because the agencies which employ and arm their bureaucrats are the ones that usually investigate any complaint made against one of their employees. Those employees, being employed by government, enjoy immunities, privileges, and other protections which private citizens do not have. They protect each other from whistle-blowers, often using their privileges and immunities to shut down any criticism and possibly harming the critics through harassment and intimidation.
> 
> Therefore, the citizenry, realizing that the justice system has become corrupt and will not hold it's employees accountable, must find alternative methods to voicing their complaints.


The DoJ will certainly investigate cops. 

Like what? Immunity because they are enforcing the law and required to subdue law breakers?


How does this work "privileges and immunities to shut down any criticism"?

So, the remedy is to accuse people of murder willy nilly?

----------


## DonGlock26

> What about alcohol? It's far more likely I'm going to encounter an angry drunk than someone on PCP. PCP not only does not cause anger, it's not a common drug to begin with. Alcohol, on the other hand, is exceedingly common and millions of people imbibe it every night in clubs and homes restaurants all over the country. Shouldn't they face the same amount of violence as the PCP user?


_Ok, so how would you control a man on alcohol that isn't "violence in far greater degree than is necessary" who is resisting handcuffing?_

----------


## Longshot

> _Ok, so how would you control a man on alcohol that isn't "violence in far greater degree than is necessary" who is resisting handcuffing?_


If somebody attacked me, I would not handcuff him, I would use force of my own to stop his attack.

----------


## Roadmaster

> They would sneak up and zip tie people or knock them down and zip tie them?
> 
> People never died in  insane asylums? You know this how?
> 
> You'll have to show us some actual evidence to back up this claim- "One person back then could restrain a person crazy or on PCP."
> 
> It seems like pure speculation on your part.


It's called roping you don't knock the person down. I don't think you have ever been around dangerous people three times your size.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> The DoJ will certainly investigate cops.


Oh look, the armed government bureaucrats from one government agency are investigating the armed government bureaucrats from another government agency. Well, that should lead to justice! You progressives sure have a lot of faith in government.




> Like what? Immunity because they are enforcing the law and required to subdue law breakers?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity




> How does this work "privileges and immunities to shut down any criticism"?




They are privileged to carry weapons just about anywhere. You are not. They are privileged with the powers of arrest. You are not. They can use those powers of arrest to pin just about anything on a citizen, and as long as they claim it is lawful, it is very easy for them to weasel out of a lawsuit or even criminal charges.




> So, the remedy is to accuse people of murder willy nilly?




So, tell me, has a jury proven that Obama is doing all that he can to destroy the country? Or do you only put your trust in government bureaucrats to do the right thing when it suits your agenda? Probably the latter, like most progressive hypocrites. It's right when you do it for your reasons; wrong when others do it for theirs.

----------


## JB

> PCP is such a hellish drug, that they often die, or are killed before their bodies just give it up and they are subdued.   One of my clients' son  was tazed over 50 times, with wires hanging off every part of his body before he finally died of a heart attack brought on by the massive amounts of electricity.   Now we have even more drugs that mimic PCP, we have forms of marijuana that do the same thing.  
> 
> I blame the "let's legalize drugs" crowd that gives some legitimacy to drug use.


Drugs are already illegal and this still happens. Legalizing won't change that. Blame whoever you want though.

----------

DeadEye (05-21-2014)

----------


## JB

I can't say what I'd do. Whatever I had to in that situation I guess.

In fact, if you know for certain what you'd do, you probably are full of shit as it wouldn't work out even close to how you dream it would. Sounds like wishing and ego fluffing.

Even cops don't know. They have tools and procedures sure, but in the end it takes whatever it takes.

I'm no fan of bad, egotistical cops, but people running around like those in those videos I won't watch need to be removed from society for an extended period of time and get medical and psychological help.

----------


## Rudy2D

> Some things just can't be unseen.
> 
> When I worked in hospital security, occasionally, I had to restrain various ODs including PCP ODs. Since they were considered to be patients, we had to use brute force without actually hurting them--as if they could actually feel anything.
> 
> The guy was brought in on a ambulance gurney laying on his belly and his hands in cuffs behind him. He was cussing up a storm calling the paramedic and cop every name in the book. He was very combative but didn't have enough coordination to walk. 
> 
> Transferring him to a hospital ER bed was fun. Keep in mind, this guy was only 5'8" tall and 140 lbs (in generally good shape). It took 7 of us to transfer him to the cart with his wrists and ankles restrained with heavy leather cuffs. He broke one wrist and one ankle restraint. After replacing the restraints, we had to tie his chest and upper legs to the bed with sheets to prevent him from gain leverage to break them again. 
> 
> Later, we had to transfer him to intensive care because that's where they took ODs and the ordeal started all over again. He fought us so hard that you could actually feel his bones bend in your hands. He could feel no pain and as a result, exhibited unusual strength even though he couldn't walk. The whole ordeal took over 4 hours from 4 am to 8am.
> ...


I never had to do that; but I was pretty good at comforting other, non-violent mental patients.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (05-22-2014)

----------


## Rudy2D

> Ain't no damn sense in normal people having to put up with this crap and have to endure it till someone comes.   National movement to take down these people OURSELVES is in order.  No help coming from the alleged authorities.


I would'a taken him down.  Especially from up on top the turnstile--just grab an ankle and slam him on the floor.

----------


## Rudy2D

> The neighbors, without a police dept. available, are going to use a 12ga or an AR on the dopers, when they attack someone or begin to destroy a car.


With the 2nd Amendment, We don't need no stinkin' badges.

----------


## metheron

> Hey, I held a thief at gun point for 40 minutes once. I called three times, and ask the dispatcher...I said, "you did hear that I have this gun point, right?". I let him go and the cops showed up about 10 minutes later. Ruger .40's with a sixteen round clip, gets heavy.....
> 
> I don't count on the police for nothing.


Why the gun Mike? You shouldn't aim a loaded gun at someone unless you are willing to shoot that person. Under what circumstances would you have used that weapon?

----------


## DeadEye

> PCP is such a hellish drug, that they often die, or are killed before their bodies just give it up and they are subdued.   One of my clients' son  was tazed over 50 times, with wires hanging off every part of his body before he finally died of a heart attack brought on by the massive amounts of electricity.   Now we have even more drugs that mimic PCP, we have forms of marijuana that do the same thing.  
> 
> I blame the "let's legalize drugs" crowd that gives some legitimacy to drug use.


How about being fair and blame the person responsible for taking the drugs.

----------


## DeadEye

> So, the PCP man in the first video should have just been shot and killed?


Yes, and I would congratulate the person who done it.

----------


## DonGlock26

> How about being fair and blame the person responsible for taking the drugs.


That's just crazy talk!!  It is always the cops' fault.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (05-22-2014),DeadEye (05-21-2014)

----------


## DeadEye

> Is that what the cop haters want?


Someone who criticizes cops is not necessarily cop haters and lumping them together with real cop haters shows you are not willing to accept the fact that some cops are bad as easily as anyone who criticizes cops is a cop hater. It's sorta like calling every black person a ******.

----------


## DonGlock26

> If somebody attacked me, I would not handcuff him, I would use force of my own to stop his attack.


We get it. You wouldn't restrain someone. Then, just butt out of the thread.

----------


## DonGlock26

> It's called roping you don't knock the person down. I don't think you have ever been around dangerous people three times your size.


Ok, is there source for this? ANYTHING on roping a resisting suspect?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Oh look, the armed government bureaucrats from one government agency are investigating the armed government bureaucrats from another government agency. Well, that should lead to justice! You progressives sure have a lot of faith in government.
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
> 
> 
> 
> They are privileged to carry weapons just about anywhere. You are not. They are privileged with the powers of arrest. You are not. They can use those powers of arrest to pin just about anything on a citizen, and as long as they claim it is lawful, it is very easy for them to weasel out of a lawsuit or even criminal charges.
> ...



The DoJ will certainly put cops in prison.


Yep, that's immunity during gov't function. So what? If they clearly break the law, they are liable. 

That's the gov't function not a privilege. They go towards the sounds of the guns. You may grab the bug out bag and flee in the wood-sided station wagon for the bunker.

Obama? Stick to the topic and answer the question directly for once.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I can't say what I'd do. Whatever I had to in that situation I guess.
> 
> In fact, if you know for certain what you'd do, you probably are full of shit as it wouldn't work out even close to how you dream it would. Sounds like wishing and ego fluffing.
> 
> Even cops don't know. They have tools and procedures sure, but in the end it takes whatever it takes.
> 
> I'm no fan of bad, egotistical cops, but people running around like those in those videos I won't watch need to be removed from society for an extended period of time and get medical and psychological help.


Sadly, there are some who, from the safety of their living room, will second guess the people actually confronting these dopers and even call the cops murderers should a PCP abuser die.

----------


## DonGlock26

> With the 2nd Amendment, We don't need no stinkin' badges.


With no rule of law, the rule would be Rule .303.

----------

Rudy2D (05-22-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Someone who criticizes cops is not necessarily cop haters and lumping them together with real cop haters shows you are not willing to accept the fact that some cops are bad as easily as anyone who criticizes cops is a cop hater. It's sorta like calling every black person a ******.


I use the term for the emotional professional cop-haters in this sub-forum and no one else. They know who they are. If someone isn't an irrational, rabid cop-hater, then I'm not talking about them.

Of course, there are bad cops. I just told Kenneth what the DoJ does to them.

----------


## Longshot

> We get it. You wouldn't restrain someone. Then, just butt out of the thread.


Why would any of us need to restrain someone who was attacking us? We have no obligation to do so  only to stop the threat.

----------


## michaelr

> Why the gun Mike? You shouldn't aim a loaded gun at someone unless you are willing to shoot that person. Under what circumstances would you have used that weapon?


I owned two houses on one property. He attempted to just walk into both. I lived in one of those homes. I allowed a brother and sister in law to live in the other. This guy was going to rob us.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> PCP is such a hellish drug, that they often die, or are killed before their bodies just give it up and they are subdued.   One of my clients' son  was tazed over 50 times, with wires hanging off every part of his body before he finally died of a heart attack brought on by the massive amounts of electricity.   Now we have even more drugs that mimic PCP, we have forms of marijuana that do the same thing.  
> 
> I blame the "let's legalize drugs" crowd that gives some legitimacy to drug use.


A fine example of progressive thought right there. Government has banned something and government determines right and wrong! How can anyone disagree with what the politicians say?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> The DoJ will certainly put cops in prison.


Yes, they'll occasionally move on particularly egregious violations. Government officials will often throw bones in order to keep the dupes feeling like something is being done. It's the slow boil effect; if the water gets too hot too fat, even people like you may take notice. For example, if they keep the political temperature right, then in 50 years conservative progressives like you will be wondering how anyone can possibly disagree with nationalized healthcare.

----------


## Micketto

> I get off on them murdering people.


Keep your sexual fantasies to yourself, dumbass.

----------


## Micketto

> Hey Glock, you style of ''wear'em out by massive postings'' isn't working. I come home from shopping for an hour and have a dozen quote notifications from you. You really need this much attention. I thought you were a cop. I guess I'm wrong, cops don't have this kind of time, making you a wannabe!


So you lied when you said you turned those off.

What kind of person needs to know every time someone responds to their posts?

There are real people out there.... go meet some.
Because sitting online avoiding questions, and claiming there weren't any, then complaining when someone responds by repeating the questions (that you continue to avoid)... is only making you look like an idiot.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-22-2014)

----------


## Micketto

> A regular person can use those ties, the more they struggle the more it tightens.


No they don't.

And good luck getting those on the men in the videos, ffs.

----------


## Micketto

> I'm not notifying you. That's the forum software than apparently you can't figure out.


Exactly.  It's a feature he has _intentionally_ turned on, because it's important for him to know every time someone responds to him.

Then he complains that he gets them.

He told me last week he turned them off.
Apparently he lied.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-22-2014)

----------


## Micketto

> _Is that a tranquilizer gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me? _ 
> 
> 
> Be warned, if he dies, you will be called a murderer. Or, maybe that's just for cops.


She's white, he's black... she will be charged with a hate crime.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-22-2014)

----------


## Micketto

> It's none of your business.


So no?

----------


## fyrenza

> No they don't.
> 
> And good luck getting those on the men in the videos, ffs.


Perhaps I forgot to mention that, along with the hand-jobs, I was surreptitiously attaching zip ties?   :Smiley20:

----------


## Micketto

> I'm still not interested in entertaining your logical fallacy.


_
... he says in his 20-something'th post._

----------


## Micketto

> I see, so you come to the woman's aid and then get put on trial.


Ha.  If you're a cop... apparently you're _always_ on trial.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-22-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> So you lied when you said you turned those off.
> 
> What kind of person needs to know every time someone responds to their posts?
> 
> There are real people out there.... go meet some.
> Because sitting online avoiding questions, and claiming there weren't any, then complaining when someone responds by repeating the questions (that you continue to avoid)... is only making you look like an idiot.



Bam!!!  Knockout!!

----------


## Micketto

First this:




> Originally Posted by DonGlock26
> 
> 
>  Who decides, if the force used in necessary? ?
> 
> 
> A jury.


Then this:




> *If you use deadly force* and the DA charges you, *you get put on trial*, yeah.


You may want to make up your mind.  Does a jury decide?  Or is it predetermined before you go on trial?



So many experts... yet so little common sense.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-22-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Exactly.  It's a feature he has _intentionally_ turned on, because it's important for him to know every time someone responds to him.
> 
> Then he complains that he gets them.
> 
> He told me last week he turned them off.
> Apparently he lied.



Ahhh....interesting and yet weird at the same time.

----------


## Micketto

> How can a rational person come to those conclusions, when as you say a DA or jury really decides?


What I fail to understand is how he says "A jury" determines if force is excessive...then says if force is excessive, you will be put on trial.

Apparently he's familiar with juries who decide things before trials.

----------


## Micketto

> In fact, if you know for certain what you'd do, you probably are full of shit


Bingo.

But you'll never convince these armchair quarterbacks of that (especially the ones who keep zip ties on them at all times).

----------


## Micketto

> Someone who criticizes cops is not necessarily cop haters and lumping them together with real cop haters shows you are not willing to accept the fact that some cops are bad as easily as anyone who criticizes cops is a cop hater. It's sorta like calling every black person a ******.


Or... you could take a second, breathe, and realize he is only addressing the "cop haters".

Seems simple to me...

----------


## DonGlock26

> What I fail to understand is how he says "A jury" determines if force is excessive...then says if force is excessive, you will be put on trial.
> 
> Apparently he's familiar with juries who decide things before trials.


Obviously, the police, a DA, and a judge look at the set of facts before a jury ever sees them. Why he left that out is unknown.

----------


## Micketto

> Perhaps I forgot to mention that, along with the hand-jobs, I was surreptitiously attaching zip ties?


Now there's a dream I've had once.. or twenty times...

----------


## DonGlock26

> Bingo.
> 
> But you'll never convince these armchair quarterbacks of that (especially the ones who keep zip ties on them at all times).


The police critics have lost their shrill voices, when asked to tell us how they would do it in the real world. Telling, isn't it?

No wonder, they flipped out over this thread. They were exposed as being hypocrites.

If they had to restrain a mentally ill or drugged up person with force until that person fought themselves out, they would be in the same position as the police should that person die from over-exertion, positional asphyxia, a heart attack, or overdose. If that happened, they would be murderers using their twisted logic. We wouldn't even need an autopsy.

They know this and that is why they failed to answer and slinked off to lick their wounds until the next inflammatory initial news article or moonbat kook website rant.

----------


## fyrenza

> Bingo.
> 
> But you'll never convince these armchair quarterbacks of that (especially the ones who keep zip ties on them at all times).


Not just ANY zip ties ~

CABLE TIES :


http://www.globalindustrial.com/p/el...E&gclsrc=aw.ds

----------


## Micketto

> The police critics have lost their shrill voices, when asked to tell us how they would do it in the real world. Telling, isn't it?
> 
> No wonder, they flipped out over this thread. They were exposed as being hypocrites.
> 
> If they had to restrain a mentally ill or drugged up person with force until that person fought themselves out, they would be in the same position as the police should that person die from over-exertion, positional asphyxia, a heart attack, or overdose. If that happened, they would be murderers using their twisted logic. We wouldn't even need an autopsy.
> 
> They know this and that is why they failed to answer and slinked off to lick their wounds until the next inflammatory initial news article or moonbat kook website rant.


I also noticed they were hyper-focused on the PCP (even to the point of bringing it up in other threads).

Clearly these videos were just a few of the thousands of examples of out-of-control people the cops have to deal with.

But harping on "PCP" makes it easier for them avoid answering actual questions.

Oh well... You tried.
And they failed.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-22-2014)

----------


## fyrenza

Y'all DO understand what a Worst Case Scenario is, right?

I couldn't imagine anything worse than facing off with someone on PCP,

so why SHOULDN'T it be the worst thang I could post about?

What's Y'ALL's Worst Case Scenario,

because I've gotta tell ya,

^THAT^ one covers any/all drugs AND insanity.

----------


## fyrenza

Each, and every, situation requires quick thinking,

with some slant towards humanitarianism,

and just killing everyone and everything isn't exactly an option,

ESPECIALLY if they'll actually talk to/interact with you,

but you HAVE to listen to them before making your "judgement."

----------


## fyrenza

As <koff!> "funny" as my "hand job" answer was,

it was also REAL.

They got naked for SOME reason,
and my first guess is horniness,

and what do YOU think they would have done to someone that grabbed their wieners,
and started jacking them off,
while talking to them in a calm voice,
NOT "afraid" of them,
but just wEndering what was "up?"

No one ever considers that insanity is truly looking for love, in all the wrong places.

----------


## michaelr

> Keep your sexual fantasies to yourself, dumbass.


You're a spiteful little thing huh?!

----------


## michaelr

> So you lied when you said you turned those off.
> 
> What kind of person needs to know every time someone responds to their posts?
> 
> There are real people out there.... go meet some.
> Because sitting online avoiding questions, and claiming there weren't any, then complaining when someone responds by repeating the questions (that you continue to avoid)... is only making you look like an idiot.


No. I left them off for a couple days, then turned them back on. Is that OK with you. Should I check in and announce my intentions with you? 

Spiteful, just spiteful. Low self esteem issues I'm sure.

----------


## DeadEye

> Or... you could take a second, breathe, and realize he is only addressing the "cop haters".
> 
> Seems simple to me...


That's because you are a simple person, I suppose. Until I made this point and he replied there was no way for me to understand who these supposed cop haters are. Mike is not a cop hater but he and a few others do have enough sense to know a bad cop when we see one.

----------


## Longshot

> What I fail to understand is how he says "A jury" determines if force is excessive...then says if force is excessive, you will be put on trial.
> 
> Apparently he's familiar with juries who decide things before trials.


The DA decides whether to bring the case to a grand jury. The grand jury decides whether to press charges. The trial jury decides whether or not you are guilty of those charges.

----------


## fyrenza

"WE,"

in the royal sense of the word,

DO NOT "hate" the police,

but we expect them to PROTECT us/US, 
not kill us/US,
nor treat us/US like some cow pie they stepped in.

WE expect that we can actually TALK to them,
and EXPLAIN,

but nowadays, if we try ^that?^

We're suspect/uncooperative/resisting arrest/etc.,

and are ASKING to get tazed, batoned/flashlighted, cuffed,

and if not actually put into the hospital/killed,

arrested.

WTF is up with ^THAT?^

----------

DeadEye (05-22-2014)

----------


## Micketto

> As <koff!> "funny" as my "hand job" answer was,
> 
> it was also REAL.
> 
> They got naked for SOME reason,
> and my first guess is horniness,
> 
> and what do YOU think they would have done to someone that grabbed their wieners,
> and started jacking them off,
> ...


So you're saying, if one comes across a naked man, out of his mind, just jack him off ?

Michaelr... are you taking notes ?

----------


## Micketto

> No. I left them off for a couple days, then turned them back on. Is that OK with you. Should I check in and announce my intentions with you?


I don't care if you turn them on or off, I only grow old of you whining about them.

"couple days".... the usual save for "I'm turning them off!".

----------


## Micketto

> That's because you are a simple person, I suppose.


Or... I have the ability to follow a conversation. As does everyone here but you, it seems.





> Until I made this point and he replied there was no way for me to understand who these supposed cop haters are. Mike is not a cop hater but he and a few others do have enough sense to know a bad cop when we see one.


It's sweet to help these obvious cop-haters save face, but as I said.. common sense should have told you who he was addressing in the first place.

Posting multiple times about it is mindless.    But don't let that stop ya...

----------


## Micketto

> "WE,"
> 
> in the royal sense of the word,
> 
> DO NOT "hate" the police,
> 
> but we expect them to PROTECT us/US, 
> not kill us/US,
> nor treat us/US like some cow pie they stepped in.
> ...


This was a thread of common situations cop face, with a question of "how would you handle this?"

This isn't a thread about cops asking why a few of these members break neighborhood codes by putting their sofas and washing machines on the front lawn.

The fact that the thread was full of the usual anti-cop rhetoric, or for some, the inability to realize who was being addressed in the thread, or any of the "PCP" deflection from the anti-cops, doesn't change the thread itself.

----------


## fyrenza

> So you're saying, if one comes across a naked man, out of his mind, just jack him off ?
> 
> Michaelr... are you taking notes ?


I'm "saying" that you have to FEEL the stich,

go with your first instinct,

and do your best to tone things down.

Tell me, with a straight face, 
that YOU don't feel all relaxed and at peace with the world
after sexual release?

It _could_​ be anything, but you have to feel The Need in order to address it.

----------

Max Rockatansky (05-22-2014)

----------


## fyrenza

THIS is why I'm a hermitess ~

I don't do well, in crowd (10+ people) situations.

I can feel people, and their "need,"

and it's always for lovingkindness, of some kind.

I fail, miserably, at having "boundaries,"

and DO want to tell other people that they ARE loved and cared about.

For all of the slut that I am,

it's just a sharing of self, and a giving/blending to and with another.

One day?

I'll NAIL it!  :Wink:

----------


## Micketto

> I'm "saying" that you have to FEEL the stich,
> 
> go with your first instinct,
> 
> and do your best to tone things down.
> 
> Tell me, with a straight face, 
> that YOU don't feel all relaxed and at peace with the world
> after sexual release?
> ...


Fyrenza....  
are you saying that some woman (or man, it is the 2000's after all), should have taken one for the team and helped the guys in those videos rub one out ?

That's almost what it sounds like   :Wink:

----------


## DeadEye

> Or... I have the ability to follow a conversation. As does everyone here but you, it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's sweet to help these obvious cop-haters save face, but as I said.. common sense should have told you who he was addressing in the first place.
> 
> Posting multiple times about it is mindless.    But don't let that stop ya...


Well, I think it is obvious that you are a hater of those who supposedly hate cops. I could post countless numbers of incidents where cops have broken the law but that would not make me a cop hater, even if I done it everyday.

----------


## fyrenza

> Fyrenza....  
> are you saying that some woman (or man, it is the 2000's after all), should have taken one for the team and helped the guys in those videos rub one out ?
> 
> That's almost what it sounds like


Yes.  If ^that^ was what it took, to simmer it all down?

Yes.

----------


## fyrenza

And, I mean, a hand job is pretty inconsequential, in The Big Scheme of Things.

----------


## fyrenza

It's just human touch,

and a celebration of the sensuality that we're here to experience.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> revolver.


Because Jesus said "Shoot the insane and let the crows feast on their flesh".

I admire the man in the blue shirt who tried to stop the nut job, but am disappointed in all those standing around who did nothing to help.

----------


## fyrenza

What my body is composed of is the dust of the earth,

and what actually matters is how I use the elements that I'm composed of.

Will I use any of it, sacrificially?
Will I use it just for personal satisfaction?
Will I use it to show anyone lovingkindness?
Will I share any of it?

It's like ^that.,^

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> And, I mean, a hand job is pretty inconsequential, in The Big Scheme of Things.


True, but I doubt it would have fixed what ails the nut job in the OP.  He had a lot more going wrong in his head than a simple need for some lovin'.

----------


## Micketto

> Well, I think it is obvious that you are a hater of those who supposedly hate cops.


Zzzz...  What I don't understand is what causes them to constantly Google stories about bad cops, even stories from a decade ago, just to make some point.
I will call them out on it every time, but I don't hate them.
I just hate stupidity.





> I could post countless numbers of incidents where cops have broken the law but that would not make me a cop hater, even if I done it everyday.


Then you don't fit in the category of loons the OP was addressing in the first place.
Something both he and I have already clearly explained to you.

No one said everyone who posts "bad cop" threads hates cops.   There are quite a few here who just do.

Posting "countless numbers of incidents" would do nothing to separate you from them.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-22-2014)

----------


## Micketto

> Yes.  If ^that^ was what it took, to simmer it all down?
> 
> Yes.


What if he started making demands?
Would you take off your top?   Give him 69?

Obviously a "Roman Soldier" is nothing at this point... but what about Tea Bagging ?

Would you get naked in the subway and ride him reverse cowgirl... if that's what he says will calm him down ?


lol @ Roman Soldier....

----------


## fyrenza

> What if he started making demands?
> Would you take off your top?   Give him 69?
> 
> Obviously a "Roman Soldier" is nothing at this point... but what about Tea Bagging ?
> 
> Would you get naked in the subway and ride him reverse cowgirl... if that's what he says will calm him down ?
> 
> 
> lol @ Roman Soldier....


As hard as this might be to understand :

ANY of it.

Oral.

Anal.

Vaginal.

Boobal.

It doesn't matter.

If I could keep someone occupied,
without them touching anyone else,
for whatever time it took for reinforcements to arrive?

I'd do it.

It just wouldn't matter.

----------


## fyrenza

I AM a freak.

I was kidnapped, and sexually molested, when I was ... like 5 or 6 years old.

I got over it,

and know that my body,
and any defiling of it,

just doesn't matter.

How I REACT to any given situation is the only thing that makes any difference.

I react with humor, sensuality, and (i h0p) lovingkindness.

----------


## fyrenza

Oh, Hey, y'all!

It happens.

It's a sad thing for folks to give themselves to JUST the sensuality,

but God holds His,

even during something like that,

and TEACHES them.

He didn't give me anything that I couldn't survive,

and He gave me a knowledge that I never would have known.

Please?

Don't let this close down this thread. :nodyes:

----------


## Sheldonna

> You realize that under the current system of justice, that you commit several crimes a day? If an armed government bureaucrat had a desire to harass you, for whatever reason, that he or she could likely pin a charge on you? A federal charge could easily ruin your life.


Absolutely.  You know that saying that "sooner or later, government will make criminals of us all"?  Well...it's a reality, not just a saying, now.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (05-22-2014)

----------


## Sheldonna

> This is true, yet the big cities were not part of the "wild west." Crime in the western frontier was remarkably low. *Most people were armed*, and despite what is shown in cinema, most criminals do not want to deal with armed victims and their armed neighbors. People there depended on each other for survival, and despite the lack of centralized government they formed their own constitutions and contracts and managed to maintain law and order without lots of bureaucrats running around. In fact, it was probably far easier. Much like if your homeowners association provided security instead of police forces. They aren't going to enforce every little government law. They will just enforce peace by going after those who break it.


Yes, and an armed society is a polite society.....unlike your leftie cesspools like Chicago, Detroit, DC where gun laws are quite strict against law-abiding citizens.  And free trade was alive and well as folks who didn't have money traded goods for services, or even services for services.  Now with big government running amuck, your right to trade for services is becoming more and more illegal (unless you happen to BE an illegal, that is).

Have you seen Johnson County War?  Good movie and similar situation to the Bundy mini-war that is ongoing with the fed gov.  The whole town rallies behind one lone (last survivor) cattle rancher up against a crooked sheriff (Burt Reynolds), his posse, hired killers and even some Texas Rangers, who basically said "this is bullshit" and went back to Texas instead of participating in the massacre.

----------


## Victory

> You realize that under the current system of justice, that you commit several crimes a day? If an armed government bureaucrat had a desire to harass you, for whatever reason, that he or she could likely pin a charge on you? A federal charge could easily ruin your life.


City cameras, license plate readers and database, Nest, GPS, Google cooperation. . .they've got all the tools they need.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I also noticed they were hyper-focused on the PCP (even to the point of bringing it up in other threads).
> 
> Clearly these videos were just a few of the thousands of examples of out-of-control people the cops have to deal with.
> 
> But harping on "PCP" makes it easier for them avoid answering actual questions.
> 
> Oh well... You tried.
> And they failed.


They were exposed as hypocrites too cowardly to even answer.

----------


## DonGlock26

> No. I left them off for a couple days, then turned them back on. Is that OK with you. Should I check in and announce my intentions with you? 
> 
> Spiteful, just spiteful. Low self esteem issues I'm sure.


Then, you are responsible for your notifications and no one else.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Well, I think it is obvious that you are a hater of those who supposedly hate cops. I could post countless numbers of incidents where cops have broken the law but that would not make me a cop hater, even if I done it everyday.


If you actually did that your motivation would obviously be a hatred for cops. They are obsessed and you aren't.

----------


## michaelr

> Then, you are your notifications and no one else.


Wow, such wise words. Of course it's meaningless, but in a ''wise'' sorta way.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Zzzz...  What I don't understand is what causes them to constantly Google stories about bad cops, even stories from a decade ago, just to make some point.
> I will call them out on it every time, but I don't hate them.
> I just hate stupidity.


Says the conservative progressive who gets his knowledge of right and wrong from the words of bureaucrats and politicians.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Wow, such wise words. Of course it's meaningless, but in a ''wise'' sorta way.


I have to say that I am amused at your complaint about you harassing yourself with notifications. Do you hide the car keys on yourself too?

----------

Micketto (05-22-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Says the conservative progressive who gets his knowledge of right and wrong from the words of bureaucrats and politicians.


Ken, do you want to be the king and tell us all how things should be or would you prefer a constitutionally-limited republic?

----------


## fyrenza

> They were exposed as hypocrites too cowardly to even answer.


No "they" weren't ~

they were _exposed_ as folks that refused to get wrapped around some axle of idiocy,
not sure what the "debate" term for this crap is.

You Lose, if ^that's^ your strategy.

And you know what?

SHOW ME SOME POST where YOU actually came DOWN on any police action.

Because, wtf, over?

You ARE a "copsucker" if you can't see some of these over-reaches
that cost your freakin' neighbors
their lives
children
and money.

BleedingHeadKen's avvy?  I spell it "*PFFFT*!"

----------

DeadEye (05-22-2014),Rudy2D (05-22-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> Well, I think it is obvious that you are a hater of those who supposedly hate cops. I could post countless numbers of incidents where cops have broken the law but that would not make me a cop hater, even if I done it everyday.



YES, you could post incidents where cops have broken the law, as could I.  "Countless," is hyperbole.  There ARE actual counts.

And  both you and I could post millions and millions of incidents where cops have upheld the law, enforced the law, and protected the citizens.

I choose to be aware of the few incidents where cops go bad are tiny compared to the millions of times they perform properly.

You choose to ignore all but the few incidents.

That is your choice.

My choice is to judge WHY you make that choice.

----------


## DeadEye

> YES, you could post incidents where cops have broken the law, as could I.  "Countless," is hyperbole.  There ARE actual counts.
> 
> And  both you and I could post millions and millions of incidents where cops have upheld the law, enforced the law, and protected the citizens.
> 
> I choose to be aware of the few incidents where cops go bad are tiny compared to the millions of times they perform properly.
> 
> You choose to ignore all but the few incidents.
> 
> That is your choice.
> ...


I haven't made a choice. I haven't chose to ignore any thing. While you are judging me, I think it best if you judge the people who claim to have some sort of authority over us all.

----------


## DonGlock26

> No "they" weren't ~
> 
> they were _exposed_ as folks that refused to get wrapped around some axle of idiocy,
> not sure what the "debate" term for this crap is.
> 
> You Lose, if ^that's^ your strategy.
> 
> And you know what?
> 
> ...



Yes, they were. The critics were asked how they would handle a difficult use of force situation and they promptly shut their big mouths. It has been blissful silence ever since on the OP question.

Classic!!  


I've always supported the arrest of corrupt cops here. I've stated that numerous times. You apparently haven't been reading my posts very well. 

I haven't drank the kool-aid on these hyped up media stories or moonbat kook website emotional rants. Haven't you noticed how easily these "initial" news articles are scaled back when more facts are known? It is simply twisted to people of murder before even the basic facts are known.



If you have a specific overreach example, post it in a new thread and we'll discuss it.

----------


## Dan40

> I haven't made a choice. I haven't chose to ignore any thing. While you are judging me, I think it best if you judge the people who claim to have some sort of authority over us all.


I judge them TOO.

----------


## Micketto

> I have to say that I am amused at your complaint about you harassing yourself with notifications. Do you hide the car keys on yourself too?


lol @ harassing himself with notifications.

tff

----------

DonGlock26 (05-22-2014)

----------


## fyrenza

> YES, you could post incidents where cops have broken the law, as could I.  "Countless," is hyperbole.  There ARE actual counts.
> 
> And  both you and I could post millions and millions of incidents where cops have upheld the law, enforced the law, and protected the citizens.
> 
> I choose to be aware of the few incidents where cops go bad are tiny compared to the millions of times they perform properly.
> 
> You choose to ignore all but the few incidents.
> 
> That is your choice.
> ...


I don't @Dan40 ~

but to completely ignore this is ...

breathtaking, to me.

POLICE killing unarmed people?

"Breaking in"to the wrong address and laying waste to what they encounter?

Harassing folks over jay-walking?

*KILLING* people for medical breakdowns,
such as a diabetic comas
psychotic breaks,
and allergic reactions to pepper spray?

As an alchie/stoner/hermitess, I understand full well about reality breaks,

but to BLIND your own self to what IS a "trend," and a Red Flag alert?

w0w

----------


## Micketto

> No "they" weren't ~
> 
> they were _exposed_ as folks that refused to get wrapped around some axle of idiocy




By providing their own ?

----------


## fyrenza

Time, and history, will be the judge of ^that,^ eh?

----------


## Micketto

> Time, and history, will be the judge of ^that,^ eh?


Apparently the time is now, and the history is in this thread.
Many of them have been nothing but complete idiots in this thread, whether it be the obsession with PCP or pretending they would know exactly what to do in those cases... to saying "Easy! Zip ties!".

----------


## Dan40

> I don't @Dan40 ~
> 
> but to completely ignore this is ...
> 
> breathtaking, to me.
> 
> POLICE killing unarmed people?
> 
> "Breaking in"to the wrong address and laying waste to what they encounter?
> ...


Blind to WHAT?

EVERY incident is investigated.  Many police are charged and prosecuted.

Do the police have a right to due process or is that reserved for criminals?

You may whine and bitch about the "investigations."  Complain about "fixed" investigations.  And undoubtedly, that would occasionally be justified.  But the bulk of cases, more and better actual EVIDENCE is seen by the investigators than you and I and all the cop haters will ever see, or care to acknowledge.

Nothing is being ignored.  Perspective is applied, not ignorance.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Ken, do you want to be the king and tell us all how things should be or would you prefer a constitutionally-limited republic?


In a constitutionally-limited republic does right and wrong come from the dictates of the politicians? What is so magical about a written charter for government, or even the will of a majority, that right and wrong can be determined that way?

You present a false-dichotomy (and I question whether you prefer a constitutional-republic given your contempt of the founding documents). There are other options, such as law based on unalienable rights, or even common law.
Also, a constitutional republic could have a king. The Polish Commonwealth was such a republic with an elected king. I'm not in favor of the idea, but at least it took out most of the problems of a hereditary monarchy and was relatively peaceful for a long time. 

So tell us, do you prefer a kingdom or a constitutional republic, or something in between?

----------


## DonGlock26

> I don't @Dan40 ~
> 
> but to completely ignore this is ...
> 
> breathtaking, to me.
> 
> POLICE killing unarmed people?
> 
> "Breaking in"to the wrong address and laying waste to what they encounter?
> ...


1. Killing unarmed people how? Do you mean people dying as they resist arrest? Do you have a concrete solution to this problem or just a list of wishes??

2. Yes, they do make mistakes, and they should pay the consequences. Measures should be taken to make sure that address mistakes do not happen. 

3. Depending on the city, jaywalking can be a crime and peds darting between cars is dangerous especially in an urban setting. So, your claim is nebulous.

4. See #1.

----------


## DonGlock26

> In a constitutionally-limited republic does right and wrong come from the dictates of the politicians? What is so magical about a written charter for government, or even the will of a majority, that right and wrong can be determined that way?
> 
> You present a false-dichotomy (and I question whether you prefer a constitutional-republic given your contempt of the founding documents). There are other options, such as law based on unalienable rights, or even common law.
> Also, a constitutional republic could have a king. The Polish Commonwealth was such a republic with an elected king. I'm not in favor of the idea, but at least it took out most of the problems of a hereditary monarchy and was relatively peaceful for a long time. 
> 
> So tell us, do you prefer a kingdom or a constitutional republic, or something in between?


In a CLR, the law is put above the individual and the laws are made by elected representatives. The ultimate responsibility for the laws is the people. 

The magic is the lack of a tyranny.

I have no contempt for the founding documents. I just understand them.

Who makes the "law based on unalienable rights, or even common law"? Who decides what it right and wrong in them?

You seem to prefer a CLR as well you should.

I prefer a CLR of course. Do you? What do you prefer?

----------


## fyrenza

> Blind to WHAT?
> 
> EVERY incident is investigated.  Many police are charged and prosecuted.
> 
> Do the police have a right to due process or is that reserved for criminals?
> 
> You may whine and bitch about the "investigations."  Complain about "fixed" investigations.  And undoubtedly, that would occasionally be justified.  But the bulk of cases, more and better actual EVIDENCE is seen by the investigators than you and I and all the cop haters will ever see, or care to acknowledge.
> 
> Nothing is being ignored.  Perspective is applied, not ignorance.


But your very first sentence is :

The rooster is investigating the hen house.

And you don't see ^that,^ either.

If I but knew the words, I'd explain it, in depth.  My bad.

----------


## fyrenza

And if you want to call your view "perspective?"

*I*​ get to call BULLSHIT!

----------


## fyrenza

> In a CLR, the law is put above the individual and the laws are made by elected representatives. The ultimate responsibility for the laws is the people. 
> ...
> blah, blah, blah..
> 
> (no snark ~ just shortening the quote.  )


Good GRIEF,
we have so many laws, right now,
that the CITIZENS don't even know about,
and which they need lawyers to translate and defend against,

and you see nothing wrong with ^that^ scenario?

It's a CYA for ANYTHING that ANYONE with enough "pull" or "power" or money
could ever dream of ~
the BEST of All Worlds,

and you SUPPORT it, and them.

Why?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> In a CLR, the law is put above the individual and the laws are made by elected representatives. The ultimate responsibility for the laws is the people.
> 
> The magic is the lack of a tyranny.


The magic is your faith that such a system can't lead to tyranny. Would you like me to point out the constitutional republics that have been tyrannies and sometimes even run by tyrants? Let's start with the Soviet Union, since you are probably at least familiar with the name.




> Who makes the "law based on unalienable rights, or even common law"? Who decides what it right and wrong in them?


No one decides. Under unalienable rights, they are discovered by deduction. Without a knowledge of common law, your understanding of the COTUS would be extremely limited. 

It's not a question of who decides right and wrong; why should anyone decide it? The only proper role for government is to protect from force or fraud. 




> You seem to prefer a CLR as well you should.


Why should I? Considering that people had far more freedom under King George, and paid far less taxes, than they do in the US today, I'm not sure that we are better off under the CLR. Ostensibly you have rights in the US, and those rights are largely abridged by statute, which was surely not the purpose of the COTUS and not the intent of those framers who favored natural law and liberty.

And, I don't recognize the authority of a constitution. I did not sign it nor consent to it. I am a free individual, not property to be subsumed to an imaginary "the people." That's collectivist thinking.




> I prefer a CLR of course. Do you? What do you prefer?


Liberty.

----------

DeadEye (05-22-2014)

----------


## Conservative Libertarian

> The police critics have lost their shrill voices, when asked to tell us how they would do it in the real world. Telling, isn't it?
> 
> No wonder, they flipped out over this thread. They were exposed as being hypocrites.
> 
> If they had to restrain a mentally ill or drugged up person with force until that person fought themselves out, they would be in the same position as the police should that person die from over-exertion, positional asphyxia, a heart attack, or overdose. If that happened, they would be murderers using their twisted logic. We wouldn't even need an autopsy.
> 
> They know this and that is why they failed to answer and slinked off to lick their wounds until the next inflammatory initial news article or moonbat kook website rant.


I'm not here to call anyone hypocrites. However, it seems my personal account of actually restraining a PCP OD has fallen on deaf ears and/or blind eyes. If I remember correctly, the OP was about restraining PCP ODs. Perhaps, it was about something else?

----------

DeadEye (05-22-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I don't @Dan40 ~
> 
> but to completely ignore this is ...
> 
> breathtaking, to me.
> 
> POLICE killing unarmed people?
> 
> "Breaking in"to the wrong address and laying waste to what they encounter?
> ...


Agreed shooting down unarmed people is wrong.   I'd taze his ass.  Literally.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Good GRIEF,
> we have so many laws, right now,
> that the CITIZENS don't even know about,
> and which they need lawyers to translate and defend against,
> 
> and you see nothing wrong with ^that^ scenario?
> 
> It's a CYA for ANYTHING that ANYONE with enough "pull" or "power" or money
> could ever dream of ~
> ...


I'm anti-progressive. Of course, I'm not happy about what has been done to the CLR, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the American voter.

----------


## DonGlock26

> I'm not here to call anyone hypocrites. However, it seems my personal account of actually restraining a PCP OD has fallen on deaf ears and/or blind eyes. If I remember correctly, the OP was about restraining PCP ODs. Perhaps, it was about something else?


They don't want to hear that these drug abusers are extremely hard to restrain and often die as a result of their choice to use PCP. They want the responsibility for their plight to be the fault of law enforcement. That is their agenda. They certainly ignored your input and they refuse to answer the OP's central question directly. They have even taken to other threads to whine about the question here. That's how badly their agenda and hypocrisy has been exposed.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (05-23-2014)

----------


## metheron

> I owned two houses on one property. He attempted to just walk into both. I lived in one of those homes. I allowed a brother and sister in law to live in the other. This guy was going to rob us.


So its ok to shoot? I agree with you, don't get me wrong. Seems as though you would scream bloody murder if a cop would have done it for you.

----------


## michaelr

> So its ok to shoot? I agree with you, don't get me wrong. Seems as though you would scream bloody murder if a cop would have done it for you.


I didn't shoot him, but I didn't know if he was armed or not. He represented a threat to my family. 

I didn't even shove a stick down his throat. I did tell him if saw on my street again, I'd kill him. Never saw the pile of again, luckily for him. I don't threaten!

----------

Max Rockatansky (05-22-2014)

----------


## metheron

> I didn't shoot him, but I didn't know if he was armed or not. He represented a threat to my family. 
> 
> I didn't even shove a stick down his throat. I did tell him if saw on my street again, I'd kill him. Never saw the pile of again, luckily for him. I don't threaten!


You would kill him just for being on the street? Sounds like your assessment of cops is just about the same as you? Cops are only people too.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-22-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> You would kill him just for being on the street? Sounds like your assessment of cops is just about the same as you? Cops are only people too.


I told him, because of the circumstances the he created, and my reaction, that I would take his being in my as a threat. Don't really know if I would have shot him, or just hospitalized him.

----------


## Dan40

> But your very first sentence is :
> 
> The rooster is investigating the hen house.
> 
> And you don't see ^that,^ either.
> 
> If I but knew the words, I'd explain it, in depth.  My bad.


No, many cities have civilian oversight of the police dept.

And I covered, "the rooster investigating the hen house."

_"You may whine and bitch about the "investigations."  Complain about  "fixed" investigations.  And undoubtedly, that would occasionally be  justified."_

Did you choose to not read those words?  That's blindness!

I totally agree that police investigating police is an inherent problem.  But WHO does it if they do not?

The authority fearing, hating paranoids?  No possible problems with that idea is there?




2010 58 officers killed by felons. Total on the job deaths, 154


2011 72 officers killed by felons.  This does NOT include accidents and deaths from injuries. Total, 165

2012 49 shot to death by felons, 127 died total


A cop hater site claims police killed 607 people in 2011.  But even the cop hater states, "the VAST majority of them had criminal histories."  I;d venture he chose "vast majority" rather than admitting that nearly ALL were criminals engaging in a crime.

The difference between perspective and bullshit is this.

If American police officers engage ONE criminal per hour in the USA, that is 3 BILLION encounters with criminals per year.

The anti-cop site says 1150 were shot with 607 killed.  I'll go to 10,000 total, injured by police.

10,000/3,000,000,000=00.00000333

I think that is stated as 3 ten-thousandths of one percent.

That is perspective.

Bullshit is any attempt to see that as a significant number.

----------


## Rudy2D

> Should I check in and announce my intentions with you?


At this point it may be a good idea.  lol

----------

michaelr (05-22-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> At this point it may be a good idea.  lol


Yea, I just don't see that happening.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> You would kill him just for being on the street? Sounds like your assessment of cops is just about the same as you? Cops are only people too.


So why do they deserve privileges and immunities that other humans do not?

----------


## Rudy2D

> "WE,"
> 
> in the royal sense of the word,
> 
> DO NOT "hate" the police,
> 
> but we expect them to PROTECT us/US, 
> not kill us/US,
> nor treat us/US like some cow pie they stepped in.
> ...


The police are not obligated to _protect you_; their primary mission is to _protect the State_.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (05-22-2014)

----------


## DeadEye

> No, many cities have civilian oversight of the police dept.
> 
> And I covered, "the rooster investigating the hen house."
> 
> _"You may whine and bitch about the "investigations."  Complain about  "fixed" investigations.  And undoubtedly, that would occasionally be  justified."_
> 
> Did you choose to not read those words?  That's blindness!
> 
> I totally agree that police investigating police is an inherent problem.  But WHO does it if they do not?
> ...


I agree it is not a significant number unless of course you happen to be one of them numbers.

----------


## Network

Never believe numbers.

ps...libertarians aren't against law and order, they are against monopolies who earn their keep through force and fraud.

You're against food because the government isn't the only source.

----------


## Rudy2D

> I was kidnapped, and sexually molested, when I was ... like 5 or 6 years old.


I knew a girl who similarly "fell off the cradle;" at 30+ she was still cryin' about it, and lookin' for a sugar-daddy.  Sad.

----------


## metheron

> So why do they deserve privileges and immunities that other humans do not?


They don't.

Why do they get excessive criticisms they don't deserve when the general polulace says they would take some of the same actions in different circumstances?

----------


## Dan40

> I agree it is not a significant number unless of course you happen to be one of them numbers.


True in every scenario you could cite.  Very important to the tiny number affected.  Nothing to anyone else.

How many parents have lost a child in a traffic accident?  Thousands and thousands MORE than people that have been hurt or killed by police.  Especially wrongfully hurt by police.

How many families have lost a loved one to a traffic accident?  40,000 a year?  How many have lost a loved one to disease?  10's of thousands.  EACH important to the people directly involved.  Of little note to anyone else.

3 ten-thousandths of one percent, doesn't amount to a popcorn fart in a Cat. 5 Hurricane.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (05-23-2014),DonGlock26 (05-22-2014)

----------


## Network

Those who die in a terrorist strike are even more miniscule. But some politicians base their entire campaign around protecting you from that. And your rights are stripped from you at an alarming rate because _they want to protect you_.

They really want to sell advanced tech even more than they want to control you.

----------


## Dan40

> Those who die in a terrorist strike are even more miniscule. But some politicians base their entire campaign around protecting you from that. And your rights are stripped from you at an alarming rate because _they want to protect you_.
> 
> They really want to sell advanced tech even more than they want to control you.


One of your more ridiculous posts.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-22-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> They don't.
> 
> Why do they get excessive criticisms they don't deserve when the general polulace says they would take some of the same actions in different circumstances?


Because members of the general populace are not employed to do a job. If I said that I'd smack a customer who was complaining about a hamburger, does that mean I should expect customer service people at McDonald's to smack complaining customers? 

If they can't do the job professionally and in service to the community, then they shouldn't do it.

----------

metheron (05-23-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> True in every scenario you could cite.  Very important to the tiny number affected.  Nothing to anyone else.
> 
> How many parents have lost a child in a traffic accident?  Thousands and thousands MORE than people that have been hurt or killed by police.  Especially wrongfully hurt by police.
> 
> How many families have lost a loved one to a traffic accident?  40,000 a year?  How many have lost a loved one to disease?  10's of thousands.  EACH important to the people directly involved.  Of little note to anyone else.
> 
> 3 ten-thousandths of one percent, doesn't amount to a popcorn fart in a Cat. 5 Hurricane.


Some people are easily led around by the nose by a mainstream progressive media desperate for ratings.

----------

Conservative Libertarian (05-23-2014)

----------


## protectionist

1.   As soon as he pushed that woman down and then grabbed that small Asian-looking, older man, he should have have been stopped right then.  And he's perfectly all set up for the good old-fashioned kick in the balls (with no clothing to cushion the blow).  

2.  If any of his attackees happened to be a smoker, they could have set his hair on fire with a cigarette lighter.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> 1.   As soon as he pushed that woman down and then grabbed that small Asian-looking, older man, he should have have been stopped right then.  And he's perfectly all set up for the good old-fashioned kick in the balls (with no clothing to cushion the blow).  
> 
> 2.  If any of his attackees happened to be a smoker, they could have set his hair on fire with a cigarette lighter.


Here in California, a citizen isn't even allowed to carry a decent sized stick for self-defense, but the cops can beat people around the head with an ASP all day and they'll be applauded for it.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> They don't.
> 
> Why do they get excessive criticisms they don't deserve when the general polulace says they would take some of the same actions in different circumstances?


What do you suppose would be the penalty for a private citizen who is driving 126mph while talking on a cellphone and checking email on a laptop and kills two young girls? 
Maybe a few years in prison? Maybe a few decades? At least some time, and a long probation and a lifetime of restitution?

How about if he's wearing a government uniform? Then it's 30 months of probation and the loss of his license. Oh, and as a taxpayer, your hard-earned money goes to fund the $700,000 payout to the grieving family. 

http://www.schoenwalton.com/firm-new...matt-mitchell/

But wait. It gets better.  He drew a salary for 2 years. That's 2 years paid vacation for extreme reckless driving and murdering (yes, I said murder) two innocent young women. 
http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/22/ex...-workers-comp/

And, why stop there?? They had to pass a special law because he was demanding compensation for the injuries that he sustained in the crash. And workman's comp. 
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/08/09/no-workers-comp-for-ill-state-police-trooper-matt-mitchell

Before anyone complains that this is an old case, it's back in the news because the former dirtbag-in-blue is trying to get his license back and the secretary of state is attempting to block it.

The man should never get behind a wheel again.

----------


## DonGlock26

292 posts and the only attempt by the police critics to actually answer the OP question was some nutty talk about sneaking up on the PCP man and zip tying his feet. 

Unbelievable cowardice on the part of the police critics.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Before anyone complains that this is an old case, it's back in the news because the former dirtbag-in-blue is trying to get his license back and the secretary of state is attempting to block it.
> 
> The man should never get behind a wheel again.


Since he didn't go to prison, I expect there was some validity to his claim "he was acting in accordance with Illinois State Police policy. He further stated the accident occurred because he was cut off by another car, causing him to lose control, cross the median and strike the Uhl’s car and the Marler’s car."

If so, then it's the Illinois State Police policy that should be under indictment either with or instead of Mitchell.

----------


## DonGlock26

More PCP/doper freaks:

----------


## DonGlock26

This guy hardly notices a large cop on his back, but I'm sure any cop critic could handle him one on one. LOL!!!!











LOL!! at 1:10. Try zip tying that!!

----------


## Victory

So what?

----------


## DonGlock26

> So what?







> 292 posts and the only attempt by the police critics to actually answer the OP question was some nutty talk about sneaking up on the PCP man and zip tying his feet. 
> 
> Unbelievable cowardice on the part of the police critics.



That's what.

----------


## Victory

> That's what.


Somebody's use of PCP does NOT render somebody ELSE'S life forfeit.  You don't get that and I don't think you ever will.  To hide behind some bullshit excuse like, "Gosh, next of kin, I thought he was on PCP," and expect to be exonerated is the nadir of cowardice.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Since he didn't go to prison, I expect there was some validity to his claim "he was acting in accordance with Illinois State Police policy. He further stated the accident occurred because he was cut off by another car, causing him to lose control, cross the median and strike the Uhl’s car and the Marler’s car."
> 
> If so, then it's the Illinois State Police policy that should be under indictment either with or instead of Mitchell.


So, driving 126mph while talking on a cellphone and handling email on the car computer was just part of what was expected in his job, and therefore he has no culpability? That's now different than "I was just following orders."

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> So, driving 126mph while talking on a cellphone and handling email on the car computer was just part of what was expected in his job, and therefore he has no culpability? That's now different than "I was just following orders."


That was his defense.  If it wasn't true, I imagine his ass would be in prison.  Since it isn't, my guess is that there was validity to the claim.  As my post stated "_then it's the Illinois State Police policy that should be under indictment either with or instead of Mitchell._" 

Why are you so anxious to nail the individual and let the state policy get off scot-free?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Somebody's use of PCP does NOT render somebody ELSE'S life forfeit.  You don't get that and I don't think you ever will.  To hide behind some bullshit excuse like, "Gosh, next of kin, I thought he was on PCP," and expect to be exonerated is the nadir of cowardice.



you are assuming that is my argument or purpose. You are wrong. Answer the OP question honestly and directly and we can discuss your answer. That is my purpose. I want to see what the critics can constructively come up with. Thus far, they have come up with nada.

----------


## Victory

> you are assuming that is my argument or purpose. You are wrong. Answer the OP question honestly and directly and we can discuss your answer. That is my purpose. I want to see what the critics can constructively come up with. Thus far, they have come up with nada.


Already did answer it.

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...174#post309174

Your turn.  Answer my question:  Do you link your morality with the legality of the situation?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Why are you so anxious to nail the individual and let the state policy get off scot-free?


Strawman. And a red herring.

----------


## Dan40

> 292 posts and the only attempt by the police critics to actually answer the OP question was some nutty talk about sneaking up on the PCP man and zip tying his feet. 
> 
> Unbelievable cowardice on the part of the police critics.


You misspelled cowardice.  The correct spelling is stupidity.  Alternate spellings include immature fear of authority and/or paranoia.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-23-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> You misspelled cowardice.  The correct spelling is stupidity.  Alternate spellings include immature fear of authority and/or paranoia.


Hm....so what is your motive for demanding that the government protect you from every bogeyman with hundreds of laws that criminalize peaceful behaviors? It's amusing how you progressives, whether conservative or liberal, project your fears onto everyone else.

----------

Victory (05-23-2014)

----------


## Victory

> Hm....so what is your motive for demanding that the government protect you from every bogeyman with hundreds of laws that criminalize peaceful behaviors? It's amusing how you progressives, whether conservative or liberal,* project your fears onto everyone else*.


Bulls eye!  You got it, Ken.  Projection plain and simple.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Strawman. And a red herring.


People often scream that when they are caught with their dicks in the pickle slicer.

So tell me why you have such a hard-on for Mitchell, but not one word against the policies of the State of Illinois?

----------


## Dan40

> Hm....so what is your motive for demanding that the government protect you from every bogeyman with hundreds of laws that criminalize peaceful behaviors? It's amusing how you progressives, whether conservative or liberal, project your fears onto everyone else.



 :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:  :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

The incurably paranoid talks about projecting fears.

Isn't there a comedian that does an entire schtick on that?  If not there should be.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-24-2014)

----------


## metheron

> Because members of the general populace are not employed to do a job. If I said that I'd smack a customer who was complaining about a hamburger, does that mean I should expect customer service people at McDonald's to smack complaining customers? 
> 
> If they can't do the job professionally and in service to the community, then they shouldn't do it.


And yet 99 percent of them do it professionally but on this site the 1 percent seem to drag them all down.

----------


## metheron

> What do you suppose would be the penalty for a private citizen who is driving 126mph while talking on a cellphone and checking email on a laptop and kills two young girls? 
> Maybe a few years in prison? Maybe a few decades? At least some time, and a long probation and a lifetime of restitution?
> 
> How about if he's wearing a government uniform? Then it's 30 months of probation and the loss of his license. Oh, and as a taxpayer, your hard-earned money goes to fund the $700,000 payout to the grieving family. 
> 
> http://www.schoenwalton.com/firm-new...matt-mitchell/
> 
> But wait. It gets better.  He drew a salary for 2 years. That's 2 years paid vacation for extreme reckless driving and murdering (yes, I said murder) two innocent young women. 
> http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/22/ex...-workers-comp/
> ...



I don't know the full story of that case. But it definitely sounds like a miscarriage of justice as you presented it. I don't excuse the cops that break the laws and in some cases the system that allows it. I just happen to believe that, generally speaking, officers of the law do good work and should be treated respectfully.

----------


## Dan40

> And yet 99 percent of them do it professionally but on this site the 1 percent seem to drag them all down.


More like 99.9999667% do a professional job.  And the paranoid cop haters are only concerned with the 00.00000333% that are PEOPLE before they are cops.
And this forum has a much greater percentage of crazies than the police do.  And this is a very sane forum.

----------

DonGlock26 (05-23-2014)

----------


## metheron

> More like 99.9999667% do a professional job.  And the paranoid cop haters are only concerned with the 00.00000333% that are PEOPLE before they are cops.
> And this forum has a much greater percentage of crazies than the police do.  And this is a very sane forum.


Fair enough. Whatever you want the number to be. The point was the more important thing.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Already did answer it.
> 
> http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...174#post309174
> 
> Your turn.  Answer my question:  Do you link your morality with the legality of the situation?



I didn't see it. You were discussing your off topic anti-cop comedy video with someone else in a different thread.

I'll answer your question before I discuss your answer. 

It depends on the situation. I'm anti-abortion, but it is legal. There is nothing legally that I can do to prevent it. But, I don't break the law and attack other people nor would I resist a lawful arrest because I'm anti-abortion. On the other hand, I think it is immoral to be a drug abuser, drunk, or criminal who opposes the lawful authority of the police. In that case, the law and my morality are in agreement. My personal morality doesn't allow me to think that the law does not apply to me. Now, if the law violates basic human rights, then I am not obligated to follow the law. 

Now, to your answer:




> \You restrain a man on PCP using a large number of cops if necessary. Why? Because the suspect presents a danger to people around him.


You are authorizing a large number of cops to use physical force to subdue a resisting subject on PCP. The man died. There cause of death is unknown at this time. He was not obviously shot, stabbed, strangled, or bludgeoned to death. Are you a murderer for authorizing the use of force that was involved in subduing the man leading to his death?

@Victory

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I don't know the full story of that case. But it definitely sounds like a miscarriage of justice as you presented it. I don't excuse the cops that break the laws and in some cases the system that allows it. I just happen to believe that, generally speaking, officers of the law do good work and should be treated respectfully.


They don't treat members of the public respectfully, and as the body of criminal laws grows, they are trained to act more like occupiers than as peacekeeper. They are tasked with defending the statutes created by the political class, and if that requires harming you, they will. Why give respect to those who will have no respect for you or your rights if ordered to do other than that?

----------


## Dan40

Perhaps calling Spiderman to squirt a net over the crazy would be acceptable?

----------

DonGlock26 (05-24-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Now, to your answer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by *Victory* 
> _\You restrain a man on PCP using a large number of cops if necessary. Why? Because the suspect presents a danger to people around him._
> 
> ...


@Victory 

Are you going to come out of hiding?

----------


## DonGlock26

:Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

