Like noone has ever used hyperbole on Bullshido before
I still want a discussion on what equipment is or isnât appropriate for police use. It may be that irritants have their place, it may be that they donât. But there needs to be a line of argument more refined than âjust in caseâ.
Similarly, I want a discussion on what the police is supposed to do and not do within a society. In many other countries, youâll find specialized social services parallel to cops, not just one person doing everything
Personally, I think cops got it all wrong with CS gas and mace to break up crowds.
If you really want people to go home and not come back for more later use dry fine ground depleted marijuana thatâs been run through a CO2 extractor. If you get it on your skin it starts off with a tiny little tickle and rapidly turns into a burning itch that rivals poison ivy. Your skin stays that way until you can take a long hot shower and take a strong antihistamine. Benadryl wonât cut it. Youâll need cetirizine. if you get it into your lungs or nose youâre going to wish you got maced in 5 or 10 minutes when they start swelling shut and you feel like youâre breathing through a bag of wet cotton. By that time the hives that started on your arms should be spreading like a great river named ITCH and thatâs all youâre going to want to do until you get under a hot shower. Cold water isnât going to do shit because itâs stuck to your body now. Itâs just sticky enough that cold water is only going to make it worse. A face full of that stuff and youâre done for the day. The antihistamines to treat the symptoms will guarantee you donât have the energy to do much more than lie down and breathe.
What police force does this? As far as Iâm aware every law enforcement agency going will train its people to de-escalate rather than escalate. Some cops will genuinely make mistakes and some are bad actors who will escalate for whatever reason drives them, but I doubt very much escalation is a policy.
Again, what police force does this? Outside of third-world countries anyway. Facing periods of serious civil unrest with a highly armed population, use of language is irrelevant.
I never said it was policy, but if someone spends a lot more time in focusing primarily on tactical assault and weapon use instead of crisis intervention. What do think the person is more likely to be geared towards and default too?
What is layed out in the PP is not always what ends up happening in the follow-through.
Itâs was a culmination of so much stupid you canât put all the blame on one man.
Does he share responsibility? I think so.
Being the President of the United States at the time. He should accept all of it. Thatâs what a leader does, imo. But being a over grown cowardly man child, he wonât.
Maybe you could also put a lot of the blame on the liberal media and entertainment industry that were tilted so far against him, that they caused an unintended backlash of the worst kind. So, going back to your rhetorical question about âlanguage and understanding of wordsâŚâ You didnât really answer the subtext of my counter-question.
I do, absolutely. Not just in any one place but by repeatedly appealing to mob violence, pleas to authoritarian rule, constant denigration of sound American governance, federal law enforcement, democracy itself and the US Constitution as multiple means of casus belli.
I am 100% certain that this was his overarching goal from the very beginning of his administration.
It might surprise you, then, to learn that I received a lot of training from federal law enforcement in order to conduct my military duties. And, certainly, there are and have been a lot of scenarios where the reverse has occurred. The Goal at the end of everyoneâs day is that we all get home, alive, uninjured, unvictimized, and happy.
To answer your point about words and language mattering, you are - right now - engaging in a debate about policing without understanding The Goal. The difference between military action and police action is merely where the conflict occurs, geopolitically speaking. What tactics and tools are used are irrelevant, The Goal is what matters.
Your language in this thread implies that a) the purpose of the military is to kill people; and b) police are adopting that military purpose in their interactions with civilians. That is a mostly false and highly inflammatory narrative, which you are repeating and/or inventing with words and language to drive a political goal that you agree with.
