National Protest and 'disband the cops' discussion (please review page 1)

I think @Sigaba is onto something, but like @Ranger Psych said, you have to change the laws. I think that point is missing from the debate: reform is law, not money, driven.

There is absolutely nothing simple about the changes required in America, but people distill their talking points into binary, easy solutions. Nah, son, society doesn't work that way and the longer we cling to that idea the worse this becomes.

Defund the police to improve society is like saying we should go to the moon. Great concepts, but incredibly complex to pull off.
 
Nope, they can say it was for prisoner safety.
"Lydon claimed the decision was not related to his workers’ professionalism or concerns over Chauvin’s safety. "

There is probably a reason he is not only avoiding but actively rejecting that as a factor in his decision.
 
"Lydon claimed the decision was not related to his workers’ professionalism or concerns over Chauvin’s safety. "

There is probably a reason he is not only avoiding but actively rejecting that as a factor in his decision.
That's why there's attorneys to do that. That will be what the department will argue.
 
Speaking to my FiL today. He is school assistant Superintendent in Texas, their local agency has informed the district that they will no longer provide Resource Officer coverage. He's having to figure out how to build up "Resource Officer" type program from the ground up.

Shit is about to get real as departments feel under siege. Zero-defects type stuff.
 
Last edited:
Speaking to my FiL today. He is school assistant Superintendent in Texas, their local agency has informed the district that they will no longer provide Resource Officer coverage. He's having to figure out how to build up "Resource Officer" type program from the ground up.

Shit is about to get real as departments feel under siege. Zero-defects type stuff.

"Zero defect". A horse shit idea when assigned to any endeavor in which humans have to make judgments or decisions. Ask the Navy.

My little burg has already seen an uptick in crime as cops are becoming, ah, "less timely" in responding to calls. I know a lot of cops here, and almost to a person now their goal is to make it home at the end of the shift. Several are looking at positions in smaller departments about 20 or 30 miles out, more rural departments, where they are not besieged by most of the issues going on in cities.
 
Several are looking at positions in smaller departments about 20 or 30 miles out, more rural departments, where they are not besieged by most of the issues going on in cities.
Cannot blame them one bit. And if by chance they have a altercation that goes national, they just might have a chance of support from their bosses.
 
Where does he backpedal from his claim that his decision was not based on a concern for Chauvin's safety? He made the same statement about his lapse of judgement in the original article, and they quote the same line I posted in the article you linked.
You believe that if you want to. No one will convince me that he simply didn't want to take any chances of his prisoner claiming harassment or being injured by a black guard. If what he said was true, (looking out for his guard's best interests) he could have done it a half-dozen different ways while still leaving the guards not feeling like they could not be trusted to do their jobs.
 
You believe that if you want to.
Belief or disbelief in the sincerity of his claim is irrelevant to my point.
No one will convince me that he simply didn't want to take any chances of his prisoner claiming harassment or being injured by a black guard. If what he said was true, (looking out for his guard's best interests) he could have done it a half-dozen different ways while still leaving the guards not feeling like they could not be trusted to do their jobs.
Which brings us back to:
Nope, they can say it was for prisoner safety.
"Lydon claimed the decision was not related to his workers’ professionalism or concerns over Chauvin’s safety. "

There is probably a reason he is not only avoiding but actively rejecting that as a factor in his decision.
 
Quite honestly I don't understand the point you are trying to make so....you win.

I guess.
No worries.

My point was that there was probably a reason he made a point of saying his decision wasn't influenced by a concern for Chauvin's safety. When you linked an article to your reply and said the backpedaling had begun, but with no sign in your article of backpedaling by Lydon on his statement, I asked you where he backpedaled, and here we are.
 
Back
Top