BullBuchanan

Week 1: B+ Week 2: A+ When people roasted me last week, asking what more he needed to do to get an A or better rating - this was it. Great job, Josh.

What does breaking the law have to do with violence? Tons of professions deal with people that are "sometimes carrying weapons" - Teachers for instance and Taxi drivers Farmers may not get murdered by a stalk of corn, but they get killed and maimed at a pace that DRASTICALLY exceeds that of police getting killed by a suspect. Around 24 per 100k workers How many loggers get run over by trees? about 400 per year or 87 per 100k workers How many fisherman die on the job? around 75 per 100k workers How many electricians get shocked to death by a wire? 8.4 per 100k, but power line installers are at 18.6 per 100k Roofers? They die at a clip of around 45 per 100k on the job Now let's talk about police. How many died in the line of duty in 2019? 89 or around 11 per 100k So, more than an electrician, but less than every other job on the list. Now of course we've got the whole fighting violent criminal aspect, though. Right? Not really. Of the 89 police officers killed in the line of duty in 2019, only 48 of them were killed feloniously. The rest? Mostly car accidents. So the rate at which police are killed in the line of duty by a criminal? 6 per 100k workers. Six. COVID on the other hand has killed 12.6 police officers per 100k workers. You know who actually gets killed by homicide more than the police? Taxi drivers at a clip of 10 per 100k, and around 14 per 100k when you factor in accidents So, police are less likely to die or be seriously injured on the job than about 15-20 other professions, and they're 66% less likely to be killed by way of homicide than a taxi driver, so help me understand why we give them a pass for unbridled violence?

I'll be satisfied when an act of police brutality is a genuine shock. I've said it before police work may be high pressure and it may be dangerous, but it ranks no higher than 15th in serious injury or deaths per 100,000 and yet they're the only profession that has an endemic amount of extreme violence closely associated with it, but also excused as a result of stressors from the job. Why do we expect people who work similar or even more dangerous jobs to stay calm and collected under pressure like farmers, loggers, fisherman, electricians, cab drivers, pilots, roofers and why don't we excuse their incidents of extreme violence as a byproduct of their dangerous jobs? Why do police get a pass for excessive violence? From reports I've read and conversations I've had with military members who have served in combat, their rules of engagement and the deployment of extreme or lethal force seems to be stricter than that of US police. Is that your perception and do you think that's the way it should be in a civilized country?

wow! Sounds like a NHL Coach. Not your usual scared to say whT color the blue sky is NFL Coach. now attempting to piece together the thought process... Maybe...and we have seen when a QB comes unexpectedly Off the bench they do many times have success in that specific game. maybe Lynn feels that with prep time the opposing teams will not let Herbert look as good and if Herbert really isn’t ready for the full spot light then Lynn will be having to bench his Rookie and that would lead to all sorts of other isssues. Lynn has made a ton of boneheaded calls at the helm of an NFL team, but this is just such a bizarre hill to die on. Maybe he believes that this endears him to the veterans in the locker room or something as a player's coach, but I'm pretty sure they all know that Tyrod isn't leading them to a Super Bowl. For sure I understand taking a measured stance and not going all-in Herbert here, but he's swung so far the other way it's almost like he believes Herbert has no business playing for this team. When the inevitable time comes for him to assume the starting role, how exactly is that message delivered and sold?

I also agree on better training for de-escalation. Based on a lot of the body cams that have come out over the years though it seems a lot of these controversial interactions with police aren't as much police with good intentions who just don't know how to de-escalate as much as it is police officers who take violent approaches because that's what they set out to do. Maybe that's more in the realm of conditioning or maybe it's part of the hiring process, but I do think there are plenty of examples we can look at where police took a very violent approach when many options were available. ------- So you say that if we remove funding from police that the "ONLY correlation" is that they are going to be abolished. Ok. I think it's a little more nuanced than that, but let's go with that. The point then is that funding is essential to the operation of a service then, and to remove the funding necessary to provide it, you're essentially removing the ability to provide the service?

Should this cost Anthony Lynn his job? Don't get me wrong, Tyrod seems like a great guy and he's a good QB to have on your roster, but what exactly is Lynn thinking here? They drafted Herbert 6th overall and he played lights out against the SB champs. He never looked like a kid in his first NFL action to me. I know that Lynn's statement may have been looked upon like boilerplate coach speak in the past, but these days it seems ridiculous that you would go out of your way to defend your journeyman "starter" of 1 game when his rookie replacement played as well as he did. https://sports.yahoo.com/anthony-lynn-risks-qb-controversy-with-hardline-stance-on-justin-herbert-214417416.html

I mean to say partial funding - typo that I fixed. What I believe is already out there, and I've been called every name in the book for it. What I'm interested in is what you believe. You made a point earlier : It seems you draw a pretty strong correlation between wanting to remove police funding and abolishing the police. Why?

I did NOT define it as "partial funding". Why can't you agree with a definition in the dictionary without putting your spin on it. We can't even get to what I'm asking for if you think a dictionary is not a reliable source.

Are slogans exclusively the creation of "the left"? Did they create: Lock her Up Build The Wall MAGA MAGAA - lol? Come on man. Stop trying to make everything political - especially biased in some sort of weird pro-republican way.

It should change the entire response. You're making a false claim with the implication that I've tried to change the definition of a word by using its literal definition.

You read my statement trying to agree on the definition of a word and that's what you see happening here? What I believe we should do is secondary to us agreeing what words mean. I don't have definitions of words. The dictionary does. I'm starting to see that's hard for folks to grasp.

That's not what the definition says. Defunding can be partial or full. Do we need to define withdraw?

Before we get into any more advanced topics, are we settled on the definition of defund now?

Start from the top, left to right. "Defund" "To withdraw funding from" My definition is the same.

I'm sorry it's not OAN or Breitbart, though I bet if you look hard enough you can find it there too. It'll probably be misspelled, however.

And you ignore evidence that doesn't fit your pre-conceived world view. You're simple, mean-spirited, and you have my pity.

Why is that wrong? Can you not have a job that is dangerous while also being expected to not assault and murder people? There are a lot of jobs more dangerous than being a cop, like being a farmer. Yet, my grandfather didn't shoot the tractor and beat my grandmother whenever he got scared. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defund

Are we playing pretend now? I'm not interested in stupid games. If you're going to disagree that they've been going after the healthcare, food, and public education of children for decades, why should we act like this is an adult conversation?

The reality that police are getting defunded? Yea.

It's in reference to police getting defunded for being violent amoral criminals.

Daily reminder: when police brutality stops, so will the punishments. It seems some spoiled brats forgot that life has consequences.

Back to the constant reminder that police are violent terrorists without any sense of morals. Arizona branch of organized terrorist police force put an unarmed and compliant man in a vulnerable position, and then used an animal they trained to maul human beings to attack him with. Not only are they violent fascists, but they've trained animals to be ruthlessly violent as well. Body-camera footage released by the Prescott Valley Police Department on Wednesday a man being mauled by a police K-9 despite appearing to comply with the officers' demands. Police initially attempted to stop Alfredo Saldivar for driving erratically at high speeds through Prescott and Prescott Valley. Saldivar ultimately stopped and body-camera footage shows officers then use a K-9 in an attempt to take him into custody. The officer's use of that K-9 and whether it was justified is now under investigation. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-breaking/2020/09/12/prescott-valley-police-body-cam-k-9-man-complying-orders/3472864001/

It's a statement from his attorney. Again, what to you would be "stunning real evidence"? I have 11 pages of clear evidence of police brutality in this thread, but apparently it's all circumspect to you. I didn't say he was at the hospital initially, because I just found out now.

Are you denying that the officer strike him with the baton in the direction of that area twice @ 7 seconds into the video? According to his own statements from the link provided on his friend's twitter account he spent the night in the hospital handcuffed to a gurney. Since the incident took place the police have gone 6 weeks without providing any sort of discovery to his lawyer. Why are you fighting so hard on this with no evidence to refute the multiple points provided beyond simple disbelief that they are true?

First of all, he was arrested, so I'm not sure he could have gone anywhere right away. Second of all, I'm not sure you understand the implications of going to the ER in America. I went in last feb and all I got were a handful of blood tests and a saline drip and the bill was $7k. Something live this could have easily been in the $10's of thousands of dollars. it also didn't say that he didn't go to the ER, just that the doctors that evaluated him later confirmed the damage. Just the internal police investigation, the victim's statement, the doctor's statement, and the video. If you're looking for a "gonzo" angle of the baton entering his anus, you'll have to search elsewhere. It's not my claim- it's the victim's.