• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘It’s still a blast beating people’: St. Louis police indicted in assault of undercover officer posi

ryzorsden

Banned
Joined
Jul 7, 2018
Messages
299
Reaction score
75
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...icer-posing-protester/?utm_term=.124450ae05f8

When a judge acquitted a white St. Louis police officer in September 2017 for fatally shooting a young black man, the city’s police braced for massive protests. But St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Dustin Boone wasn’t just prepared for the unrest — he was pumped.

The details of the indictment are disgusting. Any cop lovers here? Well, this is what cops are all about. This is not bad apples. It's a bad barrel. They beat this guy, bragged about it, then tried to cover it up.

Why are these tax-sucking parasites allowed to behave this way? WHy do they think they are above the law?

Because conservatives have built them up to be these infallible heroes, when in fact, they are merely public servants who must always be the utmost professionals. That's the tough part about the job, you're getting paid money from the taxpayers to do a job and it must be done well, or there are serious consequences. Don't like the fact that you are held to a high standard, go work somewhere else.

Any cop lovers want to defend this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
re: ‘It’s still a blast beating people’: St. Louis police indicted in assault of undercover officer posi

Cops are a necessary evil.

Sadly, they seldom prevent crimes.

But they do often find the thug.

That is better than nothing, even though it does not erase the unspeakable harm done to the victim / victim's family.


There are a lot of very, very, very bad individuals in our country.


They do horrible things. They would do even worse if there were no cops.

In the 1960s, there was much anti-cop agitation. And, yes, a lot of it was justified. But as some people said: The next time you need help from a thug, go call a hippie and see what happens!
 
re: ‘It’s still a blast beating people’: St. Louis police indicted in assault of undercover officer posi

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...icer-posing-protester/?utm_term=.124450ae05f8

The details of the indictment are disgusting. Any cop lovers here? Well, this is what cops are all about. This is not bad apples. It's a bad barrel. They beat this guy, bragged about it, then tried to cover it up.

Why are these tax-sucking parasites allowed to behave this way? WHy do they think they are above the law?

Because conservatives have built them up to be these infallible heroes, when in fact, they are merely public servants who must always be the utmost professionals. That's the tough part about the job, you're getting paid money from the taxpayers to do a job and it must be done well, or there are serious consequences. Don't like the fact that you are held to a high standard, go work somewhere else.

Any cop lovers want to defend this?


Well,

- Conservatives tend to ignore the bad apples and focus on defending cops as a collective.

- Liberals tend to ignore the collective force and focus on the bad apples.

Then both define the other as hating cops or hating blacks. Perfect example of how wonderfully constructive our zero-sum country has become.

But bad cops (and bad troops) tend to infect the others around them if left ignored. By trying to cover this crap up and allowing a lesser standard to walk around in uniform, the police force is harming its own image. The very first to show outrage should be other cops.
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...icer-posing-protester/?utm_term=.124450ae05f8



The details of the indictment are disgusting. Any cop lovers here? Well, this is what cops are all about. This is not bad apples. It's a bad barrel. They beat this guy, bragged about it, then tried to cover it up.

Why are these tax-sucking parasites allowed to behave this way? WHy do they think they are above the law?

Because conservatives have built them up to be these infallible heroes, when in fact, they are merely public servants who must always be the utmost professionals. That's the tough part about the job, you're getting paid money from the taxpayers to do a job and it must be done well, or there are serious consequences. Don't like the fact that you are held to a high standard, go work somewhere else.

Any cop lovers want to defend this?

Wow, quite a story, thanks for posting it.

To me this sort of behavior is what Philip Zimbardo calls The Lucifer Effect, the title of his book based on the Stanford Prison Experiment of the 70's.

Kudos to the federal prosecutors who brought this investigation. A good demonstration that there are a few good men the Justice Department, however few they may be.
 
Well,

- Conservatives tend to ignore the bad apples and focus on defending cops as a collective.

- Liberals tend to ignore the collective force and focus on the bad apples.

Then both define the other as hating cops or hating blacks. Perfect example of how wonderfully constructive our zero-sum country has become.

But bad cops (and bad troops) tend to infect the others around them if left ignored. By trying to cover this crap up and allowing a lesser standard to walk around in uniform, the police force is harming its own image. The very first to show outrage should be other cops.


Sorry, conservatives are told to defend all cops (except the ones investigating trump) and do it obediently. I don't see the OP as the "equal but opposite" of the conservative mentality. I too believe that police should be held accountable. I just don't see that as being partisan. I'm sure there are "liberals" out there who think all cops are racist but its not a "liberal agenda". And of course, the conservative "narrative" is to misparaphrase accountability as "hates cops". Anyhoo, I think a better way to state your point is

Conservatives want to ignore the bad apples (in this and other select instances)
Democrats think there should be accountability

Lets apply your “theory’ to the Lion Air plane crash. Should we not focus on the bad apples and only discuss the 737’s that don’t fall out of the sky?
 
Sorry, conservatives are told to defend all cops (except the ones investigating trump) and do it obediently. I don't see the OP as the "equal but opposite" of the conservative mentality. I too believe that police should be held accountable. I just don't see that as being partisan. I'm sure there are "liberals" out there who think all cops are racist but its not a "liberal agenda". And of course, the conservative "narrative" is to misparaphrase accountability as "hates cops". Anyhoo, I think a better way to state your point is

Conservatives want to ignore the bad apples (in this and other select instances)
Democrats think there should be accountability

Lets apply your “theory’ to the Lion Air plane crash. Should we not focus on the bad apples and only discuss the 737’s that don’t fall out of the sky?

So, its pretty much "My narrative is the only right narrative"? :roll:

Painting a good many people with a rather large brush....I think it is far more nuanced than you portray it.
 
So, its pretty much "My narrative is the only right narrative"? :roll:

Painting a good many people with a rather large brush....I think it is far more nuanced than you portray it.

really? we are talking about the same people who think "tax cuts pay for themselves" , "republicans really really really want to balance the budget". And don't forget, a large percentage if not majority of conservatives believed" President Obama was born in Kenya", "his BC a forgery", "he wants to kill old people" and of course the vile and disgusting "stand down" lies. Accountability simply doesn't exist to conservatives.
 
really? we are talking about the same people who think "tax cuts pay for themselves" , "republicans really really really want to balance the budget". And don't forget, a large percentage if not majority of conservatives believed" President Obama was born in Kenya", "his BC a forgery", "he wants to kill old people" and of course the vile and disgusting "stand down" lies. Accountability simply doesn't exist to conservatives.

We can go back and forth all day cherry picking examples...and there are plenty examples on both sides of that equation; but I think there are even more people out there that do not see everything in this nation in such black and white terms.


I chose not to believe fallacious stereotyping....its not appropriate in race or religion, and its just as intellectually lazy to apply to politics.
 
We can go back and forth all day cherry picking examples...and there are plenty examples on both sides of that equation; but I think there are even more people out there that do not see everything in this nation in such black and white terms.

I chose not to believe fallacious stereotyping....its not appropriate in race or religion, and its just as intellectually lazy to apply to politics.

I cant help but notice you "assured" me that you are right and bonus, you used the phrase "cherry picked". Bum, when I can show a large percentage if not majority of conservatives believed asinine lies from the right, its not "fallacious stereotyping". so please find an example that comes close the examples I posted that conservatives believed in large numbers if not a majority. While there may be " even more people out there that do not see everything in this nation in such black and white terms", I think its safe to say few of them are conservative.
 
Sorry, conservatives are told to defend all cops (except the ones investigating trump) and do it obediently. I don't see the OP as the "equal but opposite" of the conservative mentality. I too believe that police should be held accountable. I just don't see that as being partisan. I'm sure there are "liberals" out there who think all cops are racist but its not a "liberal agenda". And of course, the conservative "narrative" is to misparaphrase accountability as "hates cops". Anyhoo, I think a better way to state your point is

Conservatives want to ignore the bad apples (in this and other select instances)
Democrats think there should be accountability

Lets apply your “theory’ to the Lion Air plane crash. Should we not focus on the bad apples and only discuss the 737’s that don’t fall out of the sky?

Conservatives often take the "let's wait until the investigation is done" stance before condemning a police officer.
 
I cant help but notice you "assured" me that you are right and bonus, you used the phrase "cherry picked". Bum, when I can show a large percentage if not majority of conservatives believed asinine lies from the right, its not "fallacious stereotyping". so please find an example that comes close the examples I posted that conservatives believed in large numbers if not a majority. While there may be " even more people out there that do not see everything in this nation in such black and white terms", I think its safe to say few of them are conservative.

You need the rest of that sentence...

...and there are plenty examples on both sides of that equation;


The implication in that phrase being that both sides can cherry pick; and do so....but I am not inclined to blast one political side to the exclusion of the other, or believe that one side is any better or worse than the other.
 
really? we are talking about the same people who think "tax cuts pay for themselves" , "republicans really really really want to balance the budget". And don't forget, a large percentage if not majority of conservatives believed" President Obama was born in Kenya", "his BC a forgery", "he wants to kill old people" and of course the vile and disgusting "stand down" lies. Accountability simply doesn't exist to conservatives.

Really???

Gonna hold Feinstein "accountable"???

Didn't think so. By by...:roll:
 
This was my comment from another thread on this:

And this severe and permanently disabling beating could have been dealt out to anyone there "peacefully" protesting that came within range of these malicious animals.

And as others have already stated...the protester would have had zero evidence or recourse or "credibility" against the cops.

IMO the bold is the real danger here.
 
Conservatives often take the "let's wait until the investigation is done" stance before condemning a police officer.

oh fled, this is funny for a couple of reasons. The first being the list of asinine things conservatives believed in large percentages if not majorities disproves your point. You’re confusing “waiting for the evidence” with “ignoring the facts”. The second thing is you are posting something you don't do. You cling to a narrative regardless of the facts out of some deluded allegiance to conservatism. Prove me wrong, show me the facts that show "links don't change" and show me where you even acknowledged the facts I posted most notably the title of the link generated by this debate forum for me and a conservative poster.
Fled, help me understand how you ignored that I've posted that link before with no one pointing out it was the wrong link? How do you ignore that the forum gave it a title based on the original article in that link? How do you ignore that a fellow conservative also posted that link and got the same automatic title?

Fled, you're not the first conservative (or conservative like poster) to ignore the facts and mindlessly parrot what he wishes was true. Its just what you and yours do. And your incessant " nuh uh's" in this thread just prove you'll obediently post "nuh uh" regardless of the facts. I knew you'd choose narrative over integrity. thanks for proving me right.


again, thanks for the laughs
 
You need the rest of that sentence...

The implication in that phrase being that both sides can cherry pick; and do so....but I am not inclined to blast one political side to the exclusion of the other, or believe that one side is any better or worse than the other.

er uh bum, see how you again "assure" me you're right. "nuh uh" is not debate. . You simply cant find one example of democrats believing lies in large quantities the asinine lies that conservatives believed in large percentages if not majorities. If there are "plenty of examples" then find one close to the "President Obama was born in Kenya", "his BC a forgery", "he wants to kill old people", the vile and disgusting "stand down" lies. Oh, I've recently added this one to the list. "republicans really really really want to balance the budget". (that last one really makes me chuckle)
 
Really???

Gonna hold Feinstein "accountable"???

Didn't think so. By by...:roll:


ooooo, you zinged me good buzz. anyhoo, can you at least explain what we should hold her "accountable" for? it would greatly help the conversation to actually make a point when you hit the reply button.
 
oh fled, this is funny for a couple of reasons. The first being the list of asinine things conservatives believed in large percentages if not majorities disproves your point. You’re confusing “waiting for the evidence” with “ignoring the facts”. The second thing is you are posting something you don't do. You cling to a narrative regardless of the facts out of some deluded allegiance to conservatism. Prove me wrong, show me the facts that show "links don't change" and show me where you even acknowledged the facts I posted most notably the title of the link generated by this debate forum for me and a conservative poster.



again, thanks for the laughs

Oh, vern...

All that typing. All that broad brush bull****...
 
ooooo, you zinged me good buzz. anyhoo, can you at least explain what we should hold her "accountable" for? it would greatly help the conversation to actually make a point when you hit the reply button.

How does being a whiney little bitch sound?
How about for forcing a person who obviously had no intensions of going public with her fantasy, and who was, IMO after watching her on the idiot-box, not completely all there, to stand up in front of the whole world and lie? How about for trying to ruin a good man's life, family and career, just because she needed to play partisan politics? Or how about for just being a wrinkled-up, ugly, used-up old shell of a nasty person, sound?

Pick one.
 
Any cop lovers here? Well, this is what cops are all about. This is not bad apples. It's a bad barrel. They beat this guy, bragged about it, then tried to cover it up.
"This guy" - as you refer to him, was himself a cop. Doing the right thing to catch these bastards. A 22-year police veteran who was very badly beaten and ended up in the hospital.

So much for the "bad barrel" theory.
 
How does being a whiney little bitch sound?
How about for forcing a person who obviously had no intensions of going public with her fantasy, and who was, IMO after watching her on the idiot-box, not completely all there,.
I don't think you sound like that at all. I think you sound like a typical angry delusional conservative. and like all conservatives (angry delusional or not) you don't understand the concept of debate. Please back up your "forced to testify" narrative. Don't post another delusional rant. Back up your point.

And your "not completely all there" is funny coming from you.
 
Oh, vern...

All that typing. All that broad brush bull****...

Oh fled, "wah wah broad brush" is such a cowardly deflection. And of course its not true. I've described several asinine narratives that a large percentage if not majority of conservatives believed. And the reason you're cowardly deflecting is because I've proven you don't care about the facts. Fled, what makes it so disappointing is you're capable of having an honest and intelligent discussion. But like all conservatives, when it comes time to choose narrative or integrity, you choose narrative.
 
Oh fled, "wah wah broad brush" is such a cowardly deflection. And of course its not true. I've described several asinine narratives that a large percentage if not majority of conservatives believed. And the reason you're cowardly deflecting is because I've proven you don't care about the facts. Fled, what makes it so disappointing is you're capable of having an honest and intelligent discussion. But like all conservatives, when it comes time to choose narrative or integrity, you choose narrative.

Hey, look...

More VBV (Vern being Vern)....

More accusations of cowardice.... More prattle based solely on your hatred of conservatives...

Like your "Bush, waaa waaa waaa" posts where you rant about Bush as if he wrote all the laws and wrote all the mortgages allowing the bubbles that led to housing debacle, etc.

Hate driven. Illogical. Broad Brush.
 
Hey, look...

More VBV (Vern being Vern)....

More accusations of cowardice.... More prattle based solely on your hatred of conservatives...

Like your "Bush, waaa waaa waaa" posts where you rant about Bush as if he wrote all the laws and wrote all the mortgages allowing the bubbles that led to housing debacle, etc.

Hate driven. Illogical. Broad Brush.

of fled, see how you don't address my posts in your double spaced random blurts. You simply whine about me. And you bringing up the Bush Mortgage Bubble is especially funny. anyhoo, please address my posts instead of whining incessantly about me.
 
of fled, see how you don't address my posts in your double spaced random blurts. You simply whine about me. And you bringing up the Bush Mortgage Bubble is especially funny. anyhoo, please address my posts instead of whining incessantly about me.

Pity poor Vern...

His political blinders are too damn big.
 
I don't think you sound like that at all. I think you sound like a typical angry delusional conservative. and like all conservatives (angry delusional or not) you don't understand the concept of debate. Please back up your "forced to testify" narrative. Don't post another delusional rant. Back up your point.

And your "not completely all there" is funny coming from you.

We all know she didn't want to testify. I saw her testimony and it looked forced and made her look like a dope.
Thus I assume Feinstein talker her into it.

Why is it funny coming from me? Do I strike you as lacking in intelligence? Or are you just taking a jab...
 
Back
Top Bottom