JCauto

1 hour ago, Atlantis said:

Whoops. This is slightly inconvenient for many: a female by-stander with a legal firearm just prevented another mass shooting:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236
 

Yeah, a mass shooting... with a ducking BB gun. THIS is much closer to what the founding fathers intended by several quantum levels than your stupid AR-15. I'm fully in favor of Americans carrying muzzle loaded muskets or BB guns around, have at it! 

2 minutes ago, PoodThaiMaiDai said:

Apologies for not digging too deep in the breakdown our discussion and differences of opinions.  I am busy with some personal stuff right now.

 

Here is the LINK for the 10%.

 

The 4% is for the agency I was discussing is an internal document I don't access too anymore.

Understood - I have time to do so because I'm working and so this offers a chance at glorious glorious procrastination before I have to do something I dislike. I need to do something about that tendency towards procrastination, think I'll start tomorrow.

Thanks for sending the link - I think you also understand that this is a personal opinion of the writer of the blog who does not link to the source for his contention. So not really something we could use to further the discussion and understanding. I do appreciate that you're engaging in civil discourse. 

13 minutes ago, PoodThaiMaiDai said:

Education does not make someone intelligent or give them commonsense.  It only educates and traines them.

 

Only about 10% of the population can pass all the testing required to be a police officer.

 

The department I referred to is less than 4% which is less than Harvard University.

 

So the "not educated" statement really is irrelevant.  

 

 

So, you tell me I'm 98% wrong, I give you irrefutable evidence that I was correct, and you respond by neither acknowledging your error or my accuracy. You then challenge the entire basis for the discussion, despite engaging in it quite happily until you were proved wrong. Oh, and you do so after reading the policeofficer.org article where THEY (police officers) explicitly identify increased education as a thing that could improve policing and which should be pursued and supported as policy. 

"Only about 10% of the population can pass all the testing required to be a police officer. " You will note that I back up my statements with quality sources that have links. You tend to pull 98% of what you say out of thin air. Link please.

4 minutes ago, PoodThaiMaiDai said:

You are sadly tainted and wrong on about 98% of your statements. 

 

You have an obvious hatred for authority, particularly law enforcement.

 

Most cops have degrees because their pay is increased by thousands per month if they do.  There is a very small percentage that only have high school degrees or GED's.

 

CNN just came out with a timeline that contradicts your timeline: LINK

 

The initial responding offers arrived after 16 minutes and were shot.  There was an active gun fight with the shooter.  The hour delay was just the "Border Patrol Response Team" who came to help who were the ones who made entry into the classroom to stop the gunman.

You have not managed to contradict any of the 98% of my statements that you claim are wrong. You have one source that contradicts the timeline, a senior Law Enforcement official who wasn't there. He contradicts other law enforcement reports. Have you watched the videos from the parents trying to get the cops to go into the school? Have you seen the one where the cop is restraining the parent on the ground? This is not under dispute, only whether it was 40 minutes or 90 minutes before they moved in. You are correct that I have a very jaundiced view of the Police in particular, and authority in general. Ironically, I work in an area of law enforcement (LOL). 

Now as to your claims...why were the cops standing around waiting for a "Border Patrol Response Team"? Is that the protocol? Pretty sure it's not. BTW, other places where this happened include Stoneman Douglas and Columbine, it's not uncommon.

Most cops have degrees...I referred to college degrees. I'd accept JuCo or Community College as long as it was a 3- or 4-year course relevant to policing. According to the statistics, this is correct, that the majority do not. Despite the police officers' own organizations recognizing the benefits of this... https://policeofficer.org/blog/importance-college-degree-police

Currently, approximately one percent of local police departments in America require their officers to hold four-year degrees, as highlighted by Reflections from the One-Percent of Local Police Departments with Mandatory Four-Year Degree Requirements for New Hires: Are They Diamonds in the Rough? by Diana Bruns. And what’s more, only eight percent of police department in the U.S. require officers to have attended any college at all. 83 percent of U.S. police agencies require officers to hold a high school diploma. With more than 17,895 law enforcement agencies employing 1.1 million full-time police officers working in the U.S., as well as an additional 100,000 part-time employees, this means that fewer than 200 police departments require their police officers to hold four-year degrees from an accredited college or university.

This report is probably the best one I found, and is reasonably up-to-date. It notes that the last time people compiled a national survey about police education, philosophy and practice was 1988 (!).

https://www.policinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PF-Report-Policing-Around-the-Nation_10-2017_Final.pdf

Of particular note in respect to your contention is that "Slightly more than half (51.8%) of sworn officers in the United States have at least a two-year degree, 30.2% have at least a four-year degree, and 5.4% have a graduate degree. This varies considerably by state, region, agency size, CEO education level, union presence, and department type"

So, basically about half of the police officers in the USA have high school degrees, the other half have at least a 2-year Associate's Degree. Only 30% have 4-year Bachelor degrees. Of those, around 5% have Masters degrees. You were correct that promotion and pay incentives have been quite effective in driving these numbers up as it seems much of it happens after hiring.

Just now, PoodThaiMaiDai said:

Ya and all Thai girls are prostitutes?

 

You are beyond reason.

You don't understand the meaning. It refers to the origins, training, practice, equipping and culture of policing in the USA. They were a tool of the ruling class to attack and keep the workers from unionizing and otherwise gaining rights at the beginning and have never changed. They attract bullies and train them to be para-military, then arm and armor them to enable them to do so. They have established police unions whose entire existence is meant to prevent accountability and protect their actions from any outside scrutiny. They routinely target minorities and support election of "law and order" politicians who further empower them. They lobby and vote in judges who further their objectives and threaten any prosecutor who charges bad cops with getting no cooperation in the future so they're ineffective and get voted out in favor of complicit ones. This is systemic and you would have to be blind to not see it.

Within this culture, there are no "good guys with guns" who can do a damn thing about it. Are there idealistic people who joined hoping to help their communities? Of course. Are they able to overcome the culture and overwhelming majority who don't? Nope. And so long as mediocre high school grads are handed weapons and armor and told to go out and beat heads it is never going to change. 

1 hour ago, JetsetBkk said:

Got a link?

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

On 5/25/2022 at 8:38 AM, SatEng said:

According to (Texas senator) Ted Cruz today gun control "doesn't work"

There are two answers to this

1) You have never tried it

2) Where they have tried it, it has worked - after the Dunblane school massacre 25 years ago the UK introduced very tough gun control laws and gun amnesties - not perfect but still quite effective - in 25 years there have only been 2 mass shootings (more than 4 people killed not including the perpetrator) - in Australia since the Port Arthur shootings in 1996 there have been zero mass killings (worth repeating - zero) - and after the mass shooting at a mosque in New Zealand similar new gun laws have been introduced

In the US by contrast there have been two mass shootings this week

So where is the proof that gun control "doesn't work"?

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/25/joe-biden/joe-biden-said-mass-shootings-tripled-when-assault/

Once the assault rifle ban between 1994-2004 ended, mass shootings more than tripled. While it is impossible to scientifically demonstrate the link, the evidence is overwhelming both within and outside of the USA. Access to more guns and more destructive guns leads to exponentially more deaths.

1 hour ago, PoodThaiMaiDai said:

Definitely tragic.

 

Cops are humans and make mistakes.

 

It is obvious they were not trained properly on handling an Active Shooter.

 

Due to staffing shortages across the nation many are working 60+ hours a week.  

 

There are annual training requirements with each state but when there are staffing shortages some of the training is pushed aside.

Stop the BS. The cops have been specifically told by the Supreme Court that they do not have to protect people. Not surprisingly, they literally were afraid to go in because there was a guy with a gun there and it was dangerous. Come on, you're saying, that can't be true. That's LITERALLY what the police lieutenant interviewed on CNN said directly. There have been 8 mass shootings in Texas in the last 13 years and they "were not trained properly"? Come on.

Oh the poor dears are working 60+ hours a week racking up massive overtime and getting paid an average of over $100,000 per year for a job that requires a high school degree and a couple of months of training. But won't go into danger to protect the citizens paying their bills even when it's a kid and the cops have far superior body armor and numbers. ALL. COPS. ARE. BAD. ACAB.

22 hours ago, PoodThaiMaiDai said:

Where was this ever reported?

Any further questions? Got anything to say about your beloved "Blue Line"? ACAB. 

More on the heroic US police...WHO WERE OUTSIDE WAITING FOR 40 MINUTES TO AN HOUR WHILE THE PARENTS OF THE KIDS BEGGED THEM TO DO SOMETHING.

https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-44a7cfb990feaa6ffe482483df6e4683

Good guys with guns! Heros in Blue! More Police in schools! 

Never though dare ask...why does this only happen in the USA?

1 hour ago, PoodThaiMaiDai said:

Where was this ever reported?

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2022-05-25/texas-school-shooting-gunman-barricaded-classroom

Okay, so he shot his grandmother in the face, with the guns he bought on his 18th birthday, got in the car, crashed it in a ditch, ran towards the school with his rifle, was engaged at the back door of the school by the armed school resource officer and got past him and into the building (wonder how?). The shooter was also NOT wearing armor or other protection.

But according to Ted Cruz, they needed a better safety plan. Oh, they already had one! Didn't help.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-security-plan-rcna30568

3 hours ago, morrobay said:

Armed police officers are required security for schools and other facilities. Ted Cruz, Sen-TX introduced bill for hardening schools but the democrats blocked it. Stop and search, and most other preventative measures are also blocked by these liberal saps who place someones "civil rights" above the safety of the general public.

Okay, then explain how this shooter GOT PAST TWO ARMED POLICE TO GET INTO THE SCHOOL PRIOR TO STARTING THE SHOOTING. Where are the "good guys with guns"? THEY WERE THERE. THEY DID NOTHING. THEY RAN AWAY. Nineteen dead kids. Just another day in America. BTW, we don't have this problem in other countries, ever wonder why? What could the difference possibly be?

Like always, whenever one observes what appears to be someone questioning the authorities one must ask "why"? Is it because this is such an injustice, something that really requires examination and the public to understand? 

Or is it a distraction, a means to get eyes on an inconsequential bit of celebrity gossip and fascinate the masses with conspiratorial nonsense about famous people having an accident while intoxicated? Would our hero Atchariya be as interested to investigate several other cases that cropped up in the news and then quickly disappeared, as if they were Karen forest activists?

1 hour ago, Pedrogaz said:

and Trudeau....what can you say after his deplorable and illegal treatment of the trucking protest.

What you can say is that the majority of Canadians fully approved of the disposal of that trash. Hey, let's coopt your own rhetoric, since y'all tried to import dumbocracy Amurrican-style into a civilized social democracy - "Canada, love it or leave it!"

Oh, the Democrat Party is in moral decline? You don't say.

You mean aligning your interests solely with the Amart and the Southern Mafia and ignoring your roots to support military dictators over and over again leads to a corruption of your very purpose and inevitable decline into irrelevance and crime? Who'd a thunk it? Their corruption and fall mirrors the justice-less empty consumerism of their Bangkokian former supporters who mewl for their masters while rolling over for treats from fifth-rate half-ass non-soldiers whose sole combat experience is in taking on their own citizens to prevent them from exercising their rights.

So how about my friend who has long COVID for just over a year now? Basically having to relearn all kinds of basic stuff, unable to get out of bed many days, minor setbacks that take weeks to recover from. She faking it? Why? 

Yes, she was unvaccinated having caught it in one of the early waves before the vaccines were widely available. No she was not antivax. Her life has fundamentally changed and will never be like it was before.

12 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

I was told it was a caretaker party, designed to help the nation get thorough the political morass, created by the shutdowns. I distinctly remember Cha Cha saying it would take about 2 years, then free and open elections would be held. I never thought they would stoop so low as to rewrite the constitution, and ensure themselves perpetuity, by installing 250 bought and paid for senators. 

 

I guess the huge money and power has gotten to their heads, and their extreme lack of morality, ethics, honor, honesty, or any sort of code of behavior prevents them from ever doing the right thing.

 

I hope, as many others do, that they eventually pay a high price for their crimes against the nation. 

Surely you must have this wrong, Steven100 has reliably informed me that these gentlemen saved the nation from a fate worse than death - actual democracy!

Knowing the integrity of NIDA and their polling, I would not be at all surprised if the actual question asked was "Do you support retention of the one ballot election process which would torpedo Pheu Thai hopes?"

3 hours ago, greenmonkey said:

he said it was just "one of those things". Unbelievable.

Trip to the moon on gossamer wings?

On 2/9/2022 at 6:40 AM, sipi said:

Read it again.

S l o w l y 

It's your fault. You typed too fast!