OT Derek Chauvin, 45, is found guilty on ALL three charges

Twice? Try five. And you're certainly painting the picture like you believe you now have some insider knowledge because a police officer who drew the short straw had to baby-sit you for a day.

Ah yes, because I think you're wrong it means I don't think more information on a subject is important.
I think the jury/judge had more information than you. Do you disagree?

 

i didnt think i needed to explain that it was all one conversation. Then I brought it up again because i wanted clarification.

You act as if i being it up everyday. Wth? Lol

Second, the conversation had drifted to more than just Chauvin and has long since been largely about what police can and cant do in situations. Not JUST this one…its been about regulating the police force. Overhaul. Etc.

ive never said i thought the verdict was wrong. So what i agree with or disagree with is irrelevant because i never brought it up regarding the verdict.

I apologize if asking a question in a conversation and then asking for clarification sounds as if im obsessed. It was just a question because its an eye test vs data. If you followed the conversation, I brought it up because someone said data is all they needed to form a conclusion, in essence. I disagreed and brought up ride alongs.

now im obsessed. Lol.

 

wtf are you even talking about now? And the picture you paint here will get me banned if i state it. Wt holy hell is your issue??? Lmao. Take a chill pill or a med or something?
so judgemental. You have no clue how or why i went on ridealongs.

Lol. This shits hilarous!

 

Woah!

 

You’re going off on another tangent.

 

Yes, what did you expect when you are so rude? you expect sunshine and rainbows or something?

Also, nice job truncating my post to fit your narrative. Here is the full post without missing info that shows im simply bringing up data vs eye test.

So whats your problem again?

So what exactly was your point sir?

 

No, I'm telling you that nobody is listening to me. It doesn't matter what I say.

You're telling me the police can solve the problem. I'm asking you why they are not solving it then.

You don't need to avoid the question. It's very simple.

If police can fix it, why aren't they?

 

The premise of your question is flawed. No one said the police alone can "fix it". I think most everyone believes an overhaul is needed. The question is what is expected of police in these types of situations in the interim. We cant just let criminals run rampant, and we cant abuse the constitutional rights. So the question is back at you. What do you want to have happen right now without the health/mental care net we all would like when these dangerous situations come to be like the shooter in a bar analogy I brought up?

Just because we don't understand doesn't mean we aren't listening/reading. But some of what you say seems to conflict other things and doesn't make sense. Not saying you are wrong, but it doesn't all add up.

If you think you are not being understood, try another path of explanation?

 

My question didn't say anything about the police fixing it alone.

What is the problem, what else can be done?

Then what's the dispute?

I already answered that question.

 

You didn't say anything other than officers. You said if officers can fix it, why aren't they. Implying then alone should fix it. But thats semantics we shouldn't get caught up in if this is to remain a productive conversation.

The dispute is the safety net isnt here and wont be here for a long while. The dispute is what should and should not the officers be allowed to do in dangerous situations.
Your answer isnt practical to real time situations now. Hence you arent making sense.

 

Overall fairly sound. The reality is cops cant maintain control of every situation they roll up on regardless of how much training.
There should absolutely be some sort of tracking and minimization of duties based on performance and complaints. If officers who have negative reports being held accountable.

 

Im 100% in favor of a complete overhaul of hiring and training practices

but yes. Its not gonna be easy. Unions are strong.

 

I'm not okay with them violating my rights for any reason. Especially not if they think somebody committed some crime. I'm not okay with them doing that to anybody else either.

You'd need a constitutional amendment to make that okay. That will take decades. So it's not a solution for now, either. And becoming more fascist or more authoritarian is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

But if that's the side you fall on (not sure why it's so hard for you to say what you want) then we're never going to agree.

Right now, it's far better in Oregon since police cannot harass people about small quantities of drugs. And crime rates have actually leveled off/dropped. And Portland is actually better than it was a year or so ago.

Short of those kinds of changes (or the next dot-com boom) we're not going to improve anything.

 

I don't know how it would work, so i cant say i fall in that side. To me, there isn't sides. Its not black and white. There is a shitload of gray that should be much better defined, if we are to stick with the old constitution.
Otherwise I'm open for exploring updating the constitution. Your rights are only a right because of that paper. But i do know thats a very slippery slope.

regarding your opinion of portland, you are wither factually wrong or implying one specific type of crime has dropped but not specifying so. Per city data, Violent crime dropped from 2019-2020 but has been on the rise since.
Facts.
https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Portland-Oregon.html