Crime doesn't pay but a new saying 'Prisoners don't pay' means prisoners don't have to pay to stay alive when it comes to skyrocketing rental accommodation, petrol and food prices. High inflation is forcing individuals to injure someone to survive, and it seems that prison is the perfect heaven where all expenses are paid by the unforgiving taxpayer who wouldn't give a dime to the almost or already homeless debt-unpaid individuals.
...Is your quote at all related to what you wrote?
...and you get free sex
Sex is always free, my man.
[quote=Slade;843850]...Is your quote at all related to what you wrote?
Doesn't look like it.
Some rural town's sheriff here in Georgia got fired because he was using prisoners as workers. But they were doing work for his contracting business, painting fences and pressure washing and stuff.
Was the sheriff white and all the inmates black? :horse:
Better story was about the guy who got arrested for parachuting off a skyscraper in the city here in Sydney. He ended up landing directly in front of two police and he was arrested immediately.
Oh, gingersnaps!
You make it out to be like prison is just a free ride, it makes life so easy! But, seriously, what the prisoners go through and what they have to do isn't so easy.
Again, you make it seem like prison is a GOOD place to be... WTF?
It's probably a good place compared to certain parts of America where your live expectancy even on death row is longer in prison than it is in the ghetto.
Prison is the wrong place for those are lazy. Men and women don't fully understand that working hard, no matter if the job is small, such as dropping off advertising leaflets in letterboxes, must force themselves to put out more: say 2000 leaflets instead of 600 would get them $80.00 or so for 2 or 3 days. You can go to an 'All You Can Eat' restaurant for lunch or dinner under $20, 3 days a week. The other 2 days are no meals between days. Catching the bus should be no more than $3.00 all day if the suburbs around are within the local zone. Since the government is slow to give rental-free buildings for the homeless, I believe church halls would have to do for the meantime. Pity though, not all church owners can help them.
:cool: :eek:
what the **** are you talking about dude
Some prisoners when released from jail become homeless. My thoughts could be useful advice for those with unhealthy minds and bodies. Letterbox dropping is a healing process in bringing peace and self-confidence besides being fit and healthy. The public toilets give free tapwater and can be refilled in an empty plastic bottle because, as far as I know, no free drink is available at the All You Can Eat reataurants. I found this article while searching the internet:
hey misogenie..... do you even know where you're at right now? put down the crack pipe for a few minutes and think your last few posts through...
Becoming a prisoner is a fast, simple and best solution. I believe well-educated or low well-educated people give up hope and don't waste time waiting in line for an organisation such as the government or salvation army, friend or relative to solve their problems quickly. You don't want to die from hunger and disease without food and water, from winter cold and from the summer heatwave. Prison is no safe haven. The government's overdrive on inflation if not lowered could make give prison a new meaning - an alternative accommodation for the homeless.
You say becoming a prisoner is the "best solution", how you come to this twisted conclusion ill never know, in the very same paragraph you state "prison is no safe haven". Whats going on in that head of yours?
Ignoring everything the god-bot has spewed in this thread...
[quote]The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/23/america/23prison.php
Prison. It's kind of scary how aggressive the US prison system is, and it's the country's plan to lock up wayyyyy more people than ever in the coming years. Theories I've heard say that a new group of people will be imprisoned - one that may not be the most beneficial, but certainly isn't seen as "prison-worthy" in society's eyes today. It could almost be said that when they run out of blacks to incarcerate, they'll turn to poor white folk.
So... Can someone explain the "gain" for the US in this situation? I don't fully understand the benefits of locking so many people up.
Creates jobs. Want to be a prison guard?
Oh, okay. And since they're turning to privately owned/managed prisons... that's even more jobs. GOOD CALL, AMERICA
How about lower crime rates? you know... if we executed more people... this wouldnt be a problem.
It's funny how our repeal system actually makes executions more expensive than sending criminals to Jail for life.
Are lowered crime rates really the objective here? No way. We already have almost 25% of the world's imprisoned population, and we're about to build and expand many more prisons. Does the US really have such a huge number of criminals compared to every other country in the world?
[youtube=aFUpa0OwlyU&NR=1]aFUpa0OwlyU&NR=1[/youtube]
hmm
[quote=misogenie;847423]Becoming a prisoner is a fast, simple and best solution.
And not only that, it's the final solution.
You're right, there are about a million variables at play here. I'm not saying our legal system is too harsh, just that there are serious problems with the way our laws are carried out. That's pretty open and vague, but yeah... there are problems at every level, and that's probably how it's always going to be. Anyways, my stance on our gov's plans for prisons and such is just that it's going to suck. I don't know near enough about this stuff to come up with any solutions.
@WillisGreeny: Interestingly enough, there is currently debate going on here about starting a citizen/independent panel to review police actions. Last July 4th some protesters got pretty roughed up, and the remaining case (after settlements) was dismissed a couple months ago. Plus the mayor immediately said the police had done a "commendable job," so yeah... cue ****storm.
edit: Actually, I just thought of a question. Do you think we can we expect to see quotas for how many people must be imprisoned per year to fill these new prisons?
Wasn't Internal affairs suppose to do something of that effect? I liked thinking there was an agency that was watching the police, but I'm starting to doubt its existance.
I'm certain that more prisons will have some effects, but not with quotas. It's more likely that with all the new space, Judges will hardly give out any early paroles.
I dunno. I think Cops get an unfair stigma. By and large, most of them are pretty good people who just want to help protect their community. Is there a small percentage of them that are worthless, yeah without a doubt, but we see that in every part of society. Its unfortunate that such a small percentage of that particular group has become responsible for creating a negative image. But regardless what anyone here says or thinks, if you thought someone was breaking into your house in the middle of the night the sound of sirens or a police officers voice as he arrests the criminal in your living-room would be music to your ears.
Its easy to forget that these guys often find themselves running head-long into situations most people run away from, weather its a dark alley , or some psycho with an AK-47 outside the bank who decided hes gonna take a couple dozen people with him. Its a Cops job to stay between us and them, and that is commendable.
Are you suggesting that police actions don't need to be overseen by any independent party?
I think the majority of cops are great, but I also think it's a mistake to assume that they can do no wrong. That's what the issue is where I live, because the mayor publicly stated that they had done nothing wrong when there's no way she had all the facts (video evidence that countered police statements surfaced later). In my opinion, no matter who's on your police force, they need to be overseen by a council or group. There's no way we can trust anyone alone with the power to make decisions that affect people so radically. It has literally nothing to do with biases towards police or anyone.
@WillisGreeny: There used to be a council here that included one person each from a variety of backgrounds, but at some point I guess it just... stopped. It was purely a local institution, and though I don't know about Internal Affairs, I do know that now our city's police has no overseer.
It's common sense that prison is no safe haven where bullying and killing exist but not every prisoner dies. If our Creator is real then a Christian pastor should test his faith in prison to see whether or not he could heal with the holy spirit of Jesus Christ inside himself or herself, resulting in a miraculous transformation of revealing peace long hiddden in the subconscious minds of violent prisoners. Corrupt-minded prisoners see prison as a permanent and comfortable safe haven because I believe their subconscious minds have been programmed to give optimal survival in prison when society in the outside world is at risk with accidental death such as car accidents and tornadoes.
...
c'mere for a second
The council this city previously had involved people who have experienced being a police officer or working in law enforcement, as well as those who had not. Such as a retired police officer, a member of some enforcement agency, and one citizen who had no political affiliations, among others. It's not like they get a bunch of citizens together to boo and hiss at police actions. They're just there to review complaints, and they have enough authority to not be ignored if they come to the conclusion that someone in law enforcement has done wrong.
The law doesn't protect an individual who has been mishandled, for example. Say a regular guy claims police were unnecessarily rough, or didn't follow procedure correctly. Then the police respond by saying they did nothing wrong. There's no one to counter their claim unless the regular guy can get some help in being heard. In effect, the police ARE the law, and their word is final unless there is a system in place to properly review their actions.
Valid points to be true. But I have felt the negative effects oversight can have on a law enforcement/military individual... personally, If a police officer feels threatened, or is scared, that is justification enough. Its easy to see a situation from the outside, without personally experiencing the threat of potential loss of life/injury. Weather the officers threat is precieved or actual it matters not. (this is actual law). Its unfair to sit back and say "there was no threat, you used too much force". Sure it maybe the officer overreacted, but things change when its your own *** on the line, and critical incidents happen fast. You dont have time to think, you just respond. The ones that stop and think it through and walk away from it unscathed at the end of the day are lucky. The rest are dead.
How do we increase the odds of an officer responding to a given situation with the most appropriate response? 1)Continue to improve training, with a heavy focus on real world situations an continuous practical application, and 2) Ensure that the officer selection/screening process remains demanding, quality over quantity, stop lowering the standards.... *Caugh*AFFIRMATIVE ACTION*Caugh*...but thats another can'o'worms all together...
So, when a cop shot a local artist in his own studio because he thought the cell phone in the artist's hand was a gun, that was justifiable because the cop was scared? No, I strongly disagree a cop shouldn't have to think it through. Thinking it through is what keeps the innocent alive, and if a cop can't think it through fast enough without jepordizing his own safety then he shouldn't be a cop.
Screening new applicants is great, but what Slade is talking about is the lack of re-screening for vets, and overall accountability for when cops **** up. You've mentioned that if we did start screening cops, they'll be less likely to do certain jobs, which makes me ask the question...why? If a doctor can't operate, then he shouldn't be a doctor. A big part of police procedures deal with accessing situations, and prediciting the required reaction time allowed to neutralize it. The procedure is made by cops, for cops, recommended by cops. The real world doesn't operate under the "Lethal Weapon" bull **** because not following the procedure is exactly what gets people killed.
I hate doing these point by point posts, but here goes:
[quote=specopssv44;847948]You kick down a door and move into a room with the knowledge that you might not come back out and see how it feels.
This follows the notion that "anyone can be a police officer" which, evidently, isn't true. Would I have shot the guy? Probably, but that's also why I chose not to have a gun. That police officer thought he could do the job, and when he failed, I'm suppose to be "yeah, it's ok, I know I would have ****ed up". Once again, I point to doctors as a vantage point. If a doctor ****ed up my brain, am I going to say "yeah, it's ok, I know I would have ****ed up" too?
[quote]
Just for clarification, when you use the word "vets", are you doing so in reference to seasoned police officers, or military members who purse a carer in law enforcement at the end of their active service?
Obviously, from the context, senior officers.
[quote]
No, the idea behind tougher screening is you weed out the ones who arent capable of properly performing their duties before they ever get a badge and a gun.
And the ones who already have badges we do what, exactly? And who are the people who get to make these screenings? The senior cops who aren't fit? I know you're probably aware of these problems, but I'm just pointing out that that's where I'm coming from.
[quote]
Rapid situation assesment has less to do with "predicting reaction time" (whatever you mean by that), and more to do with de-escalating a situation before it becomes critical.
I better go inform the Corallvill, and the Iowa City police departments that they're doing their jobs wrong, since they should be more concerned about "de-escalating a situation" before being concerned of their own safety. Self preservation is key to a cop on duty. If a sacrifice is needed, then it's negotiable, but for most of the time a cop needs to be aware of how to keep themselves safe. Predicting reaction time needed for any situation is a core skill cops learn and practise, daily. Example: how many steps away should I be from a person who might have a knife so that I'll have enough time to pull out my mace and spray them before they stab me.
Maybe this should be a good time to mention I've job shadowed police a few times, and I've been to the introduction seminars.
[quote]
I hate to burst your bubble, but, apparently it does. If an officer precieves an imminent threat upon his life, he is leagally allowed to use deadly force.
"In police jargon, deadly force is also referred to as shoot to kill. The Supreme Court has ruled that, depending on the circumstances, if an offender resists arrest, police officers may use as much force as is reasonably required to overcome the resistance. Whether the force is reasonable is determined by the judgment of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than by hindsight. Because police officers can find themselves in dangerous or rapidly changing situations where split second decisions are necessary, the judgment of someone at the scene is vital when looking back at the actions of a police officer."
Don't worry, my bubble of thought had nothing to do with what you supposedly burst. Cops being allowed to shoot has nothing to do with Riggs (a very unreasonable cop) continuesly breaking the rules and putting himself and Roger in danger to catch bad guys through intimidation and other criminal like means to justfy shooting them.
On a side note, I'm trying to point out that TV cops aren't how real cops act, and only in a few states and cities is it even ok to shoot someone's tire to prevent them from getting away.
I will elaborate on each one of my points just so that there isn't any confusion.
[quote=specopssv44;848128]Tactical situations and complications during surgery arent even in the same ball park. Its unfair to compare them like that. Theres no step by step procedure for dealing with potentially lethal persons, there are far too many variables. Not to say that brain surgery isnt complicated, but its done in a relativley stable, controlled and perdictable enviornment. Make a doctor do brain surgery in a moving car or a dark alley only utilizing tools he can carry on his own person, and I promise you youll see alot of ****ed up attempts at brain surgery.
You're right, they aren't direct comparisons in the sense the doctor's life isn't in danger, though hospitals aren't the most secure places in the world. Maybe I should have used army medics? Looking at WW2, Some were better than others, and some shouldn't have been medics at all, but it's hard considering each case is different from the next.
[quote]
We conduct more realistic training, and continue to hold officers to standards throughout theyre carrers. Im not a cop, so I dont know, but i know in the Corps there is annual training that must be completed to a satisfactory performace level, if you fail to meet that standard, then eventually you get kicked out/loose rank etc etc.... and yes, the programs we use are designed and monitored by senior enlisted and officer personell. As a Non Commisioned Officer, I dont want anyone that sucks at being a Marine to ever make it to my rank (much less higher) I see no-one more fit for evaluation than the people who have been there.
Police != Marine Corps.
[quote]
De-escalating a situation can mean many things. Sometimes its talking to someone, sometimes its pepper spray or a taser, and sometimes its a bean-bag round to the chest. The idea is to arrest, deter or prevent someone from ever being able to cause harm...
De-escalating a situation is just terminology for the process of making a situation not become worse, which my point with the sarcastic tone in my earlier post was to say "self perservation" is just that, de-escalation. If a cop thinks of how to keep themselve's safe, they'll keep others safe.
[quote]
isnt that contradictory to everything youve said in this thread so far? Youre entire argument is based around the fact that the actions officers take in critical situations should be more sternly scrutinized by outside agencies, even if the cop decides to blow someone away out of self preservation.
I'm not being contradictive. A popular theme of your argument has been all about the little time cops have to think; and if they think, they'll die, which is a "black and white" contrast to the idea human beings **** up when they're scared so it can't get better.
Cops are obviously aware they have dangerous jobs, and they also know they'll have little time to react when **** hits the fan. My comment about self preservation is the idea that if the cop does things in order to feel safe, people around them will be safe. If a cop feels indanger, people around them will be in danger. Simple, and easy to remember. Do preactions to keep yourself safe by increasing the person's reaction time.
So, how do cops make themselves feel safer when approaching a person in question?
Commands:
Put your hands in the air.
Face the opposite direction.
Spread your feet.
exc...
For a person to bring their hands down, grab a gun, turn their body around, aim, shoot, turn back around, and start running, seconds are given to the cops to react more accordingly than if they had told the person to do nothing. In order for cops to react with such little time, they have to analyse the situation in as simple terms as possible, and try to provide as much time possible for a reaction if needed.
Do I think you're wrong? NO, I'm just explaining a specific method of analysing a situation that cops do to calculate de-esculating a situation quickly, looking at how they can be harmed.
[quote]
I know about reaction time. Let me put it to you this way. If you have to think about how much time you have to respond to a potentially violent individual, you are under-trained. The key to success in these kinds of situations comes from muscle memory and immidiate, almost invoulentary response to a given potentially hostile situation. If you have time to think it through youre risking too much. Thorough training reduces reaction time (thinking) and increases survivability. This isnt just a theory, its combat proven
I've had a taste of police training 2 years ago with a senior officer incharge of teaching hand to hand combat to officers, for which the moral was "what you do before decides the after". Gaining muscle memory is a before, uprehending a man is the after. Many situations have the potential to become hostile, but how hostile is dependent on the cop's approach from the begining. It's not asif every cop scenario involves an ambush from the sky.
[quote]
dont patronize me plz... I hang out with half the San Fernando department of the LAPD on the weekends for ***s sake, I know how real cops are, and i am relativly familiar with policy and police tactics.
My dad's a mechanic. I've lived my life in his house, but I don't know the first thing about cars...
I wasn't trying to be patronizing; I was elaborating what I meant by mentioning Lethal Weapon in an earlier post, because your response to my post gave the implication I was only referring to cops being allowed to shoot when being shot at.
I'm not an advocat for bashing cops at any mistake they do, just that if some cops make more mistakes than others, it should be looked at. Corrupt cops do exist.
I think that one of the reasons that crime is lower in Europe is because their police officers are allowed to riot-baton you upside the head at the drop of a hat. Here if someone is trying to shoot you and you crack them across the skull, it's police brutality.