About Police Shootings (in America, Duh)

MadHatter wrote:

Karn wrote: My biggest concern is the future of law enforcement. We shed a bad light on LEO, we make them out to be the "bad guy", then who is going to want to be one? I get paid $8.60/hour as a Police Officer, that is about $56/day take home.

With the ever increasing liability law suits against officers, not departments, you have to get insurance or your personal assets can be taken away for even the most minor mistake in a "routine" traffic stop.
.

Ok you make 8.60 an hour?Are you in your first year because even then this page says that you make http://www.austintexas.gov/page/benefits-and-salary roughly 57,000 a year which in no way is 8.60 an hour.

You are at risk of being sued ? I must say I doubt that as you have qualified immunity which makes that almost impossible https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity

I do not live in Austin TX. I live in a small town. A tourist town, which can be scary considering most of my encounters are with transient (unknown) people, not my tax paying citizens. And yes, the McDonalds employee makes more than I do. McDonalds makes a lot more money than my city does. My city could not afford that kind of income for the staff. Just like any occupation in any city, the wages will vary greatly in different areas in the country. I am sure that LEO make a lot more money in CA ($81k in San Franxisco starting) then they do in Austin TX. Cost of living in every area, the size of the population, the amount of taxes taken from said population (the source of the income for your LEO's pay), all need to be factored in.

Qualified immunity is very real. That does not mean you cannot sue a LEO. It means that it "shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably". More specifically, "it protects government officials from lawsuits alleging that they violated plaintiffs’ rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right." "When determining whether or not a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights."

It is becoming harder to define these specific words: "duties reasonably", and "reasonable official". The shades of gray are becoming more blurred and there is no black or white when in any situation. Police do not have Absolute Immunity, which is a different thing, and they shouldn't. This is a balance that helps to keep people making "reasonable decisions".

Most people will sue the city/department, because let us be honest, that is where the money is. The city/department has a much bigger wallet than an individual.

Here are two articles about liability if you are still interested.

http://www.deedysupport.com/the-down-and-dirty-what-every-officer-should-know-about-insurance-and-professional-associations/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-insurance-idUSKCN0WJ2R1

Bottom line is it is adding to the stress and concerns for Police to do the job when they have to worry that the next action they take may be perceived wrong and cause a lifetime of pain and restitution. Most LEO decisions are made in less than a second, a reaction to an ever changing situation. With training we hope that the decisions we make are the right ones, but if we instill doubt, that hesitation could be costly.

Plus these shootings do not make LEO feel safe. Now people are calling 911, and ambushing the LEO when he gets there to "help". When you approach a vehicle, alone at night, on a dark road, the windows are tinted, you cannot see who or how many people are in the vehicle, how "safe" do you think the officer feels when he approaches that vehicle?

How can you like Donald Trump ?? He is a disgusting human being. Is he even a human being ?? The Republicans have always been considered the bad guys. You had George W. Bush, for goodness sake. GEORGE W. BUSH !!??

Silas, please check your tone. This is a religious Temple, not a place to fling insults at (even famous) people.

Also please show a little respect for your fellow Jedi who may have differing political leanings to yourself - deeming some (perhaps many) here supporters/members of "the bad guys" reveals a very specific prejudice in your thinking.

Thanks.

Sorry tzb and anyone i offended. I'm just really upset with the current political structure that their is today, and i think it's awful that after Ronald Reagan we're letting another celebrity run for office.

Regardless of their pre-political career, every president is a celebrity - the ultimate celebrity, perhaps the most famous person on the planet. Some would argue that's their major function, as a media-friendly figurehead, the public face for a party to hide behind who actually wields supreme power.

To be a celebrity just means to have achieved fame in your given field. I'm sure some celebrities would make very good presidents - even if I don't believe Trump is an example of that. Being a celebrity is unavoidable for a president, and in my opinion shouldn't exclude someone from becoming president. Perhaps it could even be viewed as an advantage that someone is already used to that level of public scrutiny and media attention.

Karn wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

Karn wrote: My biggest concern is the future of law enforcement. We shed a bad light on LEO, we make them out to be the "bad guy", then who is going to want to be one? I get paid $8.60/hour as a Police Officer, that is about $56/day take home.

With the ever increasing liability law suits against officers, not departments, you have to get insurance or your personal assets can be taken away for even the most minor mistake in a "routine" traffic stop.
.

Ok you make 8.60 an hour?Are you in your first year because even then this page says that you make http://www.austintexas.gov/page/benefits-and-salary roughly 57,000 a year which in no way is 8.60 an hour.

You are at risk of being sued ? I must say I doubt that as you have qualified immunity which makes that almost impossible https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity

I do not live in Austin TX. I live in a small town. A tourist town, which can be scary considering most of my encounters are with transient (unknown) people, not my tax paying citizens. And yes, the McDonalds employee makes more than I do. McDonalds makes a lot more money than my city does. My city could not afford that kind of income for the staff. Just like any occupation in any city, the wages will vary greatly in different areas in the country. I am sure that LEO make a lot more money in CA ($81k in San Franxisco starting) then they do in Austin TX. Cost of living in every area, the size of the population, the amount of taxes taken from said population (the source of the income for your LEO's pay), all need to be factored in.

Qualified immunity is very real. That does not mean you cannot sue a LEO. It means that it "shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably". More specifically, "it protects government officials from lawsuits alleging that they violated plaintiffs’ rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right." "When determining whether or not a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights."

It is becoming harder to define these specific words: "duties reasonably", and "reasonable official". The shades of gray are becoming more blurred and there is no black or white when in any situation. Police do not have Absolute Immunity, which is a different thing, and they shouldn't. This is a balance that helps to keep people making "reasonable decisions".

Most people will sue the city/department, because let us be honest, that is where the money is. The city/department has a much bigger wallet than an individual.

Here are two articles about liability if you are still interested.

http://www.deedysupport.com/the-down-and-dirty-what-every-officer-should-know-about-insurance-and-professional-associations/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-insurance-idUSKCN0WJ2R1

Bottom line is it is adding to the stress and concerns for Police to do the job when they have to worry that the next action they take may be perceived wrong and cause a lifetime of pain and restitution. Most LEO decisions are made in less than a second, a reaction to an ever changing situation. With training we hope that the decisions we make are the right ones, but if we instill doubt, that hesitation could be costly.

Plus these shootings do not make LEO feel safe. Now people are calling 911, and ambushing the LEO when he gets there to "help". When you approach a vehicle, alone at night, on a dark road, the windows are tinted, you cannot see who or how many people are in the vehicle, how "safe" do you think the officer feels when he approaches that vehicle?

Ok so I was wrong about where I thought you were and worked from a faulty premise. I will offer my apologies for that and say next time I will ask those sorts of things via pm. I hope that you can understand why I did have questions though considering that BLS says that the lowest salary for police officers that they record is 30k a year ( 15 an hr roughly) and that only ten percent of cops in Texas make 15-16 an hour. But in the end I was wrong and again my apologies.

I will say that an E3 in the military makes about 11 an hour in their first two years and that is if we calculate a 40 hour 5 day work week and do not account for duty days or longer hours with no more pay. So I have been there and feel the pain. Sorry man some jobs just do not pay what they are worth.

As far as fear of lawsuits think the fact that you have qualified immunity, have police union and city lawyers, and that most people sue the city means that this fear is a tad unfounded. Its very very hard to sue a police officers and even harder to get anything from them directly. So much so that most people will never bother.

As far as feeling unsafe I can get that your job is risky and a hard one. Its understandable when there seems to be a lot of hate that people feel unsafe. However look at it from the flip side. People get killed in no knock wrong house raids and the cops are covered because they acted on good faith and the like. How safe does that make a citizen feel? A concealed carry holder was recently shot and killed after informing the officer he had a CCW and was carrying how safe does that make me feel as a CCW holder? We are always told its polite to inform a cop of the fact that we are carrying but I now see a huge shift in CCW people saying to heck with that I will not get shot for trying to be polite. So while your worry is indeed coming from a justified place please look to it from the other side as well. I will be honest I have a deep mistrust of police officers due to first hand treatment and news reports like the ones listed. But I do also pity the situations you guys are often in. I stand up for good cops where they are justified so know that even those of us with a less then favorable view of the profession know that you guys are humans and do feel for you. (Heck I got family that are retired cops, current cops, and a detective.)

Silas Mercury wrote: How can you like Donald Trump ??

this is a very good question, and if you are able to leave out the rest of your comment, and look to those who do support trump and ask this question without interrupting them or condemning them for their views, you might actually come to an answer that makes sense

which is not to say that youll agree with them, or that you should or shouldnt agree with them, but if you ask and listen from a place of sincere desire to really just understand where they are coming from,,, you just might actually,,,understand where they are coming from

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Silas Mercury wrote: How can you like Donald Trump ??

this is a very good question, and if you are able to leave out the rest of your comment, and look to those who do support trump and ask this question without interrupting them or condemning them for their views, you might actually come to an answer that makes sense

which is not to say that youll agree with them, or that you should or shouldnt agree with them, but if you ask and listen from a place of sincere desire to really just understand where they are coming from,,, you just might actually,,,understand where they are coming from

Perhaps a better question would be: "What about Donald Trump's proposed plans and policies do you find engaging and worthy of support? or "What about Donald Trump's platform convinces you that his leadership could help the current culture of violence grow towards better unity and cooperation?"

And I'm interested to know the answer (though if it's too far off topic, feel free to PM me)

This political candidate stuff is way off topic. Start a new thread, please.

Miss_Leah wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Silas Mercury wrote: How can you like Donald Trump ??

this is a very good question, and if you are able to leave out the rest of your comment, and look to those who do support trump and ask this question without interrupting them or condemning them for their views, you might actually come to an answer that makes sense

which is not to say that youll agree with them, or that you should or shouldnt agree with them, but if you ask and listen from a place of sincere desire to really just understand where they are coming from,,, you just might actually,,,understand where they are coming from

Perhaps a better question would be: "What about Donald Trump's proposed plans and policies do you find engaging and worthy of support? or "What about Donald Trump's platform convinces you that his leadership could help the current culture of violence grow towards better unity and cooperation?"

And I'm interested to know the answer (though if it's too far off topic, feel free to PM me)

i might be wrong but it looks like you are wording your questions in a way that reflects your own personal ideas and views

simple is good when you want to understand someone else's ideas and views

ask in a way that doesnt imply there is a wrong answer or give any suggestions of a correct or "good" answer

"why do you like trump?" is fine
you could also ask "what do you like about trump?" or "why do you think trump is the best candidate?"
these are all good questions IF YOUR GOAL IS TO UNDERSTAND THE OTHER PERSON

understanding others does not mean agreeing with them, it means recognizing their perceptions well enough to see how you yourself might make the same choices if you saw the world as they do

it doesnt even mean that you think that its ok to see the world as they do; you might go so far as to decide that they ought to die because of their worldview and their commitment to it

but before you can judge you have to understand, and often my experience has been that when i do take the time to really understand others, even though i disagree with them and sometimes at a fundamental level, i still dont judge them all that harshly for their views

i might talk to them harshly and i might do everything i can to counter their views, but i dont personally begrudge them for being on the other side of an ideological divide

which i think is a useful way for people to interact, and also relevant to the topic

Well if Obi doesn't mind we go a little off topic in his thread, I will for sake of discussion and try to wrap it up to get back on topic. Granted the topic is about the recent police shootings, which gets us to discuss reasons for and why, the historical aspects and potential future issues, possible solutions.

For starters I will say that I think that national politics is mostly a circus, mere entertainment to give the people around the world a team to support like a sport and to feel like they are part of the decision making process giving them the sense they are participating in creating our own destiny and stuff. As mentioned before, presidents, prime ministers and the like are like celebrities. In the grand scheme of things they really don't matter, they're a face, a personality, while they may be able to introduce new ideas, sign or veto a law into legislation, and of course there are the infamous executive orders but at the end of day, as seen with Obama, they can't do much of what they want to do without full support of the congress, senate or parliament.

From what I've researched there is either a powerful single entity composed of groups of people from the highest levels of various sectors of society united to achieve a one world government where the population serves their interests (whatever population is left after all their writings and talks of the need for depopulation), or at the very least there are various groups of the same type of people who are competing for their own style literal world domination. In WW2 you had Nazi German and the USSR implementing their desire for world control by brute force, and the Western nations idea was to incrementally set this up through the guise of what you would think to be great policies, unions, organizations.

The influence, criticism, scandals, corrpution of Wall St and multinational corporations are clear as ever today. The military industrial complex, the revolving door of pharmaceutical, agricultural, defense companies with their corresponding regulatory agencies. Bernie I think is on point with the fact that if the US took all or a fraction of the money spent on defense and put it toward health care, social services, education, I don't doubt the situation would be much better for everyone. Even if the US had the same debt from spending so much on social programs instead of defense, I think that people would be more empowered and in a better state of mind to actually pursue opportunities that would actually collectively move towards getting out of debt.

Unfortunately for Bernie, Wall St is only the tip of the iceberg that is the global financial establishment, central bank oligarchies or cartels being at the core, setting monetary policies for almost every nation now. His form of socialism and the kind his supporters advocate to just target Wall St and the so called 'rich' will actually go after the competition of the actual monsters, taking from who are actually everyday people who, for the most part, really did earn their positions and did act in accordance with the laws. The laws then go back to that revolving door concept, corruption and influence. There are definitely the bigger fish that bend the laws and cooked their books, then getting the taxpayers to bail them out with stimulus packages. The fact that Bernie also endorsed Hlllary shows he's just another useful idiot, betraying his own ideals and kicking his supporters to the curb.

Enter the Clinton crime family. They've got dirt on everyone and just look at all the people around them who've mysteriously died, Hillary seems to be untouchable after all the legal dirt she has on her that for you or I would send us away for a long time. As president she will be a warmongerer just like any establishment rhino, she is totally 'Wall St' financed, backed and serving their interests. The powers that be played the first African American president card, who continued all the wars, gives no transparency, bailed out the health insurances companies through his Unaffordable Care Act, the guy peddled hope and change and did NOTHING he said he was going to do. Now it's time for the first woman president card and everyone is going to eat it up. Clinton and Obama love Saul Alinsky and they've even got Valeria Jarrett in there, these people are hardcore communists, totally anti-Democratic, anti-American (Bill of Rights/Constitution/Individualistic). Like Obama she'll fill her staff with the same people who've been running the show for generations, the people creating and maintaining the problems the US faces.

So even if I think for a minute elections matter, that my vote counts, that these people mean what they say and will do what's best for everyone and believe me I don't think Trump is this person at all, with all the obvious sans 'conspiracy theories' as some may call them, Hillary nor Obama are fit for presidency - they are tools, robots, actors.

Enter the Donald. Real estate mogul, questionably successful businessman however he was born into it and you can argue whether he played the system or was just a bad businessman with bankruptcy or taxes. There's a good video of him that goes back when he talks about the government, president and leadership, gradually changing from how he never though he would do it yet making a lot of sense of the issues and future. Personally, I think he was groomed for this all along. As anti-establishment as he comes off as, I think it's totally establishment with all the attention they give him. The strange thing is that it's negative attention and to me since they've literally thrown the book at him: racist, sexist, antisemite, whatver actually does somewhat show the media and establishment are desperate to curb the evergrowing support for him.

He's a total wild card. He has historically been democrat, close friends with and funded the Clintons, so he could also be the guy to throw the chance for a Republican under the bus so she gets the presidency. However he's generated a lot steam, despite some outrageous comments I think that for the most part he's right about what should be done. I think the most controversial things people find about him are the wall idea and supposedly being racist against Hispanics, and also the wanting to stop and watch Muslims. The truth of these matters is that illegal immigration and radical Islam are major problems for the country.

Now I wish we could all live and work together in a world with mutual benefit without harsh border controls, but that's never going to happen. There will always be geographical areas of people with their traditions, ideas, ways of life that they wish to preserve and maintain. Not all undocumented immigrants from Mexico are criminals and rapists, just as not all Muslims are radicals, but a major part of the problem with the economy and defense has to do with illegal immigration and radical Islam. The Islamic faith is inherently violent and totally counter to Western way of life in general that is individualistic, democratic, open and acceptive of minorities and diversity. They are letting refugees in such massive waves they can't possibly be thoroughly vetted, but if you want to vet them you're a bigot. In Europe they even let people in they know were radicalized or had ties to extremists, who even went to commit the attacks in Paris and Belgium.

So even though Trump runs off at the mouth, he's 90% justified. He makes a good point about China too, but it's more the actual US companies fault (not really fault it's just business) to change their ways for more profit. He also seems to be pro-2A which is a must for a US president in my opinion. What's really crazy to me is that the Obama administration will send real assault weapons (automatic), rocket launchers, antiair systems, armored vehicles to not only cartels (assault weapons in Operation Fast and Furious which 1 rifle ended up making it's way to Paris potentially), but radical Islamic (they call 'moderate') groups WITHOUT a background check as many of this stuff ended up in the wrong hands, which was just to help secure oligarchial interests in the middle east be toppling the evil boogeymen (Gaddafi, Assad). Trump's also the only candidate who is not going to tow the line with anti-Russian rhetoric and provoke the bear through anti-treaty NATO expansion and baseless accusations of Russian aggression. I've been living in Russia for almost a year now and I think I would prefer to be here now with all the nonsense going on the US, which should say a lot.

At the end of the day though, whether Trump is real or just another trojan horse, the US is on the course to self destruction and civil war. However a new international war, or a vast expansion of the war on terror due to another major incident might keep all that in the background, in which case Trump will be just like any other neoconlib. I think the two party system is a scam and that each side fulfills different aspects that part of the same agenda set forth by the powers that be.

Even though I know many will disagree, we all have our own special areas of knowledge and research, it's safe to say national and global politics are simply out of control and influence by the average person. The real action to take is in our local communities, even the states are sold out, so mostly the real action to take is within ourselves to resist all this going on as Campbell would say, do not be tempted by the fear or the desire, remain centered and act out of compassion, objectivity, awareness of it all being a wonderful opera except that it hurts.

So there's some nice walls of text. How does it relate to police violence as of late? Well the violence is stemming from the overall political and economic situation worldwide. What can Trump do? Well there's actually a lot of black, hispanic and women who support him but you'll never see it on the news or hear the reasons why. Everything that keeps coming out about him, what he's saying, the position he takes, makes me more interested in him but at the end of the day...... I'm not going to try to get all active with this stuff going out to try and convince anyone of anything and join this or that team. This is all my personal observation and changes all the time. Gotta judge a tree by it's fruits, we know the disgusting fruit of Bush Sr, Mr Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, Mrs Clinton, we need something else that we don't already for sure know what we're going to get. Trump fruit sounds bitter as hell, but we won't know until we try. Some of you probably think it's batshit crazy cause of your opinion on Trump or what issues you think are important, but hey this is all for discussion, exploring and relating to each other in a more spiritual sense at our temple.

I'm afraid I'm having a hard time distilling a response to my question from your wall of text (if that was your intention).

But from what I understand, your message is this:
-all politicians are basically for show
-Sanders is short-sighted for advocating for socialism and targeting Wall Street
-Clinton (and by extension, Obama) are firmly in the establishment - ie. promoting war, cronyism, and hidden agendas and are simply playing the black and/or woman card to get into office
-Trump is doing the right thing by focusing on illegal immigration, keeping Islam out of America and keeping guns in the hands of American citizens
-in the end, it doesn't really matter 'cause we're all fucked.

Now, Snowy, I do think that politics has a lot to do with violence, particularly within law enforcement, so I'm going to continue. Because those in power tend to influence how law enforcement interacts with the rest of society.

I think that in order to affect the violence inherent in the system *cue Dennis from The Holy Grail, ha ha* we have to radically change our perspective. Some might remember this theory from Mindwalk. It seems to me that America is so focused on perceived threats from the outside (immigrants, Muslims, overseas conflicts, trade partners, etc) that it is failing to address the turmoil that is brewing inside (political and financial corruption, access to guns, poor health care system, race-based civil conflict, etc)

And what better way to change perspective than from the top down? If a nation is being led by a compassionate, mindful and dedicated chieftain, would that not encourage the people to follow?

Cops take their cues from their superiors through the ranks, who take their cues from the Chief of Police, who reports to the city government, who reports to the different levels of distract/state/federal government. But that's just one thread in a tapestry of problems that plague America.

I believe that an effective candidate would have to be one who is able to see (or at least tries to see) that whole tapestry and is willing to break the loom, rather than one who focuses on identifying and vilifying the makers of each individual thread.

And don't bother calling me idealistic, I already know I am.

But isn't our Path based on striving for an ideal? Is is not reasonable then to want our leaders and the ones who represent them in our everyday lives (such as civil servants, military/police, those who work in law, etc) who do that same?

Living is tough, brutal even without society... so I guess they're job is to soften the hard edges and create opportunity. The problem is as the hard bits are softened so do the people adjust and get a bit softer as well, and so they complain anyway, each person wants the easiest opportunity after all. The reality is though the system cannot just keep being forgiving, and some parts of the system will continue to retain a noticeable hardness. Policing is going to always be an example of that. It can't be without oversight, but people have to also cooperate because there is more at stake then them.

So what a nation cannot have is a popular leader who takes advantage of the soft to neglect the hard, else the system starts to get agitated and tears itself apart wanting more, but we also don't want too much hard (unpopular leader) and ignores the soft because the system slows under the weight and breaks down.

It's a funny balancing act, but the only way to orientate oneself effectively is to ensure continuous drive to efficiency of effort (system function), accurate and updating knowledge of context (system relationships), and the limits and needs of participants (self and cohort) for health (non-system attributes). And all this needs to occur across different systems with different relationships
:lol:
We all have only so much time, reduce waste and focus on the problem. There are plenty of problems to keep us busy!! Anything not doing that is probably carrying some inherent imbalance for some purpose, and of course if chaos is the actual goal then IMO its running the risk of being very naive as to the circumstances it intends to create. Just ramblin`

-Arms race between population and police
-Choice between two psychotic clowns for leadership

MURICA

Miss_Leah wrote: I'm afraid I'm having a hard time distilling a response to my question from your wall of text (if that was your intention).

But from what I understand, your message is this:
-all politicians are basically for show
-Sanders is short-sighted for advocating for socialism and targeting Wall Street
-Clinton (and by extension, Obama) are firmly in the establishment - ie. promoting war, cronyism, and hidden agendas and are simply playing the black and/or woman card to get into office
-Trump is doing the right thing by focusing on illegal immigration, keeping Islam out of America and keeping guns in the hands of American citizens
-in the end, it doesn't really matter 'cause we're all fucked.

-Not entirely for show, but the whole game is orchestrated by what I perceive as either outright selfish and criminal noble cartels that have been running the show for centuries, or really just spur the moment, dumb luck opportunists who just happen to get enough votes or have enough money/influence backing them. I guess I'm very cynical about politics for the most part.

-While I entertained Sanders for awhile, he is now Bernie the Betrayer to me after officially endorsing Clinton, throwing his own ideas and beliefs down the toilet and stabbing his supporters in the back.

-Yes.

-Not necessarily the right thing. I have serious doubts about Trump and agree with you that distracting from our inner problems with perceived outside threats is not right. Those threats are real but you're right that our inner problems need to be dealt with before we can even consider policing the world or trying to force 'democracy' on others. From what I've watched and read though, he knows the system is rigged and that Hillary and others are a part of it, he makes no attempt at being politiically correct, he's been on the outside in a position to see what's been going on for awhile now. I know he's just like the others pandering for voters using aggressive and controversial rhetoric because a lot of people are angry and he can use that emotion to get their support. I don't think it's right, but as a stepping stone I'd be willing to see what happens with him.

As for guns, well we do need to make sure guns stay out of the hands of the provable criminals and unstable, which we already have the laws to do that we just don't put money into mental health like we should. Using the no fly list is controversial because anyone can get on that list for nothing, and by mistake with no appeal of getting off or seeing why. Like ren said, arms race and two psychotic clowns, where do we go from here? No idea, in the end, yes I'm afraid besides our local politics and environments, we're fucked since no one can work together and the media and big powerbrokers are out to divide everyone and keep conflict going.

Miss_Leah ... why do you say that 'Trump is doing the right thing ....keeping Islam out of America. Like, isn't that against the Code ?

I'm not saying that's my opinion. I was asking Lightstrider if that was what he (she? I don't know your gender ) was saying in his (her?) post.

I was trying to understand and clarify what was already written.

I personally think that Trump's anti-immigration, anti-Muslim, pro-gun, and so-called "real talk" behaviour is deplorable, and quite frankly the worst thing that could happen in the upcoming election is for America to vote him in. He is the "greater evil" in the race to the White House. I believe that having him in power would only encourage more violence to be perpetrated in American society, not just in the police force, but in the population in general.

Silas Mercury wrote: Miss_Leah ... why do you say that 'Trump is doing the right thing ....keeping Islam out of America. Like, isn't that against the Code ?

It's not quite relevant to the larger discussion, but why do you make a habit of suggesting other people are in the wrong because they say/do something that violates some aspect of the TOTJO doctrine? Not everyone here accepts the doctrine and I wasn't aware one's total acceptance of it was a prerequisite to be a member of this community.

As much as many will dislike what I have to say, I feel that Trump being in office will be a catalyst for change. Change is often painful and uncomfortable, but it can lead to growth and development which I think we need. We, the US, seems to have stagnated a bit; become ridged in our thinking, politics and positions.

Like I said a second ago, change is painful. But, with a catalyst we, the people, can voice the change we want and have a real chance to shape and mold a better future.

If Miss Clinton gains the Presidency I feel things will continue as usual.

I am not found of either candidate. And I think neither of them will lead the country to a more positive future. But with one of them, he is just hot-headed and radical enough to spur the people in to action and create the change we need. I do not see Trump as being the change we need, but rather a common agitator that will spur the people into action.

Wescli Wardest wrote: Change is often painful and uncomfortable, but it can lead to growth and development which I think we need.

Thats what Saddam Hussein said :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I do accept the doctrine tho