Nah, this would never happen.......it has.

[skycop 0]

I disagree,
The corporate media as a whole is not interested in the truth, they are there to turn a profit for their shareholders.
The more papers they sell, clicks they get, viewers who buy advertised goods or services effect their bottom line.

How often do you see a retraction printed on the front page?

My grandmother was a newspaper reporter a LONG time ago. I'm not saying there are not good people involved, or that the media does not serve an important function.
The 24 hour news cycle has created a profit driven beast, often very subjective, filled with agendas.

Dan Rather lied in an attempt to sway an election, I've already discussed the Michael Brown fiasco and it's continued coverage, the list goes on.

If you look at the self appointed youtube "media" they don't hide their agendas. Any fool with a camera can claim to be a "journalist"and engage in whatever behavior they choose, and people believe it. Social media is a whole other topic.

I know some really good people who work in the media, and do a great job. But they are at the mercy of their bosses who are more worried about their business model.
Print media is dying a slow death to digital media in all forms.

The bottom line IMHO is accuracy suffers greatly when subjectivity increases, and it has, a lot.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[wmw999 2,116]

As a corporate entity, they're driven by profits (in the best case, by adequate profits, not by profit-sharing profits). As individuals, I'd submit that most are people trying to do their jobs, just as police are.

There are bad apples, just as there are bad apples. It might just be that police tend to interact with the press when they're discussing controversial police actions (because the non-controversial ones end up in the police blotter, which isn't that big a newsmaker), so their view is colored. Just as most newspeople interact with the police when controversial police actions are involved (because, again, non-controversial ones end up in the police blotter). Which means that both sides have a disproportionate view of the "real world."

Police deal with more guilty people than most of us do; it's not surprising if they have a more jaded view of people. But it behooves them to remember that their professional interactions don't necessarily reflect the rest of the world.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wmw999 2,116]

I guess what I'm really saying is that there are few facets of life and viewpoint that don't benefit from re-examination if you have the time. Real-world situations don't always allow for that (especially in urgent situations, which police ones often are), but the urgent situations benefit from dispassionate examination and thought before and after they've happened.

Just as we rehearse skydiving emergencies, to think about how we reacted, how how we might react if they were to happen. I've never had a horseshoe, or been in an aircraft crash, or lots of other things. But I've for sure thought about them, which hopefully will reduce the amount of thinking I have to do if I am involved in such a situation.

After-the-fact analysis and digging for rationales is frustrating, and makes people (definitely including me) defensive. But it really can lead to better future actions.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[skycop 0]

I don't disagree, good points.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

They still advance the Michael Brown thing and the "hands up, don't shoot" mantra, it's an outright lie and has been proven so.

Do they? Who's still doing that?

BTW, you still maintain the outright lie that there was nothing wrong in Ferguson, and you dismiss the Justice report that shows otherwise as politically motivated.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

skycop

If you quote CopBlock, then we can't have a serious conversation, I'd think we both agree on that.
Look at the crime rates, it's that simple, the current administration along with major media outlets simply attempt to rationalize these numbers.
The same way they rationalized and promoted false narratives as they relate to Michael Brown and the "Hands up don't shoot" nonsense.

So because of technological advances your brothers can no longer break the law and murder and plunder at will. They react by not doing their job at all. And you bring this is evidence that things should go back to before.

Sounds great. Unless you are the next guy who needs a lesson of course.

[skycop 0]

Quote

So because of technological advances your brothers can no longer break the law and murder and plunder at will. They react by not doing their job at all.

Ok (rolls eyes), you forgot to call me a poo-poo head and yell "hands up, don't shoot".

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[skycop 0]

Quote

Do they? Who's still doing that?

BTW, you still maintain the outright lie that there was nothing wrong in Ferguson, and you dismiss the Justice report that shows otherwise as politically motivated.

News outlets refer to Michael Brown in the context of police misconduct on a regular basis, there was no misconduct.

The DOJ came into Ferguson with a team of lawyers, looking for Darren Wilsons head on a stick. They came away with numerous recommendations on other issues, many I'd agree with in regards to revenue neutral policing. I've addressed this in previous threads.

When a bunch of ladder-climbing federal lawyers come after a cop for misconduct, and leave with no charges, that speaks volumes.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[jcd11235 0]

skycop

Not at all, it's "let's the cops do their jobs" and be fair in reporting controversial incidents. Which statistically fall into well less than 1%, of MILLIONS of police contacts.

One percent of millions is tens of thousands. It matters, and should be reported by the media.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[skycop 0]

It's well less than 1%, and I never said it shouldn't be reported by the media.
It should be reported factually without being sensationalized, I know that will never happen. BUT, less sensationalism and more facts would be nice.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

skycop

I disagree,
The corporate media as a whole is not interested in the truth, they are there to turn a profit for their shareholders.
The more papers they sell, clicks they get, viewers who buy advertised goods or services effect their bottom line...

When someone else paints the cops with a brush that broad and negative, you claim they have no clue what they are talking about.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rushmc 18]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Coreeece,

Quote

newsfalsh dude - you're not that important.

I am as important as you are, no more no less, 'dude.'


Jerry Baumchen

No way you believe that based on your posting history

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

skycop

It's well less than 1%, and I never said it shouldn't be reported by the media.

So how frequently should cops be allowed to murder people before it's too often, in your opinion?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[skycop 0]

Quote

So how frequently should cops be allowed to murder people before it's too often, in your opinion?

Use of force means everything from verbal, empty handed, impact weapons, shows of force, up to deadly force. These account for well less than 1% of the contacts.
Every use of deadly force which results in death is considered homicide. Once is too often, but things happen and police need to defend themselves and others.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[skycop 0]

Quote

When someone else paints the cops with a brush that broad and negative, you claim they have no clue what they are talking about.

That's not a broad brush, those are facts. They are there to make money, that is their job. Reporting everyday facts does not sell their product.

Its goes back to competing interests, I never said they were completely wrong in everything or not necessary.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[jcd11235 0]

skycop

Use of force means everything from verbal, empty handed, impact weapons, shows of force, up to deadly force. These account for well less than 1% of the contacts.
Every use of deadly force which results in death is considered homicide. Once is too often, but things happen and police need to defend themselves and others.

One problem is that too often deadly force is used when it is not necessary to defend anyone. It seems that there are plenty of cases of no-deadly force being overused, as well (e.g., the cops beating the driver after he had been apprehended and was no longer resisting arrest).

When cops refuse to do their job because they fear being held accountable for their actions, your premise for this thread, that's a problem with the cops, not with those who seek to hold them accountable.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[skycop 0]

Quote

When cops refuse to do their job because they fear being held accountable for their actions, your premise for this thread, that's a problem with the cops, not with those who seek to hold them accountable.

That's not the premise of my thread, it's reducing proactive policing. This has led to dramatic increases in crime to certain areas. It's not an intentional slow down, it's more of not stopping someone when before they likely would have been. It's cause and effect, when they are not supported by their administration or by political leadership, they are staying in more of a reactive mode.
No one wants to be the next viral sensation, even if what they are doing is 100% right. The crime rates reflect this.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[jcd11235 0]

skycop

Quote

When cops refuse to do their job because they fear being held accountable for their actions, your premise for this thread, that's a problem with the cops, not with those who seek to hold them accountable.

That's not the premise of my thread, it's reducing proactive policing. This has led to dramatic increases in crime to certain areas. It's not an intentional slow down, it's more of not stopping someone when before they likely would have been. It's cause and effect, when they are not supported by their administration or by political leadership, they are staying in more of a reactive mode.
No one wants to be the next viral sensation, even if what they are doing is 100% right. The crime rates reflect this.

If what they are doing is "100% right", then they are exceedingly unlikely to be "the next viral sensation." The fact is video helps hold cops accountable. Reduced "proactive policing" is a result of cops resisting that accountability, is implied by the opening post. The want to be above the law.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

That's not the premise of my thread, it's reducing proactive policing. This has led to dramatic increases in crime to certain areas. It's not an intentional slow down, it's more of not stopping someone when before they likely would have been. It's cause and effect, when they are not supported by their administration or by political leadership, they are staying in more of a reactive mode.
No one wants to be the next viral sensation, even if what they are doing is 100% right. The crime rates reflect this.

That's a mash of conflicting nonsense.

A cop becoming the start of a new viral video has nothing whatsoever to do with their administration or political leadership.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[skycop 0]

Quote

If what they are doing is "100% right", then they are exceedingly unlikely to be "the next viral sensation." The fact is video helps hold cops accountable.

http://allmercednews.com/2016/05/13/mpd-releases-information-about-arrest-of-bicyclist-on-sidewalk/



Okay, 100% right, yet the Facebook lawyer recording this doesn't think so, it's viral, and the cops are just doing their jobs.
This is just one example, there are many more.
Just because you don't like something, or it doesn't look "good", doesn't mean it's wrong.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[jcd11235 0]

skycop

http://allmercednews.com/2016/05/13/mpd-releases-information-about-arrest-of-bicyclist-on-sidewalk/

Of what, exactly, do you think that's an example? You'll have to describe your straw men more clearly before you knock them down.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[skycop 0]

Ok.................

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[jcd11235 0]

skycop

Ok.................

So you're not going to clarify the point you were hoping to make with the article? Do you think that article's an example of an arrest "going viral?" Do you think the world is a safer place now that cops have wasted taxpayer money arresting someone over something so petty as riding a bicycle on the sidewalk?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jakee 1,254]

skycop

Quote

Do they? Who's still doing that?

BTW, you still maintain the outright lie that there was nothing wrong in Ferguson, and you dismiss the Justice report that shows otherwise as politically motivated.

News outlets refer to Michael Brown in the context of police misconduct on a regular basis,

And what do they say when they refer to it? Who is still referring to it and repeating the 'hands up don't shoot' mantra, which is what you just said?

Quote

The DOJ came into Ferguson with a team of lawyers, looking for Darren Wilsons head on a stick.

Bull-fucking-shit.

Every accusation you level at every other poster of anti-cop bias comes back at you double on this one. You are seriously biased against the people who police you.

Quote

They came away with numerous recommendations on other issues, many I'd agree with in regards to revenue neutral policing. I've addressed this in previous threads.

Yeah, you've addressed it by saying you think all their findings of institutional racism were made up.

Basically, an outright lie.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[skycop 0]

Quote

The DOJ came into Ferguson with a team of lawyers, looking for Darren Wilsons head on a stick.

Do you seriously think, if the DOJ could have found a shred of evidence, they wouldn't have charged Darren Wilson?
There wasn't any evidence, so he was not charged DESPITE a team of lawyers looking at every piece of evidence.

Quote

You are seriously biased against the people who police you.

I have a bias against politically motivated prosecutions, so do most reasonable people, cops or not.

The DOJ just charged the cop in South Carolina with a civil rights violation. He is already charged with MURDER, if you don't see the political motivation in that, therein lies the problem. The guy will be convicted of the murder charge and rightfully so.

The outcome is likely to be much different in the Freddie Gray case.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"