What do you call 57 Buffalo cops resigning?

[Sean]

this is INSANE !!

You all wanted the cop who lost his cool & roughly pushed him aside
To also be the one giving him first aid

Shut the fuck up, you lying retard. Aren't you overdue for another banning?

 

[cinnefille]

Shut the fuck up, you lying retard. Aren't you overdue for another banning?

Go ahead. Write "I'm reporting x or y" pm's to management.
"cops are pigs" "if you have a blacklist, I want to be on it" style.

 

[Sean]

Go ahead. Write "I'm reporting x or y" pm's to management.
"cops are pigs" "if you have a blacklist, I want to be on it" style.

Butters was fucking spot on calling you Colin Robinson.

 

[bestone4ever]

Butters was fucking spot on calling you Colin Robinson.

No doubt.

 

[icanhelp1]

They were ordered to clear.
He was ordered to clear.
They were in a practiced formation.
He was in a classic stance of defiance.
He caused himself to pay a price,
but as a reward, he got them to pay a price too.
What he doesn't care about is the price the community just paid.
Police are going to let rioters riot and the tools have been taken away,
step by patient step to stop rioting.

I posted this link for you in another thread,
and someone even devoted a thread to it,
but this describes what the Progressive Left
is actually after and agitating for and the
black community is just another useful tool for them,
like this old radical was...

https://www.breitbart.com/national-...ce-the-four-stages-of-ideological-subversion/

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Epstein Testimony.pdf

Interesting reading concerning how google can influence elections.

Long read if you have time.

 

[cinnefille]

Butters was fucking spot on calling you Colin Robinson.

Yes, she keeps mentioning it & I was wondering what that's about.

You guys keep quoting some cheesy British sitcom that I never heard about before,
and then declare check-mate.

 

[Sean]

Yes, she keeps mentioning it & I was wondering what that's about.

You guys keep quoting some cheesy British sitcom that I never heard about before,
and then declare check-mate.

People don't have to make allowances for your ignorance.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The law was a new departure at Nuremberg. Up to then, and if Germany had won the war, it would have been a valid defence.

Not following orders could have meant trial for mutiny and execution in the German forces. But those tried at Nuremberg were those who issued the orders - not the grunts who carried them out.

Nein, my friend, there were a large number of high ranking German officers who attempted to hide behind the Superior Orders Defense, now called the Nuremberg Defense..."Befehl ist Befehl" ("an order is an order")

 

[hogjack]

Butters was fucking spot on calling you Colin Robinson.

butters is a hero.

An expert on handling life-threatening customer service situations. Fascinating.

 

[oggbashan]

Nein, my friend, there were a large number of high ranking German officers who attempted to hide behind the Superior Orders Defense, now called the Nuremberg Defense..."Befehl ist Befehl" ("an order is an order")

I know that. The Nuremberg trials established that was not a valid defence. That was NEW law never previously codified. Since Nuremberg there has been a principle that an illegal order can be refused.

It still takes a brave soldier to say 'No' to a commanding officer.

 

[cinnefille]

Since Nuremberg there has been a principle that an illegal order can be refused.

Can or should be refused?
(I don't know much about the ins and outs of such laws.)

While in cases of orders to shoot and kill these laws are straightforward and 100% right,
my fear is that, if extended to less straightforward situations like the Martin Gugino incident,
they place an unfair burden on already disempowered, low-level employees

 

[oggbashan]

Can or should be refused?
(I don't know much about the ins and outs of such laws.)

While in cases of orders to shoot and kill these laws are straightforward and 100% right,
my fear is that, if extended to less straightforward situations like the Martin Gugino incident,
they place an unfair burden on already disempowered, low-level employees

Although Nuremberg established the principle that illegal orders can be refused, the circumstances in which an individual can refuse an order are unclear.

It is a very difficult area of law and in the heat of an incident what is or is not illegal is difficult to assess. If someone refuses, the legality of their refusal, which takes place in seconds, may take weeks of judicial argument to establish that the poor grunt was right (or wrong!).

In the UK, IRA terrorists have been given exemption from prosecution, but soldiers who fired, after being fired on, and hit innocent demonstrators are still facing prosecution despite claims that they were only following orders at the time. The public is annoyed that terrorists walk free and British soldiers still face a court case decades later.

Edited for PS:

There is an assumption, in a free democracy, that any orders issued by a senior officer are legitimate. However in WW2 and in Vietnam there were some dubious incidents i.e. on D-Day some German prisoners were shot on the orders of an Allied Officer because there was a threat of a counter attack and the presence of the prisoners might jeopardise the defence. The bombing of Dresden is still disputed even now - was that legitimate?

Had the Allies lost the war there were several incidents that an international court might have declared unlawful. The winners decide who gets blamed.

The most difficult cases are those that are not envisaged by the Terms of Engagement which are set by politicians, not soldiers. The massacre of Muslim men in the Bosnian war while under the protection of UN troops is an example. The Terms of Engagement were that UN troops should only open fire if personally attacked, not to defend others. That was stupid and led to the massacre.

 

[hobbit.]

The bombing of Dresden is still disputed even now - was that legitimate?

Yes. Without doubt it was.

 

[cinnefille]

Yes. Without doubt it was.

No it wasn't. It killed 20.000 + people.
Even with the logic "the greater good, kill a few to save millions",
a good military strategist can always concoct less damaging ways.

BTW interesting trivia:
I saw this movie "Aftermath" with Keira Knightley about life in post-war Dresden.
And if they're to be believed, apparently lay-Germans suffered quite a bit of oppression after war world 2, at the hands of occupying Allies.

 

[oggbashan]

No it wasn't. It killed 20.000 + people.
Even with the logic "the greater good, kill a few to save millions",
a good military strategist can always concoct less damaging ways.

BTW interesting trivia:
I saw this movie "Aftermath" with Keira Knightley about life in post-war Dresden.
And if they're to be believed, apparently lay-Germans suffered quite a bit of oppression after war world 2, at the hands of occupying Allies.

Particularly from the Russians, repaying atrocities done by Germans to Russian civilians.

 

[FlowersForFun]

No it wasn't.

Based on?????

It killed 20.000 + people.

So what?

Even with the logic "the greater good, kill a few to save millions",
a good military strategist can always concoct less damaging ways.

That's not the logic used.

"less damaging" was the exact opposite of what everyone wanted.

"Fuck them up for MAXIMUM effect." was the order of the day.

 

[oggbashan]

Dresden was seen as a military target with large troop numbers and a significant rail junction. The intelligence at the time might have been flawed but it was seen as a place where German troops might set up a 'fortress' town.

Later analysis suggests that the intelligence of actual troops in Dresden was overstated but German intentions were to move many troops there. They just weren't there yet in the numbers envisaged when the bombing was planned.

Given what the planners thought they knew at the time, Dresden was a legitimate target.

 

[cinnefille]

Particularly from the Russians, repaying atrocities done by Germans to Russian civilians.

No doubt, the proverbial Russian boot.
And the selfless Russian sacrifices during ww2 that saved Europe were from laypeople. But once their leaders got power over Europe, it turned 180.

 

[oggbashan]

No doubt, the proverbial Russian boot.
And the selfless Russian sacrifices during ww2 that saved Europe were from laypeople. But once their leaders got power over Europe, it turned 180.

20 million Russians died. Villages were burned down and all civilians shot by the Nazis.

It was not surprising that the Russians treated Germans badly. The other Allies weren't quite as bad, but the French had good reason to hate Germans for the events of the occupation of France.

The Brits had suffered from Nazi bombing but the Americans hadn't any experience of mass civilian casualties so were less personally aggrieved.

 

[oggbashan]

Back to the OP - the resignations show what has been wrong for some time.

That their colleagues will support them even when they might be wrong and before the facts have been assessed shows what is wrong with the Police. They resigned in support of officers who are assumed to have behaved badly even before they knew whether any action would be taken against the accused officers.

While Police officers support colleagues without reservation and without waiting for an assessment they are protecting the bad apples. While they react like this, the unpleasant actions of a few will remain unchallenged.

 

[hogjack]

While Police officers support colleagues without reservation and without waiting for an assessment they are protecting the bad apples.

Thank you for characterizing the actions of every police officer. Your dedication to law enforcement over the years provides the wisdom that others need to hear.

Again, thank you. Those who see you as a lazy, old bastard with poor hygiene the rest of us recognize your commitment to common decency and the law.

 

[oggbashan]

Thank you for characterizing the actions of every police officer. Your dedication to law enforcement over the years provides the wisdom that others need to hear.

Again, thank you. Those who see you as a lazy, old bastard with poor hygiene the rest of us recognize your commitment to common decency and the law.

Stupid comments and unjustified ad hominem attack which shows your ignorance.

The post is about 57 individuals, the focus of this thread.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Back to the OP - the resignations show what has been wrong for some time.

That their colleagues will support them even when they might be wrong and before the facts have been assessed shows what is wrong with the Police. They resigned in support of officers who are assumed to have behaved badly even before they knew whether any action would be taken against the accused officers.

While Police officers support colleagues without reservation and without waiting for an assessment they are protecting the bad apples. While they react like this, the unpleasant actions of a few will remain unchallenged.

They resigned into fear of future events,
next time, maybe me; no one has my back
other than my brothers on the line...

 

[oggbashan]

They resigned into fear of future events,
next time, maybe me; no one has my back
other than my brothers on the line...

But while they protect the back of every Police officer in their unit without any critical faculties they are not there to Protect and Serve.

 

[icanhelp1]

They resigned into fear of future events,
next time, maybe me; no one has my back
other than my brothers on the line...

Exactly right! The Ferguson effect is coming to a town near you. Recruitment will be a challenge and if you open police to personal lawsuits you won't have to defund, those towns will not have a police dept due to attrition.

I have some very close friends that are retired police officers and unanimously say they would not take the job today.