Current Events > The head of the Massachusetts Police Association has some thoughts on SJWs

(+) Yeah! (+)

Did he just say that Pearl Harbor was about Japanese refugees trying to enter the U.S.??

Mass is a pretty liberal state in all areas, but we're not blindly partisan and will vote for the better candidate regardless of party lines in most situations. And there are plenty of conservatives here (most of the middle class and blue collar workers), and cops will be conservative no matter where you go in the US so I'm not sure what's surprising.

And it's true, we're not a very diverse state, with only the cities having significant minority populations, but it's extremely rare to find anyone outwardly racist.
---

I love how the crying liberals here think he's saying violence should be the first response of any officer. That's not what he's saying.

He's saying that criminals, especially violent ones, should be treated as such. They shouldn't be coddled or excused for any reason. Those people in the caravan, if they cross the border without filing for asylum or any type of temporary citizenship are just that, criminals. Maybe not violent, but maybe so, who knows at this point.

That said, he also said "meet violence with violence" not "meet every possible crime with violence" and I agree with that. If someone is perpetrating an armed robbery, or has killed someone, or another violent crime and is caught whole doing so, then yes use as much force as necessary. That doesn't equate to tazing or a jaywalker or shooting someone who was speeding.
---

Sabram posted...

I love how the crying liberals here think he's saying violence should be the first response of any officer. That's not what he's saying.

He's saying that criminals, especially violent ones, should be treated as such. They shouldn't be coddled or excused for any reason. Those people in the caravan, if they cross the border without filing for asylum or any type of temporary citizenship are just that, criminals. Maybe not violent, but maybe so, who knows at this point.

That said, he also said "meet violence with violence" not "meet every possible crime with violence" and I agree with that. If someone is perpetrating an armed robbery, or has killed someone, or another violent crime and is caught whole doing so, then yes use as much force as necessary. That doesn't equate to tazing or a jaywalker or shooting someone who was speeding.

Or, you know, they could do what they are trained to do and try to deescalate situations to remove any risk to anyone.

Dash_Harber posted...

Sabram posted...

I love how the crying liberals here think he's saying violence should be the first response of any officer. That's not what he's saying.

He's saying that criminals, especially violent ones, should be treated as such. They shouldn't be coddled or excused for any reason. Those people in the caravan, if they cross the border without filing for asylum or any type of temporary citizenship are just that, criminals. Maybe not violent, but maybe so, who knows at this point.

That said, he also said "meet violence with violence" not "meet every possible crime with violence" and I agree with that. If someone is perpetrating an armed robbery, or has killed someone, or another violent crime and is caught whole doing so, then yes use as much force as necessary. That doesn't equate to tazing or a jaywalker or shooting someone who was speeding.

Or, you know, they could do what they are trained to do and try to deescalate situations to remove any risk to anyone.

What would be the fastest way to do that in the case of a violent criminal then? My suggestion honestly would be a headshot.
---