[Aurini]

(12-21-2014 07:17 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

Who has gone on a baseball-bat killing spree recently? A knifing rampage? Show me the bodies.

Just ask Britain.

And let's not forget that gun laws in NYC are literally worse than they are in Canada; it's not the shooting or brandishing of a gun that keeps you safe, it's the fact that everybody has one that makes the criminals afraid.

[Sonsowey]

(12-23-2014 01:53 AM)Aurini Wrote:  

it's the fact that everybody has one that makes the criminals afraid.

It is just crazy that you say this as this guy attacked 2 armed cops and killed them in an instant. They both had guns. This criminal was not afraid.

About the Knife crime article you linked to, they aren't Knife killing sprees, which is what was proposed earlier.

The article says that, in London:

"They show that around 400 a month are being injured in attacks — many of them seriously — while others are being threatened. In the first four months of the year, 11 people were murdered in knife attacks."

That is a lot fewer than were killed by gun violence in NYC in four months.

Taking away guns doesn't make people less violent, but if that was 400 people shot instead of knifed, you can be sure more than 11 people would have died.

[Enigma]

(12-23-2014 01:22 AM)Peregrine Wrote:  

Profiling works --> you should give up a portion of your freedom to law enforcement/government? I don't see how you got that meaning from what I said. I'm making a positive statement, your statement is normative.

How is being stopped and questioned without reason, intimidated or tricked into waiving your rights to search or seizure without probable cause, etc. not impeding on an individual's freedom?

Quote:

Anonymous blogger who? Think I missed something.

Tuthmosis is an anonymous blogger, unless you think that's he actually a Sphinx wearing shutter shades. You just compared his slut profiling to police using criminal profiling, did you not?

[weambulance]

(12-23-2014 03:03 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 01:53 AM)Aurini Wrote:  

it's the fact that everybody has one that makes the criminals afraid.

It is just crazy that you say this as this guy attacked 2 armed cops and killed them in an instant. They both had guns. This criminal was not afraid.

By that logic, because JFK was assassinated the Secret Service shouldn't bother protecting the president. They're not 100% effective, so fuck it, why try?

You've obviously convinced yourself that you're helpless, that if you're ever faced with criminals you'll just lose anyway so why bother fighting back. And you're trying to convince the rest of us to buy into that shitty philosophy.

Well, I'm not buying, and this isn't a theoretical discussion on my end. Unlike you, I have actually used firearms in combat and in self defense stateside. At no time did I think "gee, bringing this gun along was a waste of time" or "man, I wish I wasn't so well armed."

You can listen to people who know, or you can continue drifting along with your make-believe worldview.

Hope you never need to defend yourself against violent criminals, because with your mindset you're screwed.

[Peregrine]

(12-23-2014 03:25 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 01:22 AM)Peregrine Wrote:  

Profiling works --> you should give up a portion of your freedom to law enforcement/government? I don't see how you got that meaning from what I said. I'm making a positive statement, your statement is normative.

How is being stopped and questioned without reason, intimidated or tricked into waiving your rights to search or seizure without probable cause, etc. not impeding on an individual's freedom?

What I meant is, it's a "red pill" (unpopular truth) fact that profiling "works", i.e. is an effective policing tool. You can disagree with its effectiveness, but I don't think you'd have a leg to stand on.

Whether it's moral/ethical is a different (normative) discussion.

Quote:

Quote:

Anonymous blogger who? Think I missed something.

Tuthmosis is an anonymous blogger, unless you think that's he actually a Sphinx wearing shutter shades. You just compared his slut profiling to police using criminal profiling, did you not?

Thought you were referring to the bit about Garner's death being almost certain. Yes, I compared the two - I stand by my comparison. Profiling is useful in all human-to-human interactions.

[Enigma]

(12-23-2014 04:00 AM)Peregrine Wrote:  

What I meant is, it's a "red pill" (unpopular truth) fact that profiling "works", i.e. is an effective policing tool. You can disagree with its effectiveness, but I don't think you'd have a leg to stand on.

Whether it's moral/ethical is a different (normative) discussion.

Oh, come on. I never said a single thing about its effectiveness.

Murder, theft, torture, and rape can all be very effective too.

You obviously said a lot more than it "works", going so far as to suggest that minorities should stop being so "butt hurt" and wear suits if they don't want to be profiled.

Yet you maintain that having to look, act, and dress a certain way to avoid being harassed by the cops doesn't infringe upon someone's freedom.

"Why all the butt hurt when you get extra police attention for ticking off several criminal tells? ... Granted, it sucks if you're stopped purely based on your skin color, but life ain't fair. If you don't want the extra police attention, get into suit game?"

It's pretty clear that you're supporting law enforcement's ability to use profiling, not simply making a case that it "works". If you'd like to retract that viewpoint, feel free, but don't insult my intelligence by acting like you didn't just express a pretty strong opinion on the morality of the topic.

Quote:

Thought you were referring to the bit about Garner's death being almost certain. Yes, I compared the two - I stand by my comparison. Profiling is useful in all human-to-human interactions.

Again, I never said it wasn't useful. The question is whether police should be allowed to use the tactic, and whether police should be held to a higher standard than bloggers and other random people with no government sponsored power or responsibility.

[Peregrine]

Okay, we agree it's effective (that's the red pill part). What I meant to say in the follow-up is: profiling sluts is the same as profiling criminals/violators. Either both are acceptable, or neither are.

You say cops should be held to a higher standard, but that presumes something morally unsavory about profiling. I say profiling is an innate human tool that is amoral. If it works and is for the good of society, I'm in favor.

Matter of opinion though, I understand how you could see it differently.

Quote:

Yet you maintain that having to look, act, and dress a certain way to avoid being harassed by the cops doesn't infringe upon someone's freedom.

You're free to dress and act however you like. Other people will treat you accordingly. That includes the police.

[TonySandos]

From Mike Rowe's facebook

Quote:

Off The Wall

Hello Mr. Mike Rowe. I'm a big fan and also happen to work in the lower Haight as well as live in Alameda. I have to ask with everything that is going on in Ferguson, how do you feel about the protests in SF as well as the looting/rioting in downtown Oakland?


Hi Meghan

Last week, those very protests blocked off one of the major arteries, and as a result, I was 90 minutes late to a holiday dinner in Alameda. I apologized for my tardiness, and was told by my hostess not to give it a second thought. “It’s a small price to pay,” she said, “given all that’s at stake.” Another guest, already well into the eggnog, wondered aloud if a heart attack victim waiting for an ambulance stuck in traffic might hold a different view?

Within moments, everyone was talking about Garner and Brown, and the conversation got very political very quickly. A liberal guest said, “Look, I wasn’t there, but it seems pretty clear that both men would still be alive had they been white.” A conservative guest replied, “I wasn’t there either, but it seems pretty clear that both men would still be alive if they hadn’t resisted arrest.”

This annoyed the liberal, who asked the conservative why Republicans wanted a “police state.” This annoyed the conservative, who asked the liberal why Democrats wanted “total anarchy.” Things continued to escalate, and within moments, fingers were pointing, veins were bulging, and logical fallacies were filling the air. Ho! ho! ho!

For once, I kept my mouth shut and listened as a roomful of decent people tore each others throats out. It was remarkable, because no one disagreed on the big points. No one disagreed that black lives mattered just as much as white lives. No one disputed that racial bias in law enforcement should be exposed and eliminated. In fact, no one disagreed about the basic facts surrounding each case. The breakdown happened over relevance and context.

My conservative friends were focused on the fact that both men died while resisting arrest, and were therefor responsible for their own demise. They wanted to discuss the killings in light of the incredible risk that all police officers agree to assume.

My liberal friends were focused on the fact that both men were unarmed, and were therefor victims of excessive force. They wanted to discuss the killings in the context of historical trends that suggest bias plays a recurring role in the way cops treat minorities.

By dessert, it was clear that both sides wanted law and order. But the conservatives were convinced that order is only possible when citizens treat cops with respect. Liberals, on the other hand, were arguing that order can only occur when cops treat everyone the same. And round and round we went. The chicken and the egg.

Later, on the drive home, I called a friend of mine back in Baltimore. He’s black, successful, and hard-working. He also resents the way he’s gotten swept into the zeitgeist of Ferguson. In his words, “I’m a pawn in someone else’s agenda, and I’m sick of it. I know what bias looks like in my life. I'm tired of being represented by two petty criminals who died resisting arrest.”

I hadn't thought about it like that, but he's got a point. The vast majority of black Americans have never broken the law. And yet, millions of lives are now entwined with the death of Brown and Garner. That's not fair, but it's hardly breaking news. Minorities are constantly stereotyped and the impression lingers. Looters and arsonists run amok, and Black America suffers the association. Now I'm trying to get my head around the fact that two cops are dead in Brooklyn, assassinated by a lunatic in “retaliation” for Ferguson and Staten Island. Unbelievable.

How much worse can it get for the millions of law-abiding minorities, struggling to be seen as individuals? How much worse can it get for the thousands of honest cops, trying to protect a citizenry that doesn't seem to appreciate their daily sacrifice?

A few days ago, people were marching in the streets, literally calling for the execution of police. (“What do we want? Dead Cops!”) Others are standing by today, waiting to lionize the assassins who answer the call. These are not the champions of justice; these are the enemies of civilization, and it’s up to sensible people on both sides of the aisle to close ranks and shout them down. If we want to live in a nation of laws, we need to support the humans sworn to uphold them. They’re a lot of really great cops out there who have promised to do that very thing, including the one in my family. We’d be screwed without them.

To answer your question Meghan, I support peaceful protests, and I’m all for rooting out bad cops. But let’s not stop there. If we're serious about saving lives, and eliminating the confrontations that lead to the demise of Garner and Brown, let’s also condemn the stupidity that leads so many Americans to resist arrest. I don't care if you're white, black, red, periwinkle, burnt umber, or chartreuse - resisting arrest is not a right, it’s a crime. And it's never a good idea.

Mike

PS. In lighter news, it's come to my attention that CNN will attempt to air a new episode of SGDI, tonight at 9pm Eastern. (Assuming we can get through a whole day without a riot, an earthquake, a terrorist attack, and Ebola outbreak, or a Zombie Apocalypse.)

Mike

[Aurini]

(12-23-2014 03:03 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 01:53 AM)Aurini Wrote:  

it's the fact that everybody has one that makes the criminals afraid.

It is just crazy that you say this as this guy attacked 2 armed cops and killed them in an instant. They both had guns. This criminal was not afraid.

About the Knife crime article you linked to, they aren't Knife killing sprees, which is what was proposed earlier.

The article says that, in London:

"They show that around 400 a month are being injured in attacks — many of them seriously — while others are being threatened. In the first four months of the year, 11 people were murdered in knife attacks."

That is a lot fewer than were killed by gun violence in NYC in four months.

Taking away guns doesn't make people less violent, but if that was 400 people shot instead of knifed, you can be sure more than 11 people would have died.

Banning guns increases violent crime.

It's not the gun that YOU'RE carrying that protects you from the criminal - it's the unknown quantity of EVERYBODY ELSE who's carrying that forces discretion.

New York has gun laws that are worse than Canada's; the criminal could go up to the cops confidently, knowing that all of the civilians around him were unarmed. All he had to do was wait for the cops to become distracted - he didn't have to worry about a dozen other potential shooters drawing on him before he got the rounds off.

You seem to think that I'm arguing that guns prevent crime by shooting criminals; that's not the case. Guns prevent crime by not being fired. Their mere existence in the hands of law abiding citizens is what cows the criminal class. There's a reason why most mass shooting happen in places with gun bans in place.

The international statistics back this up. Canada has a comparable crime rate to the United States, if you exclude the black ghettos here in America. We still have shootings. We have idiot drug dealers blat-blatting each other, even though carrying is a 7 year sentence. Disarming the citizens doesn't disarm the criminals, it just emboldens them.

[jimukr104]

Ok I will get into the gun control argument for 1 post only:

few points:

1. Cops are big NRA supporters and vice versa. Makes sense since many cops are gun enthusiasts. But mainly because cops know that most crime is not done by law abiding citizens with guns. It is done by criminals who have un registerd guns. The comment before from a member with guns who said he doesn't rust cops is weird because most gun owners are the most likely to support police. They will even come to their rescue once in a while.

2. But I don't believe that states where civilians have easy access to guns is more safe. Texas, Vegas, Tennessee and many other states that have easy access to guns has more violence than other states. Just look at Memphis or Vegas. But the crime isn't from legal guns so one can say it be much worst if the criminals thought everyone was disarmed.

The correlation I see is the gun friendly states with low population(VERMONT?) have low crime rates but gun friendly states with a large population is off the hook(Texas). But these states have a lot of thugs,gangs and immigrants..so there are other causes.

3. Most citizens who own pistols legaslly can't shoot for shit and are more likely to hurt themselves then a criminal. There are more instances of children shooting themselves with their dads gun then owners actually shooting criminals. That doesn't mean that the gun couldn't save them if needed. It just means gun owners should be more educated and skilled then they now are in gun use and safety.

4. We recommend shot guns for home defense. Only a moron uses a hand gun. Even a skilled shooter(handguns take skill) risks the round going though the wall and hitting kids in the next room ,etc. Shotguns are easy to aim and can be loaded with effective shot that won't go though walls. Plus the cocking noise scares the thugs .


5. NYC is fucked up. Hard as hell to get a legal gun but also one of the only cities where one needs a permit for a shotgun or even a hunting rifle. Many would have been saved if they were allowed a shotgun for home defense since home invasions are not uncommon..


6. Rather be shot than knifed. Knife wounds can be more painful and deadly than a bullet wound. A cop would shoot a guy with a knife faster than a guy with a gun. One might be able to get behind cover in a firefight but there isn't any defense from a knife if space is small between the thug and cop. Stats show must gunfights are within 10 feet from the participants. Bullet resistant vests don't stop knives thus they are more deadly to us. Wounds less likely to close up and there isn't any 'it went though clean"

[TravelerKai]

I have not had the time to read the entire thread but I will make just one observation.

How many of you are old enough to remember the Irish Republican Army (IRA)? That is old school terrorism. America has not had much if any, domestic terrorism that is not Islam related in some time now. Now it looks like societal issues being virtually ignored and suppressed by the two parties are going to start boiling over. After a while people get restless and stop being peaceful about their complaints. Considering the economic issues, I am surprised cop violence is first.

I hate to see this happen. I do not want to see a more violent kind of black terrorism backed by blue pill and liberal ideals, nor any white ones either. All that shit is a distraction. Unfortunately young people are highly susceptible to this kind of shit. I'm not sure what we can do to help stop this, but the well measured posts in this thread is not a bad start. We do not have to form a consensus among ourselves, but hopefully anyone lurking with rage and misguided passion seeing this thread will stay their hand instead, because terrorism is born out of ideals and ideology. The wrong kinds.

[jimukr104]

For you liberal lovers out there lol:

http://www.inquisitr.com/1699419/black-l...free-pass/


Next white girls will be asking the same thing.

[weambulance]

(12-23-2014 01:40 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

Ok I will get into the gun control argument for 1 post only:

few points:

1. Cops are big NRA supporters and vice versa. Makes sense since many cops are gun enthusiasts. But mainly because cops know that most crime is not done by law abiding citizens with guns. It is done by criminals who have un registerd guns. The comment before from a member with guns who said he doesn't rust cops is weird because most gun owners are the most likely to support police. They will even come to their rescue once in a while.

Too complicated to get into the details here. I'll boil it down to the basics:

The US has the 2nd highest incarceration rate in the world.

There are so many laws it is impossible to get through life without breaking them regularly, and the punishments for many victimless crimes are extremely harsh.

Cops are agents of the state, a state I do not trust at all, a state which views people like me as fledgling domestic terrorists.

I strongly dislike the attitude that many cops, including you, take regarding respect. I am not obligated to respect anyone. If I've done nothing wrong and some cop has an attitude, if I don't grovel properly I can expect trouble. In other words, cops are a class above citizens.

Cops can completely fuck up my life on a whim, and even if I get through it with no charges I'll still be out a pile of cash, have a sullied reputation, damaged employment prospects, and probably get fired or lose work as a result.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I have zero faith in police internal housekeeping, because I know exactly how that shit goes.

In sum, cops add nothing but risk to my life. Thus, I don't want them anywhere near me.

Quote:

2. But I don't believe that states where civilians have easy access to guns is more safe. Texas, Vegas, Tennessee and many other states that have easy access to guns has more violence than other states. Just look at Memphis or Vegas. But the crime isn't from legal guns so one can say it be much worst if the criminals thought everyone was disarmed.

The correlation I see is the gun friendly states with low population(VERMONT?) have low crime rates but gun friendly states with a large population is off the hook(Texas). But these states have a lot of thugs,gangs and immigrants..so there are other causes.

It's a complicated question. Studies have shown that permissive carry laws do not increase violent crime rates, but do not always show a significant decrease in violent crime either. However, if you look at cities with permissive carry laws vs cities with very restrictive laws, in general cities with permissive carry have significantly lower violent crime rates.

Also, it is well established that criminal behavior is affected by the possibility of armed civilians. There was a study in the 80s interviewing violent criminals in prison, see a bit about it at the link:

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics20...ttachB.pdf

A long paper with loads of references on the effects of concealed carry laws:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/scholarly/shall-issue.html

Quote:

3. Most citizens who own pistols legaslly can't shoot for shit and are more likely to hurt themselves then a criminal. There are more instances of children shooting themselves with their dads gun then owners actually shooting criminals. That doesn't mean that the gun couldn't save them if needed. It just means gun owners should be more educated and skilled then they now are in gun use and safety.

Cop myth, bud. Maybe that's true for the general populace, but people who carry firearms, especially people in states where they have to go through a training/certification process to get the carry license, are on average much better shooters than cops.

It's not a trivial decision to carry a gun. It requires fundamental lifestyle changes to manage it. People who are committed to carrying day in, day out, are also people who train regularly. Cops carry guns because they're tools of the job, and many cops only do the minimum training required by the department.

You're in NYC, yeah? NYPD is famous for shooting bystanders. Police in general are more likely to shoot an innocent than concealed carriers. Now, to be fair it's not an apples to apples comparison because cops are often responding to situations with bad intel, so a higher error rate is expected. It's a lot more clear cut what's going on when you are personally under attack than when you're responding to an incident with nothing but possibly garbled dispatcher information to rely on.

Regarding accidents, according to the CDC Americans are 51 times more likely to die due to accidental poisoning than accidental gunshots.

Also according to the CDC, between 500,000 and 3 million defensive gun uses in the US each year.

Quote:

4. We recommend shot guns for home defense. Only a moron uses a hand gun. Even a skilled shooter(handguns take skill) risks the round going though the wall and hitting kids in the next room ,etc. Shotguns are easy to aim and can be loaded with effective shot that won't go though walls. Plus the cocking noise scares the thugs .

That is fairly poor advice. Unfortunately that's what most people believe, so I understand why you recommend it.

A handgun is there so you can fight your way to your rifle/shotgun. What good is a shotgun if it's not to hand? Do you suggest people carry it around with them room to room?

Any bullet that can penetrate deeply enough into the human body to stop a threat can also go through interior walls. Buckshot will go right through two or more interior walls. Birdshot won't--it will go through at least one--but it also won't stop an attacker unless they're so close the load is still in the shot cup, at which point it just acts like a slug.

Shotguns are easier to aim than handguns but also difficult to maneuver in close quarters. Shotguns are better used in static defense, while handguns are better if you have to move inside your house while invaders are there. Also, at household ranges the spread of a load of buckshot is the size of a melon at most, which means good aim is still very important.

Shotguns have very limited capacity. 4+1 is common, maybe 7+1 with an extended tube. You apparently advocate storing it chamber empty, which means giving up a big chunk of the ammo capacity. Shotguns are also very, very slow to reload, and loading a shotgun takes more skill than popping in a magazine.

I don't buy into the idea of pumping the shotgun to scare people.

Speaking of pumping the shotgun, short stroking a pump under stress is a very common malfunction. Semiautomatics are better for average users.

Most shotguns aren't made for smaller framed people. A 14" length of pull with heavy recoil means kids and women won't be able to effectively use it. Conversely, using a shotgun with a short length of pull as a large man fucking sucks.

The best long gun for home defense is a lightweight AR-15 with a collapsible stock, Aimpoint that you can just leave on at all times, a weaponlight, and 30 round mags. Preferably loaded with frangible ammo. Simple, reliable, minimal recoil, adjustable for different people, lots of ammo and quick reloads.

Paying attention to the backstop is important no matter what you use for home defense. I'm a big fan of brick exterior walls.

Quote:

5. NYC is fucked up. Hard as hell to get a legal gun but also one of the only cities where one needs a permit for a shotgun or even a hunting rifle. Many would have been saved if they were allowed a shotgun for home defense since home invasions are not uncommon.

Yep. And that is precisely the way a huge chunk of the government would love to see the rest of the country: defenseless and completely dependent on the state.

Quote:

6. Rather be shot than knifed. Knife wounds can be more painful and deadly than a bullet wound. A cop would shoot a guy with a knife faster than a guy with a gun. One might be able to get behind cover in a firefight but there isn't any defense from a knife if space is small between the thug and cop. Stats show must gunfights are within 10 feet from the participants. Bullet resistant vests don't stop knives thus they are more deadly to us. Wounds less likely to close up and there isn't any 'it went though clean"

If someone is coming at me with a knife I'm going to be backpedaling hard and shooting all the way. I have no desire to get sliced up; I've seen some pretty grisly knife wounds myself.

[GMatic]

Quote:

Shotguns are easier to aim than handguns but also difficult to maneuver in close quarters. Shotguns are better used in static defense, while handguns are better if you have to move inside your house while invaders are there. Also, at household ranges the spread of a load of buckshot is the size of a melon at most, which means good aim is still very important.

Shotguns have very limited capacity. 4+1 is common, maybe 7+1 with an extended tube. You apparently advocate storing it chamber empty, which means giving up a big chunk of the ammo capacity. Shotguns are also very, very slow to reload, and loading a shotgun takes more skill than popping in a magazine.

I don't buy into the idea of pumping the shotgun to scare people.

Speaking of pumping the shotgun, short stroking a pump under stress is a very common malfunction. Semiautomatics are better for average users.

Most shotguns aren't made for smaller framed people. A 14" length of pull with heavy recoil means kids and women won't be able to effectively use it. Conversely, using a shotgun with a short length of pull as a large man fucking sucks.

The best long gun for home defense is a lightweight AR-15 with a collapsible stock, Aimpoint that you can just leave on at all times, a weaponlight, and 30 round mags. Preferably loaded with frangible ammo. Simple, reliable, minimal recoil, adjustable for different people, lots of ammo and quick reloads.

IMO a shotgun is the cheapest and most lethal weapon that you can get, in pretty much any state. I own an H&R 12 gauge which cost under $200 and will knock out an engine block with a 1 oz slug. Can't beat it for the price, not to mention it's more solidly constructed than my Remington 870 Express which cost more.

[Constitution45]

The gun control law in relation to the United Kingdom is a complicated one, in regards to whether it leads to higher crime rates or actually lower ones (In terms of homicide). I would vouch for a bit of both, although it should be taken in mind that we have a different approach to policing and the criminal justice system than on the stateside.

Gun control laws were relatively successful in the U.K. But it was more due to relentless police operations and intelligence in the last five years, that curbed illegal firearms. it was getting to the point where many people were calling for all British police to be armed. As gun crime reached unpredictable highs in the 90s/early 00s. This was due to a new type of criminal (I.e. Yardies, Jamaican gangsters) and the drug trade, which the police couldn't deal with. Previously it was mostly armed bank robberies which although would take place regularly, they didn't really pose a threat to the public. Civilians were rarely hurt.

However we don't have that many guns in circulation as there are in the states, the two countries are completely different. Our gun crime increased due to the former soviet block collapsing, making firearms more viable, once those routes started getting stopped, eventually the trade was locked down.

Crime is high in the U.K, although murder rates are surprisingly low; its a difficult one to measure. Adding legal guns into the picture though would be counterproductive and if anything make them targets for robberies, as the demand is so high. Knife crime is no joke though, `Glasgow back in the 00s, had a murder rate comparable to an American city and that was mostly due to beatings and stabbings.

[kosko]

I only watch CNN once per year. When I am back home during the holidays I probably all the TV I would in the year. CNN is further pushing the race bait hard, but also the cop bait also.

Cops have tied themselves by the feet and I will explain why.

All across in cities in America and Canada "Big Police" has taken over City budgets and have taken City officials hostage by growing so large in scope, and in such large control of the city budget they have been able to run Carte Blanche on a lot of dumb stuff for years. When NYC plays politics and panders to the people the cops start crying like babies and pulling stunts like walk outs... Yet get mad when the public may attempt to protest them...

The cops expect the same royal treatment they always get just like the big massive public work unions that hold cities hostage and when politics has to be played, in a instance where they can't be pandered to you see them whine and complain.

From the distance the tension and hostilities between the public and police becomes more fierce. The cops sit on a bounty of goodies dumped on them by Federal agencies which have militarized city police into makeshift private security firms. These extra toys have of course increasing operational budgets which the city can't reduce and always keeps the game of increased budgets for the police on the go.

The media wants to keep this push pull going so that a eventual "response" is had. A response that would be the cops responding to hostile protests with force and then the chain reaction of events that would stem from that.