• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

GWU Police Department....I can't believe this....

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
an accidental death from lawn darts was one too many for the parent who lobbied and got them banned under the cover of darkness.

if you place yourself in the scenario of facing pain and loss you can always be sympathetic, that doesn't mean we need to change the law or established practice just because something bad happens every now and then.

Dam, I wonder if I have a set of illegal lawn darts still. Last I looked they where in my storage shed; don't tell the feds I wouldn't want to get killed for pointing one of them at them during a no-knock warrent. My set has 4 darts in it still so I could get a couple of them as they came through my door.

On a serious note: A picture of a British Bobby (Cop) came into my head walking his beat while armed with a lawn dart....
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
an accidental death from lawn darts was one too many for the parent who lobbied and got them banned under the cover of darkness.

if you place yourself in the scenario of facing pain and loss you can always be sympathetic, that doesn't mean we need to change the law or established practice just because something bad happens every now and then.

These comparisons you're trying to make are farcical.

First of all, police are "professionals" who ought to be held to a stringent standard.

Secondly, nobody's really saying we need reform because of a single incident. We're saying that we need reform because of the rate of incidents. We're saying that the threshold needn't be defined because, whatever it is, it's well below the current rate.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
These comparisons you're trying to make are farcical.

First of all, police are "professionals" who ought to be held to a stringent standard.

Secondly, nobody's really saying we need reform because of a single incident. We're saying that we need reform because of the rate of incidents. We're saying that the threshold needn't be defined because, whatever it is, it's well below the current rate.

So you want reforms for a problem that you can't even articulate a rate of, to lower it to a threshold you can't define (or won't) define.

Am I wrong to be suspicious of this?
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
So you want reforms for a problem that you can't even articulate a rate of, to lower it to a threshold you can't define (or won't) define.

Am I wrong to be suspicious of this?

Frankly, yes. Your fixation on statistical representation of a problem suggests an inability to see the forest for the trees.

Rarely are the explicit numbers of much value whatsoever, when one considers that statisticians – especially those who deal in socio-political metrics – are more "artists" than scientists (or mathematicians).

I could waste my time creating statistics to demonstrate anything I want (true or false). Exactly what do you imagine that would prove?

The fact that police misconduct might be "rare" relative to... something... might be of some relevance, were police held routinely liable for their misdeeds. As it stands, I don't see a need to determine a precise rate of police malfeasance to argue that the system needs reform. Perhaps, were reform under immediate consideration, I might deem such statistics worthy of determination.

Anyway, it's clear that you have no interest in actually considering the other side (whereas I was raised there, and came here only after careful consideration of the facts). There's no number that would convince you of my position. So why should I bother researching one? Furthermore, the ever-growing quantity of Americans who are fed up with today's police will be just as unimpressed with your demand for precise statistics as I am.

Trutfully, once you step out of circles who regularly watch O'Reilly (or, on the other side, hyper-progressives), your view rapidly becomes in the minority. You act like I'm spouting something that gets about three assents, and only then in a libertarian echo chamber. In reality, I associate on a daily basis with real people, an easy majority of whom are closer to my view than to yours.

American policing is out of control. I feel comfortable making this assertion undefended, and so broadly is it accepted, I submit that your disagreeing with it says far more about your ability to reason than it does the validity of that assertion.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP...fixation on statistical representation of a problem suggests an inability to see the forest for the trees.

I kinda wonder how far the American Revolution would have gotten if the Founders first had to provide statistical representation for each problem Jefferson listed in the Declaration of Independence.

Lord Taxem: "Oh? You say, Mr. Adams, that customs agents break into houses, bedrooms, basements, and ladies' locked trunks? How many times has that happened?"

John Adams: "Ummmm."

Lord Taxem: "So, you're overstating the problem, aren't you Mr. Adams? If there even is a problem. Exactly how did you determine there was a problem in the first place, sir?"
 
Last edited:
Top