(09-14-2017, 09:58 AM)kandrathe Wrote: I don't understand what is hard about de-escalating hostile situations. It's got to be a dominance thing, or ego thing, or bad training. I mean, the recruiters should be able to filter police applicants. Bullies need not apply.

(10-09-2017, 05:02 AM)kandrathe Wrote: I’ve heard it was horrendously performed with nearly zero chance for integrity. Imagine if all the separatist Texans held an election, on their personal laptops with no verification of who voted, or how many times. Then, the bulk of the opposition was told by the US government not to participate in the illegal election, so hardly any opposition votes even showed up. One sided non-victory for propaganda value. On the other hand I can understand Catalonia’s anger at being promised autonomy, then having it’s autonomy overruled by Spanish courts.

(10-02-2017, 07:06 PM)FireIceTalon Wrote: I cannot think of a moment in history, anywhere, where police ever took the side of normal, working people ...

(11-01-2017, 02:00 PM)kandrathe Wrote:

(10-02-2017, 07:06 PM)FireIceTalon Wrote: I cannot think of a moment in history, anywhere, where police ever took the side of normal, working people ...

How about you play this scene over in your head a few times...

Police: Woman sets fire to home, stabs Volusia deputy shielding man from harm.

Woman accused of setting ex’s home on fire over teddy bear.

Quote: In response to the suit, attorneys for the City of New York argued that police had no duty to protect Lozito or any other person from Gelman.

(11-01-2017, 07:52 PM)Archon_Wing Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree#Civil_suit_by_Lozito

This does though.

Quote: In response to the suit, attorneys for the City of New York argued that police had no duty to protect Lozito or any other person from Gelman.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

But this is why legal experts say to never talk to police. Because they are just not on your side. "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"... Note that it never says anything about saying things that will be used for you.

Quote:Departmental Policy
Some departments have internal policies that stipulate the circumstances in which a special relationship may exist. The San Jose (Calif.) Police Department’s policy for rendering first aid, for example, states that officers who have begun rendering aid have created a special relationship with a victim and now have a duty to continue providing care unless one or more of the following conditions is present:

1.) The scene becomes unsafe,
2.) The officer is too physically exhausted to continue,
3.) The officer is relieved by someone of same or higher medical authority, or
4.) The victim revives

A source of confusion for some officers may be that while federal law is clear that there is no liability for failure to act when no special relationship exists between law enforcement and an individual, some liability may exist in certain situations where the state legislature enacts laws mandating an officer’s duty to take action. One such state-mandated duty to an individual arises in the area of domestic violence. Throughout the country for many years, officers failed to take seriously the dangers of family violence. As a result, states enacted legislation mandating special provisions and protections for victims of child and spousal abuse. As further documented in the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training domestic violence workbook23, these requirements include that officers shall make every reasonable effort to identify the “dominant aggressor,” shall complete a report in all domestic violence cases, and shall take custody of any firearm or deadly weapon in plain sight.

A Solemn Pledge
While legislated exceptions to the public duty doctrine exist, the officer must still understand that in only certain circumstances will he be exposed to liability for failure to act. This misunderstanding can lead an officer to take inappropriate action which violates an individual’s constitutional rights and could ultimately lead to litigation against the officer and the department.

Law enforcement personnel are moral and honorable public servants. Most sworn officers take their oaths of office as a solemn pledge — a pledge to safeguard life and property. Officers lose their lives every day attempting to fulfill this oath. Officers, however, often put themselves at risk because they incorrectly believe that they have a duty to act when, in fact, no such duty exists. Officers must balance the pros and cons of taking action against the rights, responsibilities, and the limitations of the profession imposed upon them by the Constitution, statute, and case law.

Proper training on the principles of the public duty doctrine and how it applies to police officers is essential to avoid liability on the part of the department and officers. The training should include a full and comprehensive review of the exceptions to this doctrine and any statutory requirements to act or protect individuals, as well as those situations in which, through an officer’s actions or omissions, create a “special relationship” resulting in a duty to persons.

(11-03-2017, 01:26 AM)Occhidiangela Wrote: FIT, if Corbyn is a capitalist, you're a nuclear reactor. Words have meanings. Please try to use them.

(11-03-2017, 01:26 AM)Occhidiangela Wrote: FIT, if Corbyn is a capitalist, you're a nuclear reactor. Words have meanings. Please try to use them.

(10-02-2017, 07:06 PM)FireIceTalon Wrote: I cannot think

Quote: Perhaps you should take your own advice and think carefully about what you just said next time you try to bash communism/communists as being nothing more than zealots. Oh wait, nvm; the logic only applies when it fits YOUR (misguided) perspective.

(11-08-2017, 02:03 AM)Occhidiangela Wrote: And at that point, the factual content in your post ended.

Quote:Mostly I was addressing the zealot/broadcast only mode of communication in evidence, complete with tired rhetoric laced with generalizations and epithets.

(11-05-2017, 07:55 PM)kandrathe Wrote: Nothing? Not even a “haha”? ?

(10-08-2017, 08:47 PM)Alram Wrote: Back off topic.

Quote:Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets of Catalonia’s capital Barcelona on Sunday to express their opposition to declaring independence from Spain, showing how divided the region is on the issue.

A crowd estimated by local police to number 350,000 waved Spanish and Catalan flags and carried banners saying “Catalonia is Spain” and “Together we are stronger”...
Turn-out for the referendum was just 43 percent, with most residents who wish to remain in Spain staying home.

Reuters

Regarding the irregularities in the voting, including people voting multiple times: irregularidades

(11-12-2017, 02:25 PM)eppie Wrote: The spanish ruling parties, especially the Partido Popular is populated by Francoists (I don't need to say neo-francoists because these are the same people that were involved in the Franco dictatorship)...

Quote:In short, Alianza Popular (AP) got all the people who were at the right part of the political spectrum of UCD but were OK with democracy. All the people who were real Francoists arrived to far-right parties (Falange, Fuerza Nueva).

When UCD dissappeared, AP got all the right part of the electorate (liberals, christian democrats, some social democrats, conservatives and the like). Francoists were "outside" (Fuerza Nueva, Democracia Nacional).


To put things in context: Franco died on Nov, 20th. Any politician who had some responsability in Franco times is dead or with prostate problems.

After Franco died, you had in the political spectrum:

a) Opposition to Franco:
- Communists (by far, the main force)
- ETA
Contubernio de Múnich - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre
- Socialists (who had just left Marxismus behind)
- Monarchists, Christian democrats, liberals (tiny groups)
- Nationalists (Basque and Catalans, specially)

b) People with some responsabilities in Franco government included after 40 years of government, from hardcore Civil War generals to social democrats. Most of them were willing to open the country to a democracy (more or less "controlled", since they were afraid to death of a Communist return, for the welfare of the country as well as for their personal security).

For the first democratic elections (1977, 1979), Communists were expected to win. However, they got around 10% of the vote, while the rest organized as
Elecciones generales de España de 1977 - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

a) Socialists (PSOE) got all the vote of the left which were afraid of a new civil war if Communists/Francoists arrived to power.

b) UCD got all the vote of the centre and the right which were afraid of a new civil war if Communists/Francoists arrived to power.

c) AP got a bad result (6%), directed by former Franco minister Manuel Fraga, who was in the "open" faction of the people who had had responsability in Franco times.

d) Fuerza Nueva Fuerza Nueva - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre got the votes of Francoists who wanted to be alive in democracy (many simply did not enter in the political game and were simply "retired"). For them, UCD and AP were just the same: traitors to Franco regime.

In the next years, UCD eventually dissappeared and AP concentred all the vote of the political right and center-right, including liberals (UL), Christian Democrats (PDP). In 1989 was "re-founded" to get rid of their most Conservative (Francoists if you like) elements and Aznar was named candidate to presidency (he had not achieved it until 1996).

Today, even the far-right is not mostly Francoist. They tried to copycat Front National or UKIP, turning to the inmigration as their main leit motiv, with no success.

(11-12-2017, 02:25 PM)eppie Wrote: I can very well imagine that many Catalunyans want to separate from Spain. A country known for having incompetent politicians

(11-13-2017, 01:52 AM)Alram Wrote: What country doesn't have incompetent politicians? Our choices for president were Hillary and Trump -- How much worse can you get?