So much for that supposed police abuse

[sirs]

And if they're found innocent of those charges, what fantasy are you going to concoct at that point?

[Xavier_Onassis]

That  the courts are partial toward the cops, of course,
It would mean that the city spent $4.6 million for no logical reason.

[sirs]

That's an opinion, regarding the courts.  And yes, the city did spend millions of tax payer dollars for no logical reason, outside of a political CYA

[Plane]

  Even if no particular person is found "at fault" having prisoners show up badly injured is not a desirable outcome.

    This might be a good time to examine the procedures used to subdue , restrain and transport prisoners and persons being arrested.

    It might not be easy , but it is worth doing.

     How about the furniture and fixtures in that bus?

       What about techniques and  policies on tackling, restraining , fastening into seats and driving smoothly?

            What about prompt medical attention for wounded persons , how about medical evaluation for new prisoners even if they are not complaining?

        There isn't going to be a tool or law that makes it safe to be a prisoner or a policeman, but at the end of the day it should be true that we have done what could be done.

[sirs]

Absolutely.....there really shouldn't have been any reason he could slide or fall inside the vehicle.  Proper restraint means exactly that.  I sure do hope that new policies are put in place to hopefully prevent any further such accidents from occurring

[kimba1]

thiers an expression"all laws are paid for in blood"

meaning laws are reactivelly made not proactively. 

[sirs]

100% true.  That's why, so often, there's a scream for "more laws" following some gun related incident/tragedy (ignoring of course the daily gun deaths in places like Chicago & Detroit)

[kimba1]

if you think about it reactive laws are way easier to enforce than proactive laws since it can be shot down by saying you got no proof it`s needed .

[Xavier_Onassis]

When people say they want more gun laws, they mean different gun laws. The kind that might stop mass murders from happening or perhaps being less fatal. Limit the clip to 10 bullets, so at least a few kids can run away while the gun nut is reloading, for example.

Sandy Hook would not have happened had the shooter had only a muzzle loading musket. That is a fact.

[sirs]

No, that's no fact at all.  You're assuming that someone(s) intent on breaking the law to kill, would adhere to some asinine law that only people could have muskets, while the rest of the world and our law enforcement/military have access to all manner of firearms.  So no, that's not a fact, in any way

[Xavier_Onassis]

So you are happy that the Sandy Hook shooter had efficient, modern weapons and dozens of bullets?
I would have preferred that he had dedicated himself to a different hobby (like macramé), but since he was a gun nut, I would have preferred that he be armed with an ancient musket. And a bent ramrod and wet powder.
Of course,those were actual children he was offing, not sacred fetuses.

[sirs]

Once again, with the moronic reply.  No, you idiot, I would have been much more happy of someone on campus had a firearm and plugged him right between the eyes, before he had a chance to put his finger on the trigger.  That's what I would have preferred

Point being more laws, like limiting gun clips, DOESN'T PREVENT THE PERSON INTENT ON KILLING, TO DISOBEY THEM.  Absolutely NONE of the laws now being proposed would have stopped a single recent mass shooting.  NOT ONE

[kimba1]

i have no issue with either side of the gun issue except bothsides are not talking. I don`t want either one saying there right I want a sit down and deal with gun violence

[Xavier_Onassis]

I would have preferred that the shooter received psychological help before he ever touched a damned gun.
If we are competing for wishes, that would be mine.
In countries that have universal medical insurance that includes psychiatric help they do not have monthly and weekly mass shootings.

[sirs]

I would have preferred that the shooter received psychological help before he ever touched a damned gun.

And how do you propose he receive it, and how do you propose he would be made to undergo it??

If we are competing for wishes, that would be mine.

No, that's never been your wish...especially one that has no logical follow-up to the questions I posed.  Your wish, from the beginning is that every law abiding citizen be disarmed, and screw the Constitution

In countries that have universal medical insurance that includes psychiatric help they do not have monthly and weekly mass shootings.

We have psychiatric help right here, and universal coverage doesn't do a damn thing if a person doesn't take it, or even acknowledge a need for it.