The Great Police Work Thread

[fortsbest]

It wasn't my folk. IT was a dope thing from what I gathered. This guy has spent time in jail before and told the negotiator he was on the phone with that he wasn't going back again. Guess he was wrong. It was a ridiculous pursuit though. Our department doesn't allow the PITT maneuver or using a vehicle as a barricade so the officers did what they could based on rules and regs. Should have ended soon after they spiked his tires and he was going so dang slow on the freeway.

 

[fortsbest]

And you know this how?

Hannity is a joke because he panders to a specific audience and viewpoint there is no nuance to his rhetoric.

I don't agree with O'Reily 90% of the time but he does try and have a actual argument sometimes and will go against the company talking points on obvious issues.

Hannity has went from wait and see on evidence to running with anything a police officer says as gospel and regurgitating it as the most important "fact" that should be considered.

Unlike you I call the jokers out as I see them both Sharpton and Schultz are jokes as well.

Just because he supports your position does not make him or you right, its ok to look at things from a different perspective and that's why I watch Fox from time to time especially when a hot button issue arises.

All hosts pander to a specific audience and you apparently don't watch or listen enough to hear him criticize republicans for things they do he doesn't agree with. I have disagreed with his views I at times I just don't post every opinion I have here. I've told you time and again I don't establish a position on these issues until, unlike you, I have all the relevant facts. Assuming I have interest in the first place. And I have told you already that I watch the channels that shill for the left to see if anything of merit comes form them, it just rarely if ever does. Lastly, it isn't hard to call out jokers like Sharpton and Shultz. As I said before though, You can disagree with Hannity all you like, but he isn't a joke. His opinions and evaluations of thing matter more to more people than yours or mine brother so I don't know what else to tell you brother man...

 

[Jiggyfly]

So why in your opinion is it easy to call Schultz a joke and Hannity not.

And since when is his opinion mattering mean something because Obama's opinion matters to a lot more people and we all know what you think of him.

 

[fortsbest]

In the times I've looked at Shultz, O'Donnel, Sharpton, etc, they never consider that their position may be wrong or even present the other side at all. There's seems to be strictly a liberal or democrat platform and everything else is insanity. While Hannity has his views and expresses them strongly he at least gives the opposition a chance to be represented and present their side. Hannity calls Rs and Ds both out when they do wrong in his opinion (far more conservative that just R loving) and that is where he differs from those I mentioned before. I used to include Matthews in that group, but even he is started to doubt the toa of Obama in some instances now. Hillary will be the next idol for these people. but tell me honestly why? What has she accomplished vs what has she skated, hidden and gotten away with so far. More scandal surrounds her than any candidate I can ever remember and yet the Ds still want to anoint the next president. Does that bother you at all?

In terms of the president, his opinion matters to so many because of the power he has to do damage (immigration as an example) not as much because they think he is right. Some do, but more don't and it's scary. You have a guy who for years says he can't do something and now because he lost both houses and knows he can't get it done properly he just does it anyway knowing it'll be overturned. He is dangerous and should have been impeached but people are too scared of doing what is right.

 

[Jiggyfly]

In the times I've looked at Shultz, O'Donnel, Sharpton, etc, they never consider that their position may be wrong or even present the other side at all. There's seems to be strictly a liberal or democrat platform and everything else is insanity. While Hannity has his views and expresses them strongly he at least gives the opposition a chance to be represented and present their side. Hannity calls Rs and Ds both out when they do wrong in his opinion (far more conservative that just R loving) and that is where he differs from those I mentioned before. I used to include Matthews in that group, but even he is started to doubt the toa of Obama in some instances now. Hillary will be the next idol for these people. but tell me honestly why? What has she accomplished vs what has she skated, hidden and gotten away with so far. More scandal surrounds her than any candidate I can ever remember and yet the Ds still want to anoint the next president. Does that bother you at all?

In terms of the president, his opinion matters to so many because of the power he has to do damage (immigration as an example) not as much because they think he is right. Some do, but more don't and it's scary. You have a guy who for years says he can't do something and now because he lost both houses and knows he can't get it done properly he just does it anyway knowing it'll be overturned. He is dangerous and should have been impeached but people are too scared of doing what is right.

Schultz is just like Hannity when it comes to being biased, they both pay lip service to other points of view.

Odonnel and Mathews both question the D's regularly and always have true conservatives on to give there point of view and actually give them respect and room to speak unlike Hannity whose sole purpose is to try and make liberals look stupid.

The fact remains you give Hannity credit for what people think of him yet that does not matter concerning Obama or Hillary, which just blows up your logic.

And your whole logic concerning Obama just makes no sense, if he was doing all of this damage why do more people hold his opinion in high regard (using your argument not mine).

Let's be real Hannity tells you what you want to hear, which is cool if that's want you want out of your talking heads.

 

[Kbrown]

Is Hannity your cousin, Forts?

 

[Kbrown]

I am generally weirded out by these little cults of personality. The fact that political talk show hosts have fans is odd.

Make that point, woo! Interpret that amendment, yeah!

 

[Jiggyfly]

I am generally weirded out by these little cults of personality. The fact that political talk show hosts have fans is odd.

Make that point, woo! Interpret that amendment, yeah!

Yeah it is weird, but if you asked me 10 years ago could something like Fox or MSNBC exist I would have laughed.

And the real kicker is what kind of money Glen Beck can make doing his thing.

 

[fortsbest]

Is Hannity your cousin, Forts?

Nope. And I don't agree with him all the time either. But to classify him as a joke because he does business in a way you (Jiggs specifically) don't like is wrong. To compare he and Shultz is wrong as well. They are nothing alike.

Schultz is just like Hannity when it comes to being biased, they both pay lip service to other points of view.

Odonnel and Mathews both question the D's regularly and always have true conservatives on to give there point of view and actually give them respect and room to speak unlike Hannity whose sole purpose is to try and make liberals look stupid.

The fact remains you give Hannity credit for what people think of him yet that does not matter concerning Obama or Hillary, which just blows up your logic.

My example was to show that they matter more to others than you or me and he makes tons of money doing his shows. In that regard he can't be considered a joke. I never said either Hillary or Obama were jokes. One is a crook and both are liars, but neither is a joke.

And your whole logic concerning Obama just makes no sense, if he was doing all of this damage why do more people hold his opinion in high regard (using your argument not mine).

Uh, the cult of personality thing was mentioned before. And far fewer people now hold his opinion in high regard than they used to.

Let's be real Hannity tells you what you want to hear, which is cool if that's want you want out of your talking heads.

And I tried to be real, but as with all other conversations you refuse to tolerate any opinion that differs with yours and you can't be convinced otherwise.

I listen to him occassionally, I also listen to Mark Levin, Mark Davis, Dennis Prager and Michael Medved on occasion. I sometimes even listen to Michael Savage. I only watch Fox to see Megan Kelly cuz she is smoking hot once in a while. I tune in to Rachel Maddow occasionally to see what nuterry she's throwing down, and sometimes even stomach Matthews. I prefer my conservative hosts by a long shot, but generally the ones I listen to provide a far more complete view of issues than anything I ever see on the liberal stations. They just do. If you don't agree then fine don't. But more people that watch TV must agree with me since Fox is way ahead in terms of viewership than the other channels.
Again, I only watch occasionally and spend far more time with radio so because when I'm home I'd rather spend time with my wife and daughter than watching news or politics.

 

[Cotton]

Our cops here at TTU are setting out our bait bikes today. We already had 2 of them, but I talked my boss into funding 5 more of them. It's beautiful to watch them being deployed. Let's catch some fucking thieves!





(btw, I hate thieves)

 

[L.T. Fan]

Our cops here at TTU are setting out our bait bikes today. We already had 2 of them, but I talked my boss into funding 5 more of them. It's beautiful to watch them being deployed. Let's catch some fucking thieves!





(btw, I hate thieves)

You have a budget for entrapment devices?

 

[Cotton]

You have a budget for entrapment devices?

It was a miscellaneous expense for the up front capital, but yes we will budget in the recurring cost of service.

 

[L.T. Fan]

It was a miscellaneous expense for the up front capital, but yes we will budget in the recurring cost of service.

Are you gonna call it entrapment devices?

 

[Cotton]

Are you gonna call it entrapment devices?

They are theft deterrent specialty devices. And I posted this in this thread because I figured there might be some debate on what entrapment is, and if it's moral or whatever. IMO if someone takes something (even if it's tracked) they are still thieves and should be charged with it.

 

[L.T. Fan]

They are theft deterrent specialty devices. And I posted this in this thread because I figured there might be some debate on what entrapment is, and if it's moral or whatever. IMO if someone takes something (even if it's tracked) they are still thieves and should be charged with it.

Funny. I was also trying to create some entrapment dialogue. Unless someone comes by we are at a stalemate.

 

[Cotton]

Funny. I was also trying to create some entrapment dialogue. Unless someone comes by we are at a stalemate.

The hook is in the water. We can wait together, my friend.

 

[Jiggyfly]

Nope. And I don't agree with him all the time either. But to classify him as a joke because he does business in a way you (Jiggs specifically) don't like is wrong. To compare he and Shultz is wrong as well. They are nothing alike.



Odonnel and Mathews both question the D's regularly and always have true conservatives on to give there point of view and actually give them respect and room to speak unlike Hannity whose sole purpose is to try and make liberals look stupid.

My example was to show that they matter more to others than you or me and he makes tons of money doing his shows. In that regard he can't be considered a joke. I never said either Hillary or Obama were jokes. One is a crook and both are liars, but neither is a joke.



Uh, the cult of personality thing was mentioned before. And far fewer people now hold his opinion in high regard than they used to.

And I tried to be real, but as with all other conversations you refuse to tolerate any opinion that differs with yours and you can't be convinced otherwise.

I listen to him occassionally, I also listen to Mark Levin, Mark Davis, Dennis Prager and Michael Medved on occasion. I sometimes even listen to Michael Savage. I only watch Fox to see Megan Kelly cuz she is smoking hot once in a while. I tune in to Rachel Maddow occasionally to see what nuterry she's throwing down, and sometimes even stomach Matthews. I prefer my conservative hosts by a long shot, but generally the ones I listen to provide a far more complete view of issues than anything I ever see on the liberal stations. They just do. If you don't agree then fine don't. But more people that watch TV must agree with me since Fox is way ahead in terms of viewership than the other channels.
Again, I only watch occasionally and spend far more time with radio so because when I'm home I'd rather spend time with my wife and daughter than watching news or politics.

Fox is number 1 because they cater to a specific customer, while moderates and liberals have a multitude of other sources to choose from.

Not knocking their business model because its genius just noting that them being number 1 has little bearing

But anyway I think Hannity is a joke not because of his politics it's because of his schtick and his smug punchable does not help either.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Funny. I was also trying to create some entrapment dialogue. Unless someone comes by we are at a stalemate.

It doesn't constitute entrapment unless you do something to alter the person's willingness to commit the crime. Running a normal sting operation doesn't fit the bill. Per Wikipedia:

Entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would usually have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.

Example: In Sorrells v. United States,[12] SCOTUS unanimously reversed the conviction of a North Carolina factory worker who gave in to an undercover Prohibition officer's repeated entreaties to get him some liquor. It identified the controlling question as "whether the defendant is a person otherwise innocent whom the government is seeking to punish for an alleged offense which is the product of the creative activity of its own officials".

In other words it's entrapment if you place undue pressure on someone to commit a crime that they were clearly not planning to otherwise commit. It comes to there being a difference between laying out bait for active criminals and approaching innocent people like a conman trying to lure them into a scam.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I want to seriously dedicate something to good police work. A LT. at my unit was investigated twice because his meth addict sister accused him of molesting her daughter. The police sent in that they could find no evidence of the crime after their psych interviewed the daughter (who had been forced by her mother to make false accusations in the past). San Antonio go a new DA and she decided to make the papers and the nightly news by having a prison Lieutenant arrested as a child molester, then they quietly dropped the charges after not even trying for a plea bargain.

Just getting on the news got the man fired, and he reapplied for a job as a Sgt. and got told he couldn't apply for a position for a calendar year even after being cleared of all charges, that the cops didn't even recommend be brought. An innocent man, that I do not like at all because he's kind of a bastard, is out of work because of lawyers, not the cops.

Props to the SAPD for doing a good job.

 

[Carl]

Schultz is just like Hannity when it comes to being biased, they both pay lip service to other points of view.

Odonnel and Mathews both question the D's regularly and always have true conservatives on to give there point of view and actually give them respect and room to speak unlike Hannity whose sole purpose is to try and make liberals look stupid.

The fact remains you give Hannity credit for what people think of him yet that does not matter concerning Obama or Hillary, which just blows up your logic.

And your whole logic concerning Obama just makes no sense, if he was doing all of this damage why do more people hold his opinion in high regard (using your argument not mine).

Let's be real Hannity tells you what you want to hear, which is cool if that's want you want out of your talking heads.

On MSNBC, the only presenter I listen too, now and again is Chris Hayes. He comes across as not lazy and well informed. On the radio for the most part, I listen to sports talk; however the one political show I will tune into is the Michael Medved show. It saddened me a little to hear that he had been diagnosed with throat cancer. He is back at work, but voice is not the same. He is Republican, smart, well read, patient with callers and his show is a treat. If you haven't heard it, I would give it a try.