Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2024 05:20:42 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: California Bans Non-White Paper Shooting Targets
References: <Ua6cnWPzMZYw8-n7nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> <v52f3h$2q3gj$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-D763CA.18212120062024@news.giganews.com> <v52ok6$2vac8$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 22:18:00 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-28607A.22180020062024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 39
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-L9zfFuIJXEb+zNy+9bwhMg+/C1nnc+g1lgnHM9LqYpYwUMDVKmn+a3P9XEA0QrYTaOlXAjQH8+sI+6Y!QGQjBGCXS/FD8FhUEsyPFiDjqqgiGUdo9SEyVpj/ipbZsiEf0a9BT052WOyT5XMc2Sl/OIfmGU33!0Js=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 2926

In article <v52ok6$2vac8$1@dont-email.me>,
 "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >>>Ah, California... the stupidity never stops. <sigh>
> 
> >>>This is the target we used for requals. We always questioned why it is that
> >>>we were only shooting white guys.
> 
> >>>--------------------
> >>>https://americancop.com/banning-targets/
> 
> >>>Since at least 2013, a tremendous number of agencies have suffered from
> >>>"Good Idea Fairy" visits. I'm specifically addressing those "good ideas"
> >>>that will reportedly fix society's ills but have little to no factual
> >>>foundation. Generally, these stem from politicians "doing something" to fix
> >>>a problem.
> 
> >>>Some of these include-- claiming there is no national standard for using
> >>>force while trying to throw out Graham v Connor, ignoring SCOTUS rulings
> >>>like United States v Whren to attack pro-active policing, or protesting the
> >>>release of positive body-worn camera footage.
> 
> >>Wait. What? I thought the whole point of footage from body-worn cameras
> >>was to produce needed evidence and to make it publicly available.
> 
> >No, it was to jam up cops and put them in jail. When the body cam 
> >footage started exonerating cops and exposing the lies, false complaints 
> >and general assholery of the criminals far more often than it ever shows 
> >police misbehavior, the grievance groups did a complete 180 and now 
> >routinely oppose the release of body cam footage.
> 
> Speaking as a taxpayer, I'd prefer that cops have evidence that they
> didn't commit an $18 million tort, and that the bad guys were lying.

Well, you're not a leftist 'progressive' with an Agenda to push.