Is it wrong that I laughed when I saw that someone who I've seen insult virtually every minority out there was asking this question.

If it comes to it, paramedics may have to use CPR. Does that mean calling an ambulance is a form of CPR?

So, if the police didn't have the ability to meet crime with force, would they have any use?

Sure. For example, two years ago I was in a pretty bad car accident on the highway. Fortunately for me, some passerby committed the "act of violence" of calling the police so that they could come help me out. I thought they were pretty useful in that situation.

What does that have to do with this discussion? I'm talking about circumstances where the police have to use violence or force to resolve a situation. If there is a domestic dispute, and a man is beating his wife, and all the cops can do is politely ask the man to stop, then what power do they have?

I'm talking about the claim that "calling the police is an act of violence". What do your comments about domestic violence have to do with the discussion?

*sigh* Quit being pedantic. The point is that the police act as a force of violence to keep society in line. Deal with that. Not questionable word choice. You know, you don't have to concede HHBH's entire argument just by acknowledging one of his points.

I'm glad you found it almost as enjoyable as I did, :D

I'm not being pedantic. I'm saying that his "point" is completely meaningless if you think about it for half a second.

Dude, have you been to Chicago?

Posturing as gangster's maybe(though Easy E was a pretty lucrative drug dealer, keif has been on house arrest for a large portion of his adolescent life) but i don't think you can question that they are indeed some "nigga's with attitude".

I watched Cheif Keef on NBC nightline the other night. I haven't seen any rapper legitimately scare the american public like this in quite some time, hence the NWA comparison.

I used to live there and I'm kind of curious what you mean.

I mean it's a sketchy place dog

http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-murd...0,536537.story

Though you may question the authenticity of reese/nwa's "gangster" persona, I think it's foolish to question that they aren't the product of a pretty shitty living environment.

Meh. Philly's worse.

Honestly I had never even heard of Lil Reese before this thread so I can't really say much about him, but as far as NWA goes, they were all, or almost all, guys who grew up in middle class or working class two parent homes.

yeah your right, i wiki'd them. I thought they had a little more street cred, shucks.

you keep telling yourself that bud.

lol wut. I don't want Philly to have the highest murder rate of the ten largest cities in the country, but it doesn't change the fact that its true.

I once read that Phoenix had the highest.

Maybe it did at one time.

Shows Chicago and Detroit following behind New Orleans this year for murders per capita. Philly was 4th. I feel so safe in Cali, gonna head out to Compton tonight. :shycouch:

What shows that? And since when are Detroit and New Orleans among the ten largest cities in the country?

Completely meaningless to Lil Rease assaulting a girl? Totally, but that wasn't what I was arguing.

Completely meaningless period. Though I appreciate your efforts to try and play the role of public defender for him, I'm sure it's not a pleasant job. :)

Lil Rease is just being a little kid. Even I being immature know that I don't need to beat up a girl.

I'm really not being his "public defender". He just happens to have an unrelated point about the police. I only even brought it up because someone asked about it.

The Romans started around 753 BC and we are now in 2012, man has come a long way in most aspects, so the above argument is redundant regarding the issues at hand. But I do guess the average Roman may well have had more human compassion than you.

It's funny how I raised several focused points with you and the only response that you can think of, is violence by the state against prisoners! Also you seems to have the wrong end of the stick regarding incarceration as well, as it's is commonly known today especially in Europe, that prisons are more like holiday camps due to prisoner freedoms, reduced serving times and the leniency of the prison service. I guess if prisons were like in "Midnight Express" "Cool Hand Luke" and the "Shawshank Redemption" then you would have a point.

Of course prisoners don't cease to be part of the population once they are incarcerated.

It's certainly great you being his public defender, but I doub't he appreciates it.

Certainly, our police over here don't carry guns --- except for the ARU (Armed Response Unit), and they're only for things like bankrobbers or IRA dissidents. I can't accept that calling the police in on a situation is seen as an act of violence. What's the alternative? Wade in yourself? Surely that's violence? Ignore it? Not violence, but surely not an acceptable response? I say, the police are paid to, and equipped for dealing with such situations, so calling them, when required, would be the most responsible thing.

What if someone's robbing your house and you get to a phone? Is it an act of violence if you call 999 (or in the case of you guys, 911)?

Anyway, as to what power unarmed police have other than violence: I'm sure they're told to use violence as a last resort. Quite often, a calm authoritative voice and even a veiled threat like "You wouldn't want your family to know you're beating up your wife" or somesuch can have the desired effect. The police are experts in talking to and calming people; don't all have to have guns or be smashing people's heads against walls. This ain't TV land, and if the cops weren't able to do their job without resorting to violent methods we'd have a) a lot more hospital admissions and b) lots more people getting away with things because "we couldn't do anything to stop him". Doesn't happen, generally.

But, the point is that they do have the right to use violence as a last resort. It's where all their authority rests on. When the police pull you over for a traffic violation, there is an understanding that if you don't stop they have the power to physically find a way to stop your car, and if you continue to resist, they can shoot you (or physically restrain you, which won't be done with a pillow fight). If they give you a ticket, you then have to show up in court. If you don't show up to court, they put out a warrant for you, and will then arrest you. If you resist, they can and will use violence to subdue you. In any conceivable situation, no matter how unlikely, ultimately they have the power of violence over you. If you a police officer steps on your foot, you can tell him to **** off, but you can't push him like you might be able to do to someone else, because you are then assaulting a police officer, and then you will be arrested, blah, blah, blah.

So what do you propose, if enforcement measures were taken away from the Police in order to maintain the laws that society has made?

Wiki and a few other lists. It shows those cities to be in the top ten PER CAPITA for murders. I don't recall saying they were the top ten largest. I didn't look up other crime data just MURDERS.

Right, but look back at the conversation. I said Philly had the worst crime rate of the ten largest cities in the country and you responded by bringing up two cities which aren't among the ten largest.

I was responding to The meh Phillys worse comment. I had no idea you said anything about top ten largest cities, as I noticed the thread at that point in the conversation. I understand Philly has twice the population of detroit and New Orleans.

Okay, but the "meh, Philly's worse" comment wasn't about saying Philly is the scariest place in America (I obviously don't think that since I continue to live here), it was me pointing out that Chicago (another city that I've lived in and one which I love dearly) isn't nearly as bad as people in this thread were making it out to be.

Of course not. There would be no point in the police if they couldn't use violence, and I imagine that society would descend into anarchy...or something.

I've been to both and also New Orleans and Detroit. You will find rundown and decrepit neighborhoods throughout the U.S.. I have spent many moons in Chicago and I think its a pretty great place. I also love New Orleans, Philly and Detroit. Such amazing history and some amazing architechture in all of them.

Come to Minneapolis. I have lived in Copenhagen prior to that. Minneapolis is a nice city, though in its past, it has had issues with crime.

And, apparently, you will find several strippers there! :laughing:

I've been there. Loved it!

Yes but just because you CAN use violence doesn't mean you HAVE to, or are going to. So calling the police is not an act of violence. At worst, it's allowing for the possibility that violence will be perpetrated. But then again, that's up to the one the police are calling on. No cop in his or her right mind is going to kick someone's door in and shove a gun in the face of anyone who acts reasonably and doesn't give them reason to. On the other hand, if you were to alert the police that some loon was shooting up an apartment or shopping mall, would you not then expect, even welcome, the use of violence in subduing said loon?

Here are pacific violence regions like

South Chicago
North Minneapolis