ACLU Launches Nationwide Police Militarization Investigation

[CountDeMoney]

AFAIK there's nothing that *forces* police to arrest someone committing a crime.

Especially if the shift's over in an hour.  Fuck it, I've got a date tonight.  Give the nice lady at the register that bag of Cheetos in your shirt back, dammit.  Don't do it again or I thump you.  Have a blessed day.

[11B4V]

AFAIK there's nothing that *forces* police to arrest someone committing a crime.

Especially if the shift's over in an hour.  Fuck it, I've got a date tonight.  Give the nice lady at the register that bag of Cheetos in your shirt back, dammit.  Don't do it again or I thump you.  Have a blessed day.

How true

[Strix]

I cant believe you thought the Police would not be exempt Strix. 

Talk to my bosses, they are considering going back to .38's because of the SAFE Act.

[CountDeMoney]

That's because you're all idiots up there.

[DGuller]

I'm not sure what Berkut's beef with Strix is.  I think it's obvious from the context (the author being Strix) that all of it was just an utterly not clever hyperbole.  It wasn't meant to inform or make a point.

[11B4V]

I cant believe you thought the Police would not be exempt Strix. 

Talk to my bosses, they are considering going back to .38's because of the SAFE Act.

Upper echeolon histerics.

[11B4V]

I'm not sure what Berkut's beef with Strix is.  I think it's obvious from the context (the author being Strix) that all of it was just an utterly not clever hyperbole.  It wasn't meant to inform or make a point.

It's languish is what it is.

[Berkut]

I'm not sure what Berkut's beef with Strix is.  I think it's obvious from the context (the author being Strix) that all of it was just an utterly not clever hyperbole.  It wasn't meant to inform or make a point.

I find it annoying when people say bullshit they know is bullshit in the hopes that some percentage of the reader won't know.

The entire SAFE act has been in the news in New York for the last month or so - so anyone aware of the issue is also certainly aware of the resolutions to them. If you know that they fucked up and didn't make the normal law enforcement exemptions part of the act, then you also know that they know they fucked up, have stated that as of right now the agreed upon interpretation is that the previous exemptions are still in effect, agree that there will be no attempt to enforce this law on law enforcement officers in any case, and agree that the law will be amended to fix the issues.

Was it stupid to jam the law through without going over it and making sure the i's were dotted and the t's crossed? Of course.

But stating that the law is going to have an effect that everyone who knows anything about the law knows it will not is just an attempt to claim that those passing the law were trying to do something they were clearly not doing in order to mislead those who don't know much of anything about the law.

Like I said, anyone who lives in New York and has been paying attention to this knows that law will have ZERO practical or legal impact on the ability of the police to do their job.

It is is intellectually dishonest, and lazy. Yes, it is Strix, so that should probably be expected, but I am Berkut, so calling Strix on being a dishonest, lazy ass is to be expected as well...

[Strix]

I'm not sure what Berkut's beef with Strix is.  I think it's obvious from the context (the author being Strix) that all of it was just an utterly not clever hyperbole.  It wasn't meant to inform or make a point.

I find it annoying when people say bullshit they know is bullshit in the hopes that some percentage of the reader won't know.

The entire SAFE act has been in the news in New York for the last month or so - so anyone aware of the issue is also certainly aware of the resolutions to them. If you know that they fucked up and didn't make the normal law enforcement exemptions part of the act, then you also know that they know they fucked up, have stated that as of right now the agreed upon interpretation is that the previous exemptions are still in effect, agree that there will be no attempt to enforce this law on law enforcement officers in any case, and agree that the law will be amended to fix the issues.

Was it stupid to jam the law through without going over it and making sure the i's were dotted and the t's crossed? Of course.

But stating that the law is going to have an effect that everyone who knows anything about the law knows it will not is just an attempt to claim that those passing the law were trying to do something they were clearly not doing in order to mislead those who don't know much of anything about the law.

Like I said, anyone who lives in New York and has been paying attention to this knows that law will have ZERO practical or legal impact on the ability of the police to do their job.

It is is intellectually dishonest, and lazy. Yes, it is Strix, so that should probably be expected, but I am Berkut, so calling Strix on being a dishonest, lazy ass is to be expected as well...

You called me a liar but it was you that lied. You can add all the qualifiers possible but it still does not change the fact that you lied and I didn't.

Is there an exemption for law enforcement? No. I provided the laws in question. You haven't provided anything to support your position. Why? you can't beyond the suggestion that an understanding is in place. Show us something where Governor Cuomo says that there is an exemption for law enforcement? You can't because he hasn't. His office has issued statements but he has avoided going on record.

I noticed you haven't mentioned the whole school issue? And, I don't blame you because there is a good chance that some sort of legal issue will occur.

Will an exemption be put in place? Yes, eventually. Does one exist now? No. The governor will probably get around to it a few days after he resolves the FRACKING issue which will be the day after he resigns to run for President.

When all is said and done, you tried to call me a liar, you were proven wrong, and proven to be the liar. So, now you are attacking me because you have no other avenue to pursue.

Typical Berkut

[Ed Anger]

I am a Kentucky Colonel.

Then why the fuck did you close the KFC right outside the base. Shameful.

Eat at Chick-Fil-A.

[Berkut]

When all is said and done, you tried to call me a liar, you were proven wrong, and proven to be the liar. So, now you are attacking me because you have no other avenue to pursue.

Typical Berkut

Yopu said when the law is passed, police officers would have to arrest one another. That is a lie.

I called you on it, you weaseled. Indeed typical Berkut.

The law will not result in even one police officer arresting another, much less them not being able to do anything but arrest one another.

And you knew that was true. Hence you lied. Again.

[CountDeMoney]

I declare Berkut the thread winner. 11Bravo gets Honorable Mention.

[derspiess]

Whether or not the exemption is stated, unstated, implied, grandfathered, or whatever, the thought of SAFE applying to LEOs in New York still makes me giggle.

[The Minsky Moment]

Should have added - So suck it, Strix.

I thought it helped make his case.  SAFE, as currently written, does not have an exemption for coppers.

The story garbon quoted points out the exemption already existed in the NY statutes.  As long as SAFE isn't repealing the exemption it probably still applies (i.e presuming the exemption is written to apply to the entire chapter or section that SAFE is amending).

[The Minsky Moment]

Interesting.
Just checked and as it turns out the large capacity ammo provision strix quoted was added a brand new section and thus is not covered by the existing law enforcement exemption, which applies to only to specifically enumerated sections.

That is, the legislature forgot to amend and update the exemption to cover the new section.   
Oops.

Don't think there is any practical risk to law enforcement, but it does suggest sloppy draftsmanship.