It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tampa Police refusing to provide security to Beyonce show

page: 3
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha
Police are not private security. She probably pays a lawyer good money to avoid paying as much taxes as possible like most rich people as well.




posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Wow, the LITERAL PC POLICE.

Funny how some of you are always blabbering incessantly about the First Amendment when it comes to denouncing the evils of "political correctness" or when something happens like a police commissioner is caught dropping racial epithets about the President in a restaurant but let a black entertainer express an opinion through her art that conflicts with your politics and you're all "reap what you sow."


Ya it is pretty ironic.
What was even anti police about it? I fail to see anything in the song that is anti police..
I guess it was the salute to the the black panthers? Well she didn't even do all that great of job there, didn't realize they wore hot shorts and fish nets.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
That goes both ways. When those we hire to protect and serve the people start acting more like a protection racket, more concerned with protecting cops who kill as a first resort, they too reap what they sow. Throughout this public debate, I've heard a whole lot of concern for protecting LEOs from all us awful scary people on the streets, but I have never heard LEOs express the same concern for protecting OUR lives -- which is their job.


Then you only listen to one biased side of the argument, as the vast majority of LEOs do their jobs properly and with respect for the lives of the "awful scary people on the street."


Also, anyone paying actual attention would note that many of the instances of "excessive force" are legally warranted, only negated by biased opinion (which seems to spread like wildfire).

You can't berate people for generalizing on behalf of the police by generalizing against the police. Both sides get us nowhere in this discussion.


There is a very big difference between "not support[ing] law enforcement" and protesting unjustified and unnecessary deaths at the hands of police. The fact that the Fraternal Order of Police cannot and does not make that distinction, is very chilling. As is the fact that he is making it clear they will protect (and kill) who they choose... and expect to do so with impunity. Or else.


As I just stated, you mischaracterize via your implications about exactly how often these incidents of excessive force really are--your opinion is that they are unjustified or unnecessary is pure opinion on many of them. Yes, there are examples of terrible acts by police officers, but they're not as numerous as you pretend in relation to the amount of LEO interactions on a daily basis.

I agree that the FOP should make the distinction (and if I recall correctly, they have in the past), but again, your asserted point in italics is not supported by your link, nor by the vast majority of the millions of interactions the LEOs have with the public on a daily basis in this country.

Your "or else" blanket threat is childish.

Or else what?


Abuse of force by law enforcement at every level has reached the point that even politically diametrically opposed groups are finding common ground and fighting the same fight against out-of-control trigger happy law enforcement.



Sure, and that's because there are certain instances that deserve outrage. Most, on the other hand, do not--or, at least, have the outrage directed to the wrong party of the incident.


Every person in this country has good reason to fear for their life in any encounter with law enforcement. Even those of us who have and have had very good relations and interactions with LEOs.


There went whatever credibility that you had.


For want of a better way of saying it, we have the utmost respect and gratitude for good cops.... bad cops not so much. But we can't tell a "good" cop from a "bad" cop until it's too late. People have to now assume the worst about LEOs because they already assume the worst about us, and they have the guns.


LEOs assume the worst because they have to, or they could die. The average dick of a cop just acts like a douchebag and gives you unnecessary tickets in order to suck money into their department's coffers. Very few, statistically speaking, ever go beyond that without due cause.

LEOs have guns because they don't know which of us do. And that's okay, because like my signature says, I prefer more freedoms and the inconveniences that come with it. But in living in that society, they must assume that bad guys with guns (which could be any given encounter on any day) will kill them. The public can safely assume that a cop is not going to jump out of his vehicle and start mowing you down just for doing your job.


More important, we're not doing our LEOs any favors by turning good, honorable and brave men/women into thugs with badges. For mentally and emotionally healthy people, taking a life is a traumatic experience with long-term repercussions. Perhaps most important of all, we are doing our LEOs a great disservice to deny them the defensive training and equipment that would protect and preserve their lives, so that they would not need to feel their lives were in danger so often, and thus protecting our lives as well.

We reap what we sow. For better AND worse.


I can agree with that, as I think that the demilitarization of our police forces would go a long was in stopping a criminal from going out with guns-a-blazin', and it would limit the indestructible feeling that some cops get when all geared up and pumped up to go do a military-style encounter. But again, those are few and far between, statistically speaking.

But I do agree that one is too many, but the reaction must be appropriate to the amount of incidences--and the reaction should include things like all races unjustly (from a legal standpoint) getting shot or killed by police, not just black people. If people don't like the ruling in the cases, they should then focus on the judicial system, not the law enforcement system.

These officers are right to say that Beyoncé is enflaming racial tensions and riling up people that, in numbers (like in a concert venue) could do dramatic bodily harm to police officers. And honestly, if she's truly concerned about police just randomly shooting black people for sport, why would she want them around her?

I truly believe that many people in the BLM movement want to be a martyr, which is why the enflame the law-enforcement community so much, otherwise they would pick people who don't have guns and who they don't think shoot their race without conscience or regret.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Wow, the LITERAL PC POLICE.

Funny how some of you are always blabbering incessantly about the First Amendment when it comes to denouncing the evils of "political correctness" or when something happens like a police commissioner is caught dropping racial epithets about the President in a restaurant but let a black entertainer express an opinion through her art that conflicts with your politics and you're all "reap what you sow."


You do understand that exercising your first amendment rights is fine--expecting zero negative reaction to doing so is living in Care-A-Lot with the Care Bears, right?



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I hope other departments follow suit... We need to get rid of these Slut Guru's.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

You run under a misconception that police are around to protect lives. No they do not. They exist for the "public good". Which means they are not required to protect anyone! There is nothing that legally requires them to protect an individual, see that is the devil in the detail. The public is not any individual and many people operate under the notion that the cops are there to protect them. What is the public good and what is good for the individual are two different things.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Wow, the LITERAL PC POLICE.

Funny how some of you are always blabbering incessantly about the First Amendment when it comes to denouncing the evils of "political correctness" or when something happens like a police commissioner is caught dropping racial epithets about the President in a restaurant but let a black entertainer express an opinion through her art that conflicts with your politics and you're all "reap what you sow."


It is A case where "you reap what you sow". She has the right to perform a show and spew her anti-cop rhetoric all day. And the cops have the right to not to provide security to her show since it's on a voluntary, not obligatory, basis. I believe whole heartedly in free speech. But there also can be repercussions that comes with it. Plus she's rich enough to hire her own private security.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

It always boggles my mind when I hear that whole "you're gonna die if you ever talk to a cop!" rhetoric get trotted out. Apparently a lot of school systems, public and private, don't teach percentages? Millions of interactions daily. Every so often there's an unjustified use of force. And yet somehow somebody does voodoo math and comes up with an astronomically high likelihood? Oh, okay.

Side note - and that dick of a cop people always complain about? He was likely a dick before he got sworn. And likely will be after he quits or retires. And probably isn't very well liked by his shift mates.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6



I think Kevin Gates really tells it how it is.

He says when he spoke with respect he never had a problem after he changed the way he conducted himself.

Love how the host keeps trying be like YEAAAAAAH BUT; you can see Gates restraining himself lol

"I fit the description, when I changed myself I had no more problems." "It's the way you conduct yourself with authority."
"All Lives Matter" Host gets upset lol
"If you want to be right I'll agree with you" HAHAHA.
edit on 19-2-2016 by Lysergic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Why would she need security?

She should just have everyone behave when going to her concerts so no one gets rowdy.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Teen girls are to be feared when in mass numbers.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Lysergic

Any group of individuals who have refined motor skills should be feared when en masse and pumped up with violent rhetoric. Anyone implying otherwise has zero-to-no knowledge about being in a fight.

And as for teenage girls, they can be some of the most brutal fights out there.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I didnt say that w sarcasm, I watch liveleak :p

edit: WSHH Teen Girl FIGHTS & Body Slams Boy Like Ronda Rousey, Knees Him In Face, RUNS From High School from your link;


holy crap that was awesome
edit on 19-2-2016 by Lysergic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: DBCowboy

Teen girls are to be feared when in mass numbers.


Teen girls should be feared, regardless.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

100% after watching this smack down haha, she even does the peoples' elbow.

Watch out guys.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Lysergic

Okay...sometimes it's hard to distinguish the difference on threads like this.

And yes, I shared that video with my wife just last night. While she was sloppy with form, she got the job done, for sure.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

Oh the hypocrisy runs deep here!

Once again we have a whole swathe of people who regularly preach about their freedom of speech and opinion, but when someone does something creative as a form of artistic work that they personally disagree with suddenly that freedom of speech and opinion is no longer acceptable!

She didn't threaten anyone, she didn't abuse anyone, she did what thousands of musical artists have done thousands of times and made a political point as part of a wider discussion about a very important issue affecting millions of Americans.

Do you guys not see your own damn hypocrisy here? Seriously?

For a start, none of you (and no police officers either) should have any right to police art, or hold it to ransom, or block it, or prevent it, just because it says something you personally find uncomfortable or disagreeable.

Secondly, she doesn't need them to police her event, cities and states decide to do this where when it would be in their interest to, for example when controlling traffic around a venue or assisting in the management of crowds. She has more than enough to be able to police this event using private security, which 90% of it would be.

If it's a requirement then they should not have the option to pick and choose what their duties are. If it's voluntary, like overtime, then they should have the right to make the decision for themselves.

Freedom of speech does not only apply to those you agree with, or statements you like. Freedom of speech is for EVERYONE.

I hope her gig goes ahead without incident, which I'm sure it will.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Then you only listen to one biased side of the argument, as the vast majority of LEOs do their jobs properly and with respect for the lives of the "awful scary people on the street."


Thank You.

I'm really tired of all the anti-cop rants.

There are thousands of LEO, a few hit the news - - most justified in their actions IMO.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: hangedman13
a reply to: Boadicea

You run under a misconception that police are around to protect lives. No they do not. They exist for the "public good". Which means they are not required to protect anyone! There is nothing that legally requires them to protect an individual, see that is the devil in the detail. The public is not any individual and many people operate under the notion that the cops are there to protect them. What is the public good and what is good for the individual are two different things.


Law Enforcement Officer says it all.

Their job is to make sure laws are followed or act if law is not followed.

There is no requirement to be a "do gooder" and help people.



posted on Feb, 19 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013
Once again we have a whole swathe of people who regularly preach about their freedom of speech and opinion, but when someone does something creative as a form of artistic work that they personally disagree with suddenly that freedom of speech and opinion is no longer acceptable!


Again, the first amendment protects your freedom of expression; what it does not do is protect you from the aftermath. And that's okay.


She didn't threaten anyone, she didn't abuse anyone, she did what thousands of musical artists have done thousands of times and made a political point as part of a wider discussion about a very important issue affecting millions of Americans.



Right, and thousand of musical artists enjoy the negative repercussions of such voiced opinions. Again...that's okay, but don't pretend speaking out against her speaking out isn't also okay or protected under the first amendment.



For a start, none of you (and no police officers either) should have any right to police art, or hold it to ransom, or block it, or prevent it, just because it says something you personally find uncomfortable or disagreeable.


I hold a BFA degree--I know for a fact that art can be bad. Boycotting it is okay. Really, it is...just like her right to make her statements.


Secondly, she doesn't need them to police her event, cities and states decide to do this where when it would be in their interest to, for example when controlling traffic around a venue or assisting in the management of crowds. She has more than enough to be able to police this event using private security, which 90% of it would be.


Well then there's nothing to see here...move along.


If it's a requirement then they should not have the option to pick and choose what their duties are. If it's voluntary, like overtime, then they should have the right to make the decision for themselves.


In this instance, it is voluntary, and the linked story in the OP pointed that out. So, nothing to see here...move along.


Freedom of speech does not only apply to those you agree with, or statements you like. Freedom of speech is for EVERYONE.


Agreed, so stop berating those of us asserting our first-amendment right to speak out against her "art." You are doing exactly that which you are rallying against.
edit on 19-2-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join