DivineHustle

61

American forces arrive at the hill, and want to be allies. American forces march up the hill, shake hands, laugh, and greet the SAS currently holding the hill. We agree to hold the hill together as an alliance. Our hill. (lmao, I'm done for a while)

I send in the US Navy SEALS, British SAS, and the German Kommando Spezialkrafte. We fuck up everything on the hill and wave an American, British, and German flag on the hill. We also put up a flag of the UN and our special forces stand ready to defend our hill from all who oppose us. This hill now belongs to the UN.

CAPITALISTIC DESTRUCTION My hill.

Oh really? Do you have the latest Rage and everything? If so when I get home I'll definitely put it into my game. I was just afraid because of the comments.

Outdated, reported as not working by several users.

I LOVE this idea of other officers dealing with individuals, and you running into the individual again. I really like that, it adds a whole new aspect of role-play to the game, and I hope people participate with this.

I send a massive military force to retake the hill that rightfully belongs to me. This hill is now mine, permanently. My forces stand ready to defend.

Developer as in one of the green named people, such as @Cyan and @Sam. Sowwy.. :C It was originally meant for LCPDFR developer at the time. 2

I really like how you used this as an example. An entire discussion can be had on this itself.

I'm not entirely sure how the budgeting works, but I've heard a few times that it varies. It's not just the federal government that distributes money. You have to remember there are state governments as well, then down to city/county governments, then to each individual department, and each officer.The federal government is spending most of our money on unemployment benefits. Such as welfare and social security.

I can agree that immediately going for your lethal firearm isn't always the right option, but here again: A police officer in America can be shot at any time. A simple confrontation between a civilian and a police officer can easily escalate into a shootout; depending on where you are and the circumstances of the situation. I think that the danger of being shot and killed at any time mixed with a general lack of training contribute to an officer pulling his weapon, or using it when it could have been avoided. This is easily proven when you look at that video of the LVMPD officer dealing with someone, and controlling the situation until backup arrived on scene, because he's trained in Jiu Jitsu . Versus some of the amateur YouTube videos where the officer has no idea what he's doing and shoots as a first resort. It's not always training either. Sometimes it's a lack of resources. Not every department in America has tasers. So if an officer is dealing with someone with a knife, for example, he can't go for a taser that he doesn't have. He's going to go for his gun, especially since pepper spray only blinds, not disabled. If it's an unarmed person, no gun should be involved at all. I can guarantee you, the police won't just pull a gun on a civilian if it's a normal everyday policing interaction. An officer will only pull his gun, or should only pull his gun, when he feels that he or others are in immediate danger. An officer still has the right to protect himself. As far as an officer going into a situation respectfully, that's a bit vague of a procedure. I'm not entirely sure if certain American police departments require their officers to "be nice and respectful", but I personally don't really see that as being important. An officer could have just come from dealing with a dead body. He's not going to be happy and joyful when conducting a traffic stop on an old woman for speeding. He's going to want her to hurry up so that he can get home to his family. The police are people too, and just as people aren't always nice and respectful, police officers aren't always nice and respectful. You can make it a required procedure as much as you like, but they're still human beings. You can't force someone to be a certain way. What's my point? A comparison of two different law enforcement agencies from two different countries to me just isn't a reasonable comparison. There are literally thousands of different variables and circumstances that officers from the UK face versus officers from the US. Setting one generic procedure on dealing with an individual and using your lethal handgun just won't work. There are too many variables and it really depends on the situation.

If only that's how it actually were. If American police didn't have guns, they'd be slaughtered in the streets.

Some departments in the United States don't even have tasers, which presents another obstacle. How can they pull a taser and go non-lethal when they don't have one? I really think it depends on the circumstances, and it varies from country to country. In the UK, police don't have to worry about someone pulling a gun and shooting them point blank like police in the US do. The chances of a police officer being shot in the UK when compared to the US is a drastic gap. According to census, 97% of gun crimes in the United States are committed with handguns. What does this mean? Criminals use handguns. Handguns can easily be concealed from the general public. A police officer doesn't know how mentally stable the person they're dealing with is, and they don't know their intentions. Something American police refuse to do when compared to the police of other countries, is American police refuse to make assumptions. Just because this guy doesn't currently have a gun in his hand doesn't mean that he isn't armed, and won't kill me as soon as I approach. Like I've said, American police can be shot and killed at any time for any or no reason. This threat isn't entirely present when comparing the United States to European nations. This is why I disagree with the setting of any one generic procedure for dealing with an individual. It varies from place to place because every country and every city is different. Also, I know that Baltimore Police have some sort of thing where officers can only use their taser if another officer is there to provide lethal reinforcements. As in, if an officer is dealing with someone by himself, he's told he needs to keep his lethal on him. When other officers arrive to help, then he can switch to his non-lethal and the assisting officer will use his lethal. I feel like this system has some nooks and crannies that definitely need to be straightened out, but yeah. Overall, I think it really depends on the circumstances though I understand what you're saying. You've also got to consider the fact that if an officer is put to the point where he pulls his gun on you, you've most certainly done something over the top. The police don't just walk up and aim a gun at you, at least not in America. If I were to post a GIF like this I'd be sanctioned. In defense of LCSO, American law enforcement as a whole do have a terrible general public approval rating.

This is exactly why officers need to be trained to handle combat situations like this. @MikoFiticus linked a video on one of my past status updates about how a LVMPD was able to successfully detain a suspect he was dealing with until backup arrived. This is a very similar predicament except the officer clearly has no training, and this is the result. He gets his ass pretty much handed to him. This could have gotten really ugly really fast and I'm glad that the officer is OK.

Well, sense there's literally no way of me knowing whether or not the sources are truthful compared to your word, I'll just have to take your word for it, or take the news's word for it. I've never been to Europe so. Can't really argue any further than what various websites have provided. It just seems like a pattern to me. The same European nations dealing with the same group of people (Muslims) and it's reported by several different sources. Even if the sources are biased, there's always truth to a biased report. It's not entirely make believe, maybe just exaggerated. Just the events that have been happening in Europe don't add up to the statement that there are no such "no-go zones".

A lot of the reported stories are literally from inhabitants of the countries that they're speaking of. If you take a look at the Wikipedia link, most of the "no-go zones" mentioned are in some shape or form relevant to Islam and Sharia Law. If the Wikipedia link I've provided, which further increases the accuracy of my statement about "no-go zones" is inaccurate, then I would highly encourage you to make necessary corrections. Everything I'm saying is from websites and Wikipedia accounts.

In October 2011, a 2,200-page report, "Banlieue de la République" (Suburbs of the Republic) found that Seine-Saint-Denis and other Parisian suburbs are becoming "separate Islamic societies" cut off from the French state and where Islamic Sharia law is rapidly displacing French civil law. An early usage of the term regarding Europe was in a 2002 opinion piece by David Ignatiusin The New York Times, where he wrote about France, "Arab gangs regularly vandalize synagogues here, the North African suburbs have become no-go zones at night, and the French continue to shrug their shoulders."[21] La Courneuve and other districts in Paris were described by police as no-go zones.[22] http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5128/france-no-go-zones http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/22/inside-frances-sharia-no-go-zones/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area

The United States has its rough areas, but not to the point where our police have to avoid them altogether. There's no part of America where the police can't operate normally due to the crime. If it gets to that point, the police take the next step to ensuring they can function. They won't just avoid those areas.

In relevance to France more particularly, I've heard from numerous people that there are parts of France that police simply are not welcome. As in if they go into those parts in small numbers they are attacked. I remember opening a topic about this a few years ago on the French ghettos, and how the police avoid those ghettos because they're always attacked when they enter. I don't exactly agree with the statement that European police can't protect themselves. I think it depends on a case by case basis. But I can come closer to agreeing that (some) European police in certain parts of certain countries do have a much harder time controlling the crime than others. When the people you're dealing with don't want you there and don't care to cooperate, sometimes things can get a bit ugly fast. Even if those officers shown in the video were previously involved in a terrible brutality scenario, that doesn't give people the justification to burn their car down. I'm not sure how well the justice system is formed in Europe, let alone France. But I'm sure that there's another solution. How exactly is the crime in Russia when compared to other countries? People enjoy comparing crime in the United States to Western European nations, so if we were to make that same comparison with Russia, how's everything looking? Are Russian police paid an exceptional salary?