General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Why is CNN saying there's a "spike" in attacks on police?
I have seen many reports that violence against the police is lower than it has been in years..
They are FOMENTING overaggressive policing.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Shandris
(3,447 posts)...like scared people.
As for the legality of it, it's disgusting (like most things, sadly) but they never provided a timeframe for the 'spike'. Why, on any given hour that an officer is attacked, there is a 'spike' from the previous hour... 
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)In my home town, it's colder today than it was yesterday. QED: we have global cooling. The media are fond of making up these "sudden increases" (or decreases) based on whatever catches the attention of the public today.
branford
(4,462 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 5, 2015, 04:16 PM - Edit history (1)
They are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, if there is indeed a "spike," it is entirely newsworthy and the reasons should be investigated. That you believe that such reports "foment aggressive policing" is not only disputable, they are not a reason for news outlets not to report accurate data.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The real "spike" is in how far right CNN America has turned....cheerleading for Trump is only part of the turn.
branford
(4,462 posts)You are free to make your own judgments on what exactly that reveals about the American people or anything else.
Snobblevitch
(1,958 posts)that happened within days of each other.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)Edited for Correction:
Not enough people have spiked CNN, yet.
Rex
(65,616 posts)
malaise
(268,885 posts)in the past 25 years.
Institutional racism is omnipresent - agenda over facts every time.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)"Institutional racism is omnipresent," the targeting of police officers because they are police officers is unacceptable and inexcusable. Every Democrat should stand behind all civil servants. And we should not downplay the dangers of being a police officer.
Rex
(65,616 posts)You agree yes?
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)As a group aren't targeting "innocent civilians." A few bad cops have killed innocent civilians, and hopefully are being held accountable for doing so. At the same time, a few individuals have targeted law enforcement and should be held responsible for doing so. If you are committing a crime and are killed in an encounter with the police then that's the risk you take as a criminal. In 2006, there were roughly 680,000 law enforcement personnel in the U.S. That is more police officers than there are citizens in some states. I hope you aren't arguing that entire group is somehow responsible for the acts of a few bad apples.
Rex
(65,616 posts)responsible for the acts of a few bad civilians. See how that works?
If you have one, which I doubt, escapes me. My position is simple -- a few bad cops doesn't mean they are all bad. Their job involves dealing with not only the regular citizen who gets a speeding ticket or runs a stop sign, but also dealing with child abusers, drug dealers, rapists, etc. And Democrats should support these public servants as a group, just like they would any other group of public servants, such as teachers, and should stand united against any threat against them.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)none of the "good" cops do anything other than rally the wagons around the bad ones. When the police start cleaning up their ranks, then they might start deserving some respect. If you think cops don't treat African Americans differently than white people you are either not paying attention or are being willingly obtuse.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)I didn't say that. If you want to stereotype 600,000+ male and female police officers of all races based on the acts of a few individuals then do so. I'll judge each person based on their own merits, and won't equate a bad cop with a good one. Why do the police need to clean up their ranks any more than any other group?
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)because we pay them to enforce the law and protect the public. We are not paying them to beat the hell out of, or kill, African Americans for things like not using a blinker or selling loose cigarettes. Smart phones are going to be their downfall- they can no longer totally hide what they have been doing to the African American community for decades. When enough of this shit gets out there they will either be forced to clean up their ranks, or they will have their ranks cleaned up for them.
on edit: the media can't protect them anymore, either. Social media is doing the job that MSM should be doing. You know, like they used to in the 60's. America saw on TV what was happening to people marching for just the right to vote, and they helped force a change.
malaise
(268,885 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)MSM is not going to report hard facts when copy like this sells; in fact, they will double down and dig in.
You should be aware that the SAME wide-eyed talk about police being attacked is being grafted onto the gun-control "debate."
csziggy
(34,135 posts)For not blindly following police orders. Absolutely no discussion of occasions when officers give unlawful orders, nothing about worries of civilians about out of control police, Just blaming the average citizen of not doing everything that a random cop might demand they do.
olddots
(10,237 posts)Whats the difference between reporting snd creating ? As soon as people started selling the news the concept of news changed drastically .
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)
sarisataka
(18,570 posts)In any trend it is critical to identify the time period you are speaking of and what you are comparing it to.
Without that info the statement is meaningless.