2005 Foot Locker champ AJ Acosta is very upset: "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD COP."

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD COP. And miss me with the “it’s only a few bad apples” bullshit. Guess what those few bad apples do to the bunch? THEY SPOIL IT. If you disagree with me, I don’t care, shut da F up! You can unfollow me or whatever I really don’t care!

What a double standard. Will call out cops saying the few bad apples ruins the bunch but when a "few" bad apples burn down blocks at a time and attack cops during a protest they don't even bat an eye. Get tf out of here

A mental midget. Wasn't this guy complaining a few years ago he had like 5000 miles on his trainer because nobody would give him a free shoes?

Blah blah blah. Everyone thank Cambridge Analytica for providing the topic of discussion for today’s debate.

A good experiment for any white people who think cops are racist, find a cop and resist his authority. I think your results will show skin color has little to do with triggering violence in a cop.

The real problem is that cops are trained to believe they can violate a citizens basic civil rights with impunity. This belief comes from training and precedent. It’s a strange thing when officers must violate civil rights in order to maintain the status quo. If the status quo is upheld only by violating civil rights that means the institutions that govern us are corrupt and oppressive.

Domestic terrorism is coming down the chute. The patriot act will allow any suspected antifa member to be detained indefinitely. The beauty of membership in antifa is that you don’t actually have to be a member in order to get arrested. It will be like McCarthyism. A simple suggestion coupled with political expediency and anyone is a terrorist.

slripe112 wrote:

One of two things will happen:

1. A stronger centralized totalitarian government, fewer civil rights.

2. Splintering of the U.S into 50 sovereign nations. At first chaos, over long run, more liberties and less corruption

3. Nothing of consequence.

under a bridge wrote:

slripe112 wrote:

One of two things will happen:

1. A stronger centralized totalitarian government, fewer civil rights.

2. Splintering of the U.S into 50 sovereign nations. At first chaos, over long run, more liberties and less corruption

3. Nothing of consequence.

Giving our governors the power to shut down thier state’s economy has proven thus far to have zero consequences?...

I’m listening

alripe112 wrote:

under a bridge wrote:

3. Nothing of consequence.

Giving our governors the power to shut down thier state’s economy has proven thus far to have zero consequences?...

I’m listening

No governors were given the power to shut down their state’s economy in relation to the concerns voiced by AJ.

under a bridge wrote:

alripe112 wrote:

Giving our governors the power to shut down thier state’s economy has proven thus far to have zero consequences?...

I’m listening

No governors were given the power to shut down their state’s economy in relation to the concerns voiced by AJ.

I’ll play. Corona virus and riots are completely unrelated. I’m unwillingly ready to assume this is true.

Now, are the consequences (social restrictions) unrelated? Please share

Curfews aren’t anything new.

under a bridge wrote:

Curfews aren’t anything new.

Point to a time in history when they were used, pretty please?

I’m not your research assistant. They’ve been around for over 50 years - should be easy for you to find.

under a bridge wrote:

I’m not your research assistant. They’ve been around for over 50 years - should be easy for you to find.

Very well, it’ll be easier for me to agree with you.

There ain’t nothing new about curfews, there ain’t nothin new about deployment of national guard, there ain’t nothing new about police brutality, there ain’t nuthin new about bail outs, there ain’t nothin new about super pac politics, there ain’t nothin new about pollution, there ain’t nothin new about corruption, there ain’t nuthin new under the sun

It started with the Big Bang and now it’s ended with the baby boom

You can keep falling back on sarcasm but you’ve not been able to debunk that nothing new of consequence has come from these riots yet and time will tell if anything ever does.

under a bridge wrote:

You can keep falling back on sarcasm but you’ve not been able to debunk that nothing new of consequence has come from these riots yet and time will tell if anything ever does.

Nothing new of consequence? So if things continue on the trajectory of increased centralized power and fewer individual rights, that is inconsequential? In your mind can something that is consequential only be a positive thing. To me inconsequential isn’t a term you can use very loosely

I do like your strategy of “let’s wait and see”, how very original, it’s almost like this hasn’t been the attitude since after the war.

You are right info about curfews was fairly accessible:

But, as explained in a very thorough entry in the encyclopedia The Social History of the American Family, the original idea of covering fires so that townspeople would go home also meant that those in power could control the rights of lower-class populations, who wouldn’t have had private places to congregate. By the 1700s in Europe and the U.S., cities instituted permanent curfews for workers and slaves. At that time and into the 1800s, most of those curfews were aimed at controlling laborers. When child-labor laws came along, the reasoning got swapped: adults were now working in factories (often at night, making curfews unappealing to the bosses) and children were at home without supervision, getting into trouble. Curfews as a tactic to suppress crime became linked with age restrictions on movement. By the middle of the 20th century, many cities had permanent youth curfews

Just a snippet, I do t want to over whelm you

So you acknowledge they are nothing new. More support for my take.

under a bridge wrote:

So you acknowledge they are nothing new. More support for my take.

I had already acknowledged that with sarcasm remember.

Curfews aren’t new. That is what I know and all I need to know. Brilliant. You have been fun talking too. You really do make me chuckle

I'm not acab...yet.

What I will say is that cops haven't been helping themselves in the last few weeks in pushing this "bad apples" narrative.

Look at what happened in buffalo? two cops push a 75 year old man to the ground. Then the PD lies and says he tripped and fell. Then after they lie and are caught, they fire and arrest the two cops. and then FIFTY SEVEN POLICE RESIGN IN PROTEST SUPPORTING THE COPS WHO ASSAULTED A 75 YEAR OLD MAN.

Damn. What is going on with PDs? This is similar to the Catholic church for me in that it is an institutional issue. Are there good cops? sure. There were also good priests. But that's kind of besides the point. The institution of policing protects the 'bad apples' while the good apples stay silent. That's the issue. There needs to be more accountability, because even one bad apple cop can do a lot of damage and has way too much protection

Glad that I could help you. Feel free to reach out to me when I have consequentially fewer civil rights from a stronger centralized government to gloat about being right, if you’re still allowed.

under a bridge wrote:

Glad that I could help you. Feel free to reach out to me when I have consequentially fewer civil rights from a stronger centralized government to gloat about being right, if you’re still allowed.

Me too, thank you for everything!

WAIT A MINUTE! A.J. Acosta's Facebook page does not include the diatribe attributed to him by the OP, facebook friend. Did Acosta delete it from his page? Is it the kind of thing that Facebook policy calls for removal, and they did remove it? Was the whole thing made up by facebook friend to smear A.J. Acosta?

I didn't delve into this thread until it was already up to pg 3, so I may have missed finding the writeup on Acosta's FB page.

Who can verify the source of the above? Does it/did it appear anywhere else except on LetsRun?