ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
I don't know if I am more disturbed by these products or by the fact that these people attend training preparing them specifically to shoot children without questioning their career decision.
I don't know if I am more disturbed by these products or by the fact that these people attend training preparing them specifically to shoot children without questioning their career decision.
One cop chose to go above and beyond and make the target a picture of his own kid, so at least in that case i'm gonna go with the latter.
While it is disgusting, and cops may still be doing it, this particular company (mentioned in that Reason article) discontinued those targets 8 years ago after public outcry at the time.
It does still reinforce the point that the law enforcement industrial (hysteria) complex has gone to ridiculous lengths to convince both police and citizens that police needs to be ready to shoot at one's own shadow to remain perfectly safe and is justified in doing so.
IIRC, cops responding to the Parkland School shooting "waited for backup" rather than try and engage the shooter whom was actively shooting the people that society assumed police are supposed to protect. Seems like the real protectors become firefighters or EMS..
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
IIRC, cops responding to the Parkland School shooting "waited for backup" rather than try and engage the shooter whom was actively shooting the people that society assumed police are supposed to protect. Seems like the real protectors become firefighters or EMS..
And that's where we got the "Police have a duty to protect the public from crime, but not any specific member of the public from any specific crime."
Or am I remembering a different time police stood outside while a shooting happened?
IIRC, cops responding to the Parkland School shooting "waited for backup" rather than try and engage the shooter whom was actively shooting the people that society assumed police are supposed to protect. Seems like the real protectors become firefighters or EMS..
Also, with regards to the EMT thing. I worked security at a hospital for a while and had to deal with police and EMTs. One of the guys that worked after me was an EMT and told me about a car crash they were called to. They get there, driver is injured and unconscious, has a cell phone in their lap. Cops on scene tells him not to move it so he wouldn't disturb their crime scene. EMT said fuck off to that noise and tossed it in the back so he could administer aid to the injured driver.
There are numerous other helpful professions someone can be other than a cop. Pick those instead.
EDIT: Oh also, the supervisor was the only one to use the taser on someone while I was there.
IIRC, cops responding to the Parkland School shooting "waited for backup" rather than try and engage the shooter whom was actively shooting the people that society assumed police are supposed to protect. Seems like the real protectors become firefighters or EMS..
Pulse and I believe Parkland have (in theory) resulted to emergency response orthodoxy in mass shooter situations.
In the case of Pulse the general culture shift was if a shooter holds up somewhere and generally doesn't have a line of sight on some immobile victims, cops will establish a perimeter and rescue personnel will start triaging and removing victims from the more dangerous area to a collection point for treatment.
This change was brought about because multiple viable victims expired in the main area of the nightclub because the shooter was held up in the bathroom and the head of rescue operations on the scene (a Fire Chief) wouldn't permit members to enter because the police hadn't fully secured the scene.
Parkland either generated the following change or was the first prominent failure of it because the first officer on scene fled rather then engage the shooter.
Cops in a lot of jurisdictions now are supposed to engage the shooters as soon as possible/individually even in mass shooter scenarios because the response in place at least since Columbine (muster somewhere, wait for swat, go in with overwhelming force) has enabled shooters to essentially end these scenarios on their terms.
They either end up exhausting their targets, finding people who were hiding or picking a spot to ambush police with the best outcome possible being the first and they then decide to kill themselves. So cops have to go in there and actually do something. Or not, the officer who fled Parkland was fired and got their job back despite overwhelming cowardice.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
IIRC, cops responding to the Parkland School shooting "waited for backup" rather than try and engage the shooter whom was actively shooting the people that society assumed police are supposed to protect. Seems like the real protectors become firefighters or EMS..
And that's where we got the "Police have a duty to protect the public from crime, but not any specific member of the public from any specific crime."
Or am I remembering a different time police stood outside while a shooting happened?
Cases on that issue go back decades. At least one of the cases is like from the late 70s, early 80s. Got nothing to do with mass shootings.
IIRC, cops responding to the Parkland School shooting "waited for backup" rather than try and engage the shooter whom was actively shooting the people that society assumed police are supposed to protect. Seems like the real protectors become firefighters or EMS..
And that's where we got the "Police have a duty to protect the public from crime, but not any specific member of the public from any specific crime."
Or am I remembering a different time police stood outside while a shooting happened?
I think that particular precedent was set when someone was knifed on a subway and the cops were barricading the door until the victim managed to take down his attacker and they moved in. He sued the police for basically letting him be attacked and Court ruled police had no obligation to put themselves in danger to stop crime in progress
IIRC, cops responding to the Parkland School shooting "waited for backup" rather than try and engage the shooter whom was actively shooting the people that society assumed police are supposed to protect. Seems like the real protectors become firefighters or EMS..
And that's where we got the "Police have a duty to protect the public from crime, but not any specific member of the public from any specific crime."
Or am I remembering a different time police stood outside while a shooting happened?
I think that particular precedent was set when someone was knifed on a subway and the cops were barricading the door until the victim managed to take down his attacker and they moved in. He sued the police for basically letting him be attacked and Court ruled police had no obligation to put themselves in danger to stop crime in progress
I must be confusing it coming up during conversations about his actions with it being decided then. My bad!
IIRC, cops responding to the Parkland School shooting "waited for backup" rather than try and engage the shooter whom was actively shooting the people that society assumed police are supposed to protect. Seems like the real protectors become firefighters or EMS..
And that's where we got the "Police have a duty to protect the public from crime, but not any specific member of the public from any specific crime."
Or am I remembering a different time police stood outside while a shooting happened?
I think that particular precedent was set when someone was knifed on a subway and the cops were barricading the door until the victim managed to take down his attacker and they moved in. He sued the police for basically letting him be attacked and Court ruled police had no obligation to put themselves in danger to stop crime in progress
Goes back further. Think that’s a case from like 2012. This one goes all the way back to 1981 (trigger warning for rape):
Long story short women living in a house called the police about an intruder, police drove by, knocked on the door, waited about a minute, then fucked off for a donut.
They called *again,* and no further officers ever showed up.
There may well be earlier ones. But that’s the one that every gun nut in the world can cite from memory, which is why as a former gun nut I know it offhand. Cops never have to show up. They want all the credit for being heroes, while accepting zero risk to themselves in shooting decisions and zero responsibility to actually ever help anybody out at all.
They’ve fought vigorously for the right to be as useful and cowardly as they please. Meanwhile dressing as pretend soldiers and using every opportunity available to use force when it suits them.
This is the particularly egregious one in recent memory, because but only did the police refuse to try stopping a murder in progress but they already knew Maksim was wanted the moment he got on the train and immediately ran away. Rather than confront the murderer and arrest him they instead retreated to the conductor cabin, leaving the other passengers vulnerable without them realizing the danger they were now in.
+4
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Found an excellent data aggregator - Mapping Police Violence. The team has been gathering information about all killings by police in the US, in a downloadable database and interactive graphics. There's stuff here I didn't know about, or didn't have contextualized. For instance, there are seven city police departments that murder black men at higher rates than the US murder rate. There were only 18 days last year when police didn't kill someone in the US - there were four killings on Christmas.
If you know anyone who might actually be on the fence, this could be an excellent link to show them. There are people out there who are ignorant (or are trying to stay ignorant) about the problem. Might get some fence sitters on our side before the police state gets all of us.
This is the particularly egregious one in recent memory, because but only did the police refuse to try stopping a murder in progress but they already knew Maksim was wanted the moment he got on the train and immediately ran away. Rather than confront the murderer and arrest him they instead retreated to the conductor cabin, leaving the other passengers vulnerable without them realizing the danger they were now in.
A lot of police murders are the result of cowardice - they have it in their heads that black men are crazed murder machines with unnatural strength on 7 sorts of drugs, so they shoot first and ask questions later. The unofficial police motto is "It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" and it informs a lot of their actions.
+35
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Cowardice, in that bullies are often cowards. It makes them more brutal towards easy targets that can't fight back, like children, and tiny 73 year old ladies with dementia.
Cowardice, in that bullies are often cowards. It makes them more brutal towards easy targets that can't fight back, like children, and tiny 73 year old ladies with dementia.
Also, shooting the caretakers of autistic patients, in an attempt to save the caretaker from the autistic patient they were shooting at, and then ARRESTING THE WOUNDED CARETAKER THAT APPARENTLY WASN'T THE TARGET. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Charles_Kinsey
"A police department employee told the Herald that the officer fired because the autistic patient did not obey police commands"
Yup. That's a reason to use potentially lethal force.
At least in that case, the officer was fired after being convicted of... culpable negligence. And suffered through his entire sentence of.... "one year of administrative probation, 100 hours of community service, and to write a 2,500-word essay on communication and weapon discharges. His conviction would also not appear on a criminal record due to the withholding of adjudication. He was released from probation less than five months later."
"Rivera (local head of the Police Benevolent Association) said that Kinsey "did everything right." ".
Blue wall of fucking assholes.
EDIT: Error on my part, Kinsey was the victim here, not the shooter. I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around a PBA representative siding with the victim under any circumstance, but it's apparently the case. Though he did cover for the shooter saying he was "trying to save Kinsey's life.", despite multiple civilians and officers (and the victim) saying the autistic man was not armed.
Still trying to wrap my head around the idea that he shoots at what he claims after the fact is the threat, hits the supposed hostage, and then handcuffs the hostage. I mean, if he thought that the guy he shot was the victim, why would he restrain HIM?
"Cellphone video footage, showing mental health therapist Charles Kinsey lying on the ground with his arms raised in North Miami, Florida, before being shot by police officer Jonathan Aledda. Kinsey's autistic patient is seated beside him."
The fact that the cop then called for an ambulance and tried to save the kid makes me suspect he (the cop) didn't actually mean to shoot him. Which, if true, doesn't make this better, to be clear. Just bad in a different way.
Or he meant to shoot him because he thought the kid had a gun or something because a ton of cops are basically in fight-or-flight mode the entire time they are on the job and are expecting to be ambushed by "thugs" trying to murder them at any moment.
If the linked article is to be believed, there is some evidence that he had a gun, but had just tossed it. Per the written description, video shows him making a tossing motion behind the fence, and a gun was allegedly found there ("allegedly" is used intentionally). The fact that he was 13 is not mutually exclusive with him having a gun. Though if he did..."if" also used intentionally...it was likely handed off to him by the actual guy doing the shooting.
Sounds like the video is pretty clear that his hands were empty at the time that he was shot. But the officer may not have been entirely unreasonable to be on edge, given that he was responding to a shots-fired call and this child may well have been holding a gun seconds earlier. Which to some extent would be on whoever gave the fucking thing to him.
EDIT: Still probably a bad shoot IMO, if that's unclear. Preferred consequences for me being at the least that this person does not carry a gun on the job ever again.
This guy had a gun too
He also was cooperating with police (shit he got chased after he was heading over to the cops to hand himself in after he had a shot someone) and not making sudden movements like a dumb ass. In before hurr he blew up someone's bicep (yep after the slimy fucker tried to execute him with a pistol after pretending to surrender).
Look, all he did was break, like three laws. Then he tried to turn himself in to the cops! Like any good law a biding citizen that was breaking multiple laws would've done! Also, he killed some people while breaking the laws, again, as any good law abiding citizen would have done!
The fact that the cop then called for an ambulance and tried to save the kid makes me suspect he (the cop) didn't actually mean to shoot him. Which, if true, doesn't make this better, to be clear. Just bad in a different way.
Or he meant to shoot him because he thought the kid had a gun or something because a ton of cops are basically in fight-or-flight mode the entire time they are on the job and are expecting to be ambushed by "thugs" trying to murder them at any moment.
If the linked article is to be believed, there is some evidence that he had a gun, but had just tossed it. Per the written description, video shows him making a tossing motion behind the fence, and a gun was allegedly found there ("allegedly" is used intentionally). The fact that he was 13 is not mutually exclusive with him having a gun. Though if he did..."if" also used intentionally...it was likely handed off to him by the actual guy doing the shooting.
Sounds like the video is pretty clear that his hands were empty at the time that he was shot. But the officer may not have been entirely unreasonable to be on edge, given that he was responding to a shots-fired call and this child may well have been holding a gun seconds earlier. Which to some extent would be on whoever gave the fucking thing to him.
EDIT: Still probably a bad shoot IMO, if that's unclear. Preferred consequences for me being at the least that this person does not carry a gun on the job ever again.
This guy had a gun too
He also was cooperating with police (shit he got chased after he was heading over to the cops to hand himself in after he had a shot someone) and not making sudden movements like a dumb ass. In before hurr he blew up someone's bicep (yep after the slimy fucker tried to execute him with a pistol after pretending to surrender).
Imagine referring to a 13 year old child who was killed as a dumbass.
TehSpectre on
+17
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
But this is what I was talking about, even on these forums which are predominantly left leaning, there are people who are defending KH. I think we’ll see 2 hung juries. Before the prosecutor gives up.
These forums are public, anonymous, and under no compulsion or burden of consequence to be 100% concordant. There are a lot of difference between this discussion and what goes on in a courtroom
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It feels really weird that probably everybody has experiences being reflexively startled by innocuous things but a ton of people seem to think that pairing that with shooting a person because the thing that startled you could involve a weapon makes sense.
It feels really weird that probably everybody has experiences being reflexively startled by innocuous things but a ton of people seem to think that pairing that with shooting a person because the thing that startled you could involve a weapon makes sense.
Like, does that excuse feel like it would work for a normal person? "Sorry, I was nervous and I thought they had a gun. Don't convict me of any crimes thanks."
I have had the burden of sitting on a murder jury. My experience was that everyone in the room feels the pressure of potentially two ruined lives (and then some) and the idiots who are bigoted or disinterested or just want to go home are immediately sidelined from the conversation and ignored. The adults in the room parse data and debate verdicts. In the end those disinterested juror's votes matter, but if they aren't the foreman they get to stay sequestered and don't have decision making power until they figure their shit out and vote the consensus way in order to go home.
Granted this was Canada and your mileage may vary in a US jury.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Minneapolis and other US cities increase security ahead of Derek Chauvin trial verdict
oh weird, it's like the state knows they will never be held accountable
Minneapolis and other US cities increase security ahead of Derek Chauvin trial verdict
oh weird, it's like the state knows they will never be held accountable
It seems the prudent thing to do no matter what to me. Better to be over-prepared then under-prepared.
It doesn’t have a particularly great track record of not preceding an acquittal on the basis of “Cops have a license to kill, what like that spy fellow”
Minneapolis and other US cities increase security ahead of Derek Chauvin trial verdict
oh weird, it's like the state knows they will never be held accountable
It seems the prudent thing to do no matter what to me. Better to be over-prepared then under-prepared.
"Prudent" means "acting with or showing care and thought for the future."
What is a pre-emptive militarized police response showing care about, exactly? Whose future are they thinking about?
They are thinking about the future where a verdict could lead to demonstrations or riots. The same way many cities think about this around big sports games. Frankly, they often don't do it enough.
Minneapolis and other US cities increase security ahead of Derek Chauvin trial verdict
oh weird, it's like the state knows they will never be held accountable
It seems the prudent thing to do no matter what to me. Better to be over-prepared then under-prepared.
"Prudent" means "acting with or showing care and thought for the future."
What is a pre-emptive militarized police response showing care about, exactly? Whose future are they thinking about?
They are thinking about the future where a verdict could lead to demonstrations or riots. The same way many cities think about this around big sports games. Frankly, they often don't do it enough.
Thinking about demonstrations and... what? How does this make things better than, say, condemning the actions of the officer and firing them and saying (if he is acquitted) that you are disappointed but understand the laws that exist that made it so difficult to convict a police officer who obviously committed some sort of wrong-doing, even if it wasn't determined to be criminal, and so let's change qualified immunity, something like that?
Don't do what, enough? Deliberately kettle protestors and then barrage them with tear gas and pepper spray, before stomping in and beating them and arresting them en masse?
What are they "showing care" about by doing this? Because they sure aren't showing they care about what the community thinks.
Posts
One cop chose to go above and beyond and make the target a picture of his own kid, so at least in that case i'm gonna go with the latter.
https://reason.com/2013/02/25/law-enforcement-targets-inc-discontinues/
It does still reinforce the point that the law enforcement industrial (hysteria) complex has gone to ridiculous lengths to convince both police and citizens that police needs to be ready to shoot at one's own shadow to remain perfectly safe and is justified in doing so.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
And that's where we got the "Police have a duty to protect the public from crime, but not any specific member of the public from any specific crime."
Or am I remembering a different time police stood outside while a shooting happened?
Also, with regards to the EMT thing. I worked security at a hospital for a while and had to deal with police and EMTs. One of the guys that worked after me was an EMT and told me about a car crash they were called to. They get there, driver is injured and unconscious, has a cell phone in their lap. Cops on scene tells him not to move it so he wouldn't disturb their crime scene. EMT said fuck off to that noise and tossed it in the back so he could administer aid to the injured driver.
There are numerous other helpful professions someone can be other than a cop. Pick those instead.
EDIT: Oh also, the supervisor was the only one to use the taser on someone while I was there.
He was also the only former cop.
Pulse and I believe Parkland have (in theory) resulted to emergency response orthodoxy in mass shooter situations.
In the case of Pulse the general culture shift was if a shooter holds up somewhere and generally doesn't have a line of sight on some immobile victims, cops will establish a perimeter and rescue personnel will start triaging and removing victims from the more dangerous area to a collection point for treatment.
This change was brought about because multiple viable victims expired in the main area of the nightclub because the shooter was held up in the bathroom and the head of rescue operations on the scene (a Fire Chief) wouldn't permit members to enter because the police hadn't fully secured the scene.
Parkland either generated the following change or was the first prominent failure of it because the first officer on scene fled rather then engage the shooter.
Cops in a lot of jurisdictions now are supposed to engage the shooters as soon as possible/individually even in mass shooter scenarios because the response in place at least since Columbine (muster somewhere, wait for swat, go in with overwhelming force) has enabled shooters to essentially end these scenarios on their terms.
They either end up exhausting their targets, finding people who were hiding or picking a spot to ambush police with the best outcome possible being the first and they then decide to kill themselves. So cops have to go in there and actually do something. Or not, the officer who fled Parkland was fired and got their job back despite overwhelming cowardice.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Cases on that issue go back decades. At least one of the cases is like from the late 70s, early 80s. Got nothing to do with mass shootings.
I think that particular precedent was set when someone was knifed on a subway and the cops were barricading the door until the victim managed to take down his attacker and they moved in. He sued the police for basically letting him be attacked and Court ruled police had no obligation to put themselves in danger to stop crime in progress
I must be confusing it coming up during conversations about his actions with it being decided then. My bad!
Goes back further. Think that’s a case from like 2012. This one goes all the way back to 1981 (trigger warning for rape):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Long story short women living in a house called the police about an intruder, police drove by, knocked on the door, waited about a minute, then fucked off for a donut.
They called *again,* and no further officers ever showed up.
There may well be earlier ones. But that’s the one that every gun nut in the world can cite from memory, which is why as a former gun nut I know it offhand. Cops never have to show up. They want all the credit for being heroes, while accepting zero risk to themselves in shooting decisions and zero responsibility to actually ever help anybody out at all.
They’ve fought vigorously for the right to be as useful and cowardly as they please. Meanwhile dressing as pretend soldiers and using every opportunity available to use force when it suits them.
This is the particularly egregious one in recent memory, because but only did the police refuse to try stopping a murder in progress but they already knew Maksim was wanted the moment he got on the train and immediately ran away. Rather than confront the murderer and arrest him they instead retreated to the conductor cabin, leaving the other passengers vulnerable without them realizing the danger they were now in.
If you know anyone who might actually be on the fence, this could be an excellent link to show them. There are people out there who are ignorant (or are trying to stay ignorant) about the problem. Might get some fence sitters on our side before the police state gets all of us.
A lot of police murders are the result of cowardice - they have it in their heads that black men are crazed murder machines with unnatural strength on 7 sorts of drugs, so they shoot first and ask questions later. The unofficial police motto is "It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" and it informs a lot of their actions.
Also, shooting the caretakers of autistic patients, in an attempt to save the caretaker from the autistic patient they were shooting at, and then ARRESTING THE WOUNDED CARETAKER THAT APPARENTLY WASN'T THE TARGET.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Charles_Kinsey
"A police department employee told the Herald that the officer fired because the autistic patient did not obey police commands"
Yup. That's a reason to use potentially lethal force.
At least in that case, the officer was fired after being convicted of... culpable negligence. And suffered through his entire sentence of.... "one year of administrative probation, 100 hours of community service, and to write a 2,500-word essay on communication and weapon discharges. His conviction would also not appear on a criminal record due to the withholding of adjudication. He was released from probation less than five months later."
"Rivera (local head of the Police Benevolent Association) said that Kinsey "did everything right." ".
Blue wall of fucking assholes.
EDIT: Error on my part, Kinsey was the victim here, not the shooter. I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around a PBA representative siding with the victim under any circumstance, but it's apparently the case. Though he did cover for the shooter saying he was "trying to save Kinsey's life.", despite multiple civilians and officers (and the victim) saying the autistic man was not armed.
Still trying to wrap my head around the idea that he shoots at what he claims after the fact is the threat, hits the supposed hostage, and then handcuffs the hostage. I mean, if he thought that the guy he shot was the victim, why would he restrain HIM?
"Cellphone video footage, showing mental health therapist Charles Kinsey lying on the ground with his arms raised in North Miami, Florida, before being shot by police officer Jonathan Aledda. Kinsey's autistic patient is seated beside him."
Ohhhh. Now it all makes sense.
He also was cooperating with police (shit he got chased after he was heading over to the cops to hand himself in after he had a shot someone) and not making sudden movements like a dumb ass. In before hurr he blew up someone's bicep (yep after the slimy fucker tried to execute him with a pistol after pretending to surrender).
Geth, kick @SapporoL1ght5 from the thread.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Like, does that excuse feel like it would work for a normal person? "Sorry, I was nervous and I thought they had a gun. Don't convict me of any crimes thanks."
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Granted this was Canada and your mileage may vary in a US jury.
oh weird, it's like the state knows they will never be held accountable
It seems the prudent thing to do no matter what to me. Better to be over-prepared then under-prepared.
It doesn’t have a particularly great track record of not preceding an acquittal on the basis of “Cops have a license to kill, what like that spy fellow”
"Prudent" means "acting with or showing care and thought for the future."
What is a pre-emptive militarized police response showing care about, exactly? Whose future are they thinking about?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
cops're spoiling for a fight is all
hitting hot metal with hammers
They are thinking about the future where a verdict could lead to demonstrations or riots. The same way many cities think about this around big sports games. Frankly, they often don't do it enough.
Also a continual reminder of the failure on January 6th.
Cops can mobilize in force when there's a (perception of a) threat. Ie, black, women, lgbt, and/or leftist.
But when it comes to white conservatives, kid gloves. See the covid counterprotests too.
Equal justice under the law. Equal according to Orwellian principles though.
^
Thinking about demonstrations and... what? How does this make things better than, say, condemning the actions of the officer and firing them and saying (if he is acquitted) that you are disappointed but understand the laws that exist that made it so difficult to convict a police officer who obviously committed some sort of wrong-doing, even if it wasn't determined to be criminal, and so let's change qualified immunity, something like that?
Don't do what, enough? Deliberately kettle protestors and then barrage them with tear gas and pepper spray, before stomping in and beating them and arresting them en masse?
What are they "showing care" about by doing this? Because they sure aren't showing they care about what the community thinks.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar