Example #4824 of why women should not be street cops, combat soldiers, Secret Service agents.
That we put women into these situations does not speak to our sophisticiation nor enlightenment. It's actually quite backwards and regressive.
Link: https://x.com/itsallphoenix2/status/1928630279154893294
Replies to: Example #4824 of why women should not be street cops, combat soldiers, Secret Service agents.
I agree to a certain extent that women police officers…
are at a serious physical disadvantage when confronting stronger men. In my opinion, she should have deployed her taser before she got too close to the guy. The cop is lucky she didn’t get hurt worse.
Edit: female cop
I'm hoping this dude was eventually arrested & actually prosecuted.
She took one for the team. I'm also wondering if this incident led her to rethink her career choice. Don't know what led to this confrontation but perhaps waiting for back up was in order. A sucker punch could bring down anyone. What led to this?
MAS gets off on watching women get beat up by men, admit it.
(no message)
That guy could drop MAS like a bad habit and a lot of male officers also.
(no message)
That guy looked like prime Mike Tyson.
(no message)
Gave her a broken nose and broken ankle.
Not sure that guy should ever again be a part of civilized society...not because of the injuries, but because of his willingness to dole them out at a moments notice. Would anyone here do that?
Testify!
(no message)
She looks like she could storm a beach with full combat loadout.
...any day of the month. Typical marine.
By your rationale no one should do the job
You think women are the only ones subdued by perps?
As I said that guy would drop MAS quite quick and plenty of male officers as well.
(no message)
No way. MAS breaks up fights between middle-schoolers every day.
That’s not for the weak.
And he bikes to work. With the stupid tight pants. So he can hold his own.
Teaching Middle School is a perfect match for his talents.
(no message)
No. Small men can’t do the job either. Ht, wt, fitness requirements. Duh.
(no message)
Nonsense…
There are plenty of “small” men that can do this work. Tunnel rats during the Vietnam war were small in size. There are plenty of “small” police officers that do the job effectively.
So, some small men might be able to demonstrate competence, or all small men can do it?
(no message)
I'm guessing that your avoiding answering this because you see the flaw in your own thinking.
(no message)
Nope. Wrong again as per usual…
On a “staycation”. Had to take the pup to the vet for his boosters.
You insinuated “all” small men aren’t suited for police work, military, and such. I pointed out the usual flaw in your logic by stating that there are small men who can effectively do those jobs and do them well. I served with a few small men that humped their shit like the rest of us. Hell, I was only 170 lbs when I jumped into combat. I jumped in a 110lb ruck with other items and I was combat ready.
Of course, "some" can do it. But do you think that "all" can? Because DEI requires accepting "all"
Regardless of criteria - size, age, gender.....the selection needs to be based on merit, not DEI.
Your hard on for DEI is bizarre. You’re the one who insinuated “all”…
Not me. I never did and I gave you some examples of “some” that can do those jobs effectively. I hope that helps.
It's a DEI thread! Lol. So you agree with me that merit should be used in hiring w/out care for
race/gender/religion/age/sexual preference. Because discrimination aside, no group has "all" people within it that can do the job.
That is not what DEI espouses. It espouses hiring be based not on merit, but on creating diversity. It espouses looking past more qualified candidates to hire a candidate based on those characteristics instead. It assumes that "all" can do it, and that merit doesn't matter.
Your belief is very Trumpian, and I agree. Merit is the way forward, not discrimination based on the above characteristics.
Like I said, your hard on for DEI is bizarre…
I’m sure you have some friends in the psychiatric field that can help.
There’s no evidence that “DEI” had anything to do with the female officer getting hired. That’s just an asinine assumption on your part. Good luck proving your point because it’s impossible to do so.
Deny the macro point by trying to focus on the micro minutiae. You want specific proof on the
the specific example only. Otherwise, you won't acknowledge the greater point....publicly on this board, anyways.
I'm just glad that you agree with Trump about using merit without discrimination.
Always believed in merit based…
hiring well before the Trump idiocy and hyper-fixation on DEI. As I’ve mentioned many times, DEI is a nothing burger. It’s just something Trump and his sycophants love to focus on.
We (and Trump) agree then. We disagree about the damage of DEI.
(no message)
That’s acceptable. Seems like a waste of time worrying about it to me
(no message)
You might need a course in probability/statistics.
That is, assuming you want to think about issues and discuss rational solutions, rather than just saying what you think your party overlords want you to say for political gain.