Forum: Story Ideas

Aside from meeting and falling in love, there would be little to set one day in a homeless shelter from the next, as the struggle is mostly daily.

Part of the struggle for a homeless single parent is how to care for the child while trying to get work. Maybe by them getting together, one of them would be able to find a way to start working and thus get them out of their current state of affairs. As long as the money they get isn't some big unearned lump sum, I have no problems with how they make it, but it would be preferable to be in a legal manner.

people are drawn to stories that feature an initial change,

Maybe the story could start with one or both of them losing everything and it be about their fight to get back to what they had before and finding love along the way.

Maybe they would have to deal with criminal elements trying to find them or some such. The 'fight for survival'.

It's just an idea but I hope someone will be able to do something with it.

Looking forward to reading your story you mentioned.

I probably should do more research before posting this comment, but it seems to me Bonnie and Clyde, the bank robbers/gangsters from the early 1930s were essentially homeless.

rapid-fire automatic weapons (in an age when there weren't a lot available).

The were considerably more available than you think. Both the Thompson sub-machine gun and the Browning Automatic Rifle The two most common full auto weapons used during the gangster era were invented during WWI and there were significant numbers of military surplus weapons available and as yet, no legal restrictions on civilian ownership of automatic weapons.

In regard of the homeless statement, yes; they were essentially homeless and on the run 24/7.
It also depends on what you classify as a home. They used the same car for most of their crimes, so if you classify home as a place to only rest your head, then, no; they were not homeless.

It also depends on what you classify as a home. They used the same car for most of their crimes, so if you classify home as a place to only rest your head, then, no; they were not homeless.

That standard is absurd. By that standard, a street person with a box in an alley for a shelter isn't homeless.

My point was that they weren't homeless because they couldn't afford rent, but because they were on the run and couldn't 'afford' to stop anywhere (for fear they'd be arrested).

I got your point. It was Koeherrock's point that they weren't homeless at all because if you define "home" as a place to only rest your head, their car qualifies as a home, that's I was responding to.

It is very possible to use the cop's trained/instinctive reaction to let a person flee. I have taught at least one person in the past how to manage that by changing one particular reaction into another reaction. It worked since the cops were the very ones who notified me of the escape. They looked for the person at the place I was living several states away. I laughed at them after they left even when they kept me and my residence under a periodic watch for several months before giving up. I wonder what they would have thought if they found out they were used to notify me of the escape.

I taught an underage girl how to run away from home and avoid cops even at various check points. She really needed to get away.

edited to add:
I know that in some ways it was illegal as hell, but the statute of limitations has long since expired. Otherwise I would not have given as many details. I knew approximately where she was headed as well at the time and the cops were real suckers for the baited trail.

It is very possible to use the cop's trained/instinctive reaction to let a person flee.

I have no idea what comment of mine you are replying to.

I rather doubt that such training/instinct exists. There has been a lot of video popping up lately of cops in the US shooting fleeing suspects. The law in many jurisdictions explicitly allows them to shoot fleeing felony suspects.

I rather doubt that such training/instinct exists.

Okay when any cop sees someone suddenly changing direction (especially a u turn type action) their reaction is to catch them and find out why (Predator-prey reaction). That reaction can be changed to another one if given the right signs first. In which case the u-turn is ignored. As to the shooting of fleeing felony suspects. I was not fleeing the young 16 year old girl however definitely was however. Legal options in her case had failed the cause had a great rep with local cops so when ever she complained it was ignored. I found the truth in less than 24 hours. Then I took the time to teach her how to run away and setup a deliberate false trail using myself as bait. The cops took the bait, hook, line and sinker. The girl went in an entirely different direction as planned with no direct assistance from me at all outside of the teaching. The cops checked me out big time and couldn't get any reason to investigate me further. I was the bait to lead them in the wrong direction (deliberately). My only other option was to somehow cause the death of the girl's reason for running. I refused to take that step.

And a lot of people get nervous for reasons having nothing to do with misbehaving.

You have to watch them and make a judgement decision, often after speaking to them.

Most US cops seem to skip that step these days.

A real adrenalin rush is when you see someone and call out to them to ask a simple question, and the response you get from, "Hey, I'll like a quick word," is the person spinning around with a gun in their hand.

I doubt any cop ever gets that kind of response. A lot of unarmed people have been shot this year, far more than the number of cops that have been shot in the US.

The standard line seems to be "he was reaching for his waistband, I thought he had a gun."

This is complete BS. Why would an unarmed man facing an armed cop with his weapon drawn reach for an empty waistband? The cops just lie and lie and lie.

but I've also seen a lot of people reaching for the waistband to pull out a knife or some ID, you never know.

The cops in the US keep trotting this line out in cases where the person turned out to be unarmed.

US Cops are being taught by the academies here that they only have a 50/50 chance of surviving any given traffic stop, when the reality is that less then 200 cops/year die in the line of duty nation wide and all but 30-50 of those are the result of traffic accidents.

As to the academy training, maybe it's because they approach traffic stops as dangerous situations that they don't get so many killed at them now.

They never got so many of them killed. Besides, it's not just officer deaths that are down, assaults on officers are also at a 50 year low.

When I went through the academy they had film footage of six US police officers shot and killed at traffic stops, and written stories of another dozen - the dates of the incidents were all within the previous 2 years and they were chosen for how safe and routine they looked up until the shooting started. Now, that was some years ago, but they weren't seen as extremely odd events then.

That still doesn't back the claim being made. There are millions of traffic stops in the US every year. 9 shootings at traffic stops in one year is 0.001%, four orders of magnitude sort of the 50% claim.

I can tell you that when you worry about safety in a risk situation there's a damn sight less likelihood of something going wrong than if you don't worry about the safety factors.

Except when you obsess over negligible safety risks you actually increase the likelihood of something going wrong, like shooting a 80 year old man after you ordered him out of his car because your paranoid brain mistook his cane for a gun.

Cops shooting unarmed drivers at traffic stops over shit like that is way more common than cops getting shot a traffic stops.

Most US cops seem to skip that step these days.

I can [see] that happening in some places.

A real adrenaline rush is when you see someone and call out to them to ask a simple question, and the response you get from, "Hey, I'll like a quick word," is the person spinning around with a gun in their hand. You'd be surprised how that can up your maximum movement speed to a level you've never managed on a track, and never will on a track.

There you are minding your own business, which may or may not be legitimate, when you hear someone out of eyeshot call out, "Hey, I'd like a quick word." You look around t see where it came from and see a cop looking at you and you panic, thinking "What did I do? Why are the cops interested in me?" If you're a member of a group who perceives themselves as oppressed, accurately or not, increase the panic by at least an order of magnitude.

Then the cop sees the panic and thinks "Why is he reacting so badly, I only wanted to ask directions. He must be up to something."

Cops, by their nature, are intimidating, and some don't seem to realize that.

Well, it isn't just U.S. v. Australia, it's L.A. v. anywhere else. I grew up in a suburb of Los Angeles, and still live in the area, and from 1950 (Chief Parker takes office and cleans up the fiscal corruption of the PD) until 1991 (the Christopher Commission issues their report on the Rodney King beating) the LAPD had a stated policy of acting as though they were an occupying army.

I have taught at least one person in the past how to manage that by changing one particular reaction into another reaction. It worked since the cops were the very ones who notified me of the escape

I have no idea who the wanted man is/was but one day the gendamerie arrived in force in the tiny hamlet where I live. They were seeking a person called Nick Quintin whom at first I had never heard of. A short time after they left I had to get a plaster to cover a cut and there in the medicine cabinet I noticed the anti-smoking patches called Niquintin

Maybe so Ernest, but there were just too many other cases as I found out that were similar. Including at least one where a young girl about to turn 18, accidentally got a 12gauge stuck in her mouth on a hunting trip and pulled the trigger. It was declared by both the cops and the labs to be an accident. The stepfather was never investigated at all. Nice part was a few years later he had the exact same accident only that time they investigated me up one side and down the other. Perfect alibis and no way I could have any connection to his accident. I did later on keep my word to that little girl. I pissed on his grave.

The justice system in the USA, from small towns right up to the top, suffers from the fact that many are amateurs and political appointees rather than professionals.
In my location the former county judge was aunt to the city code compliance officer, the county sheriff and city magistrate are brothers. That has been a historic problem in rural areas and apart from the city officers they are all elected so may have no training prior to appointment - city officers are appointed by those who are elected! You have problems both with lack of training and with nepotism, so issues that may rock the boat are quietly pushed aside and trying to raise them again can bring a shitload of trouble from many directions onto those who ask questions.

I know that the NYPD requires an NYPD Academy degree, which is why they're generally more professional than the average street cop or traffic stop cop.

NYPD? Professional??

There are 3 or 4 stories from the last few years of the NYPD opening fire on a suspect in shooting half a dozen or more bystanders.

One case in particular that sticks out in my mind:

Half a dozen NYPD officers respond to a drunk pedestrian wondering in and out of traffic. He won't obey their orders (he's too drunk to understand them). So all six officers open fire on one drunk in a busy intersection during rush hour. each officer empties his weapon. 9 bystanders were shot, fortunately none fatally. The real kicker: The number of times they hit the drunk, ZERO.

That said, the NYPD is generally better trained than other police forces.

If they are so much better trained, how come they can't shoot worth a damn. When the NYPD starts shooting, the safest place to stand is behind their target.

Only one other PD in the US (LAPD, I'm looking at you) has anywhere near as many cases of bystanders accidentally shot by police.

Besides, given your description, I'd bet most of them had been drinking themselves, but it was covered up by the other cops for fear it would make the city worse than the report of missing someone already did.

But it's not just that incident. That black immigrant (I can't remember the name, something that started with A) that they shot up years ago in the doorway to the apartment building he was living in. 4 cops emptied guns with 12 round magazines at him (48 rounds total).

I was shocked when they finally made the autopsy report public. 48 rounds down range, they hit him less than a dozen times.

A cop, someone who carries and occasionally has to use a gun as part of his or her job has has no business considering himself a professional if he/she can't shoot better than that.

Cops who exhibit that poor a level of marksmanship should have their weapons taken away from them.

LAPD, I'm looking at you

Also, every officer an Academy graduate. Some of the neighboring PDs take LAPD Academy drop outs and rejects.

Also, every officer an Academy graduate.

And their Academy is supposed to be one of the best in the country, but half their graduates couldn't hit the broad side of a barn...from the inside.

And their Academy is supposed to be one of the best in the country

Weren't there a series of movies about their Police Academy?

Weren't there a series of movies about their Police Academy?

As far as I remember, those were supposed to be fiction, not documentaries, but now that you mention it....