Ferguson cop

Quote: AZDuffman

Simple.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."



Yes, NYC was terrible. Movies were made about how bad it was. OTOH, PC has stopped a lot of good, common sense police work. A good cop can usually tell who is up to less than pure motives. Years ago the cop would tell a group of kids to "keep moving" because he knew they had no purpose on the street. He does that today he gets accused of "profiling." In smaller places, or even in "neighborhoody" parts of big cities good cops have a good idea who did something right away. Many of us grew up in a place where when something happened the cops drove to the same house to question someone, and they were usually right.




Yes, break the rings, then send the feds home. Government should be as local as possible.

Yeah basically the federal government has no business with intrastate matters compared to interstate matters. With the commerce clause being used all the time gaining the federal government so much power, I suppose it's a logical jump to think almost anything is fair game as it closely does come to be.

It seems that many (most?) of the head "organizers" in Ferguson were from out of the area, had an agenda, and were white.

Take Lisa Fithian, she of the '99 Seattle WTO riots.

A rabid anarchist, she arrived months ago and put on workshops about how to confront The Man.

True, she was ostensibly non-violent, but WTF was she doing there stirring things up?

It's like bringing a burning sparkler into a dynaminte factory.

Also, while I cannot speak with absolute certainty, it looked like quite a few of the people who were photographed on the streets in Ferguson last night were white, not black.

I suspect that the whites were of the same ilk as the clowns in the "Occupy" movement of a couple years ago: white, young, disaffected.

Did any of them participate in the burning and the smashing, or were they there only for a show of non-violent protest?

This seems to be something new, at least so far as I can see: whites coming to black areas to help organize, direct, and foment trouble, probably to get themselves and their agenda (whatever it is) some exposure on the world stage.

Is Lisa still around? Love what she's done with her hair......not that there's anything wrong with it. :-)

When I was a kid the blacks rioted in the next town over, Plainfield, NJ.

Things were more "black and white" back then.



Heck, I recall attending a meeting in a Plainfield school gym put on by an ad hoc group called S.O.C. ("Save Our City"): all white, mostly Italian, and they gave a crash course in self-defense.

Now, the lines have blurred.

Quote: AZDuffman

Simple.

OTOH, PC has stopped a lot of good, common sense police work. A good cop can usually tell who is up to less than pure motives. Years ago the cop would tell a group of kids to "keep moving" because he knew they had no purpose on the street. He does that today he gets accused of "profiling." In smaller places, or even in "neighborhoody" parts of big cities good cops have a good idea who did something right away. Many of us grew up in a place where when something happened the cops drove to the same house to question someone, and they were usually right.

I agree. I have been a long supporter of racial profiling. Anyone who says it does not work is just not grounded in reason. If you evaluate the Isreali profiling system it is highly effective. But unfortunately it is incorrect in America to say such things.

However, I'm not sure how people trust local police more than Federalized police. There are so many cases of corruption at local levels. Federal police can be designed much more militaristic to keep uniformed procedures.

Quote: MrV

This seems to be something new, at least so far as I can see: whites coming to black areas to help organize, direct, and foment trouble, probably to get themselves and their agenda (whatever it is) some exposure on the world stage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Summer
Been going on for a long long time. Nothing new. Not formenting trouble.

Quote: terapined

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Summer
Been going on for a long long time. Nothing new. Not formenting trouble.

I am aware of the role the liberal whites played in the civil rights movement.

I'm talking about boots on the ground in a riot.

The rioters were all black in Plainfield, in Newark, in Detroit.

Watts too, IIRC.

Quote: Gandler

However, I agree with police militarization, if they are more uniformly disciplined, preferably from a centralized source and with careful oversight to prevent corrupt local departments from doing the kind of things that concern you.

Good one, but this isn't the "Joke of the Day" thread. If serious, then still no. North Korea is thataway ~~~>

Quote: RaleighCraps

I probably should just keep my mouth shut, but here goes anyway.

A post so good I had to toss mine in as well.

I'm out of the loop, only barely hearing about this story. This thread made me do my research, and it's appalling. I Googled "Ferguson", right? Every single result save one - "white cop shoots unarmed black teen". The one headline that didn't mention race or "unarmed"? I clicked it. The first sentence of the story? "...white cop who shot an unarmed black teen...".

Obama? "The fact is, in too many parts of this country, a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color."

Eff every single one of you. Every. Single. One.

I don't care who you are, the rules of self defense remain the same. You are allowed to exert force to protect yourself, and said force must not exceed the minimum required to protect your life and safety.

Black, white, or brown, gun, fist, or knife, you protect yourself. If this was some 88yr old bitty swinging her purse, you grab her arms and pin her. Some 150lb skater tweak, you grab him by the scruff of the neck and put him down. That is the minimum force required. If a six and a half foot, 300lb giant wants to tangle, a wrist lock ain't gonna cut it.

None of this bullspit matters. These buzzwords of "black" and "white" and "unarmed" are completely disgusting. At its base, you have a man attacking a cop, a man who has the power to end his life. I don't care if it's this skinny white cop, man mountain Brock Lesnar, or my 56yr old mother. If someone threatens your safety, you empty the mag in his chest.

And wtf is going on in Ferguson? Even in NY where they're trying to jail anyone who even says "gun", where we have no Castle Doctrine, where we have no Stand Your Ground, we can still shoot to kill in the event of arson. You can bet your ass that some of these blue collar old timers would be putting these grown children in their place and ending this mass temper tantrum, with a little help from Eliphalet Remington. Made right here in NY, for all your riot quelling needs.

Rioters. Pah. A bunch of effing puppets. Dance, puppets, dance.

By report, after Wilson leaned in the cop car to punch the cop, he turned and walked away.

So riddle me this, Batman: why didn't the cop then drive away, monitor the situation from a comfortable distance from his locked and secure car and wait for backup which was enroute?

Coulda shoulda, dontcha think?

But no, his adrenalin was up, and he was a cop, and by god no black can assault a cop and get away with it, especially not in the south.

Sunil Dutta, a 17-year-veteran police officer in Los Angeles who, in the wake of the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri wrote a Washington Post column titled: "I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me."

This is the root of the problem.
Cops refuse to be challenged. They are to serve and protect. Are all cops lawful? Most are but there are some rotten cops. Thats why we have the right to challenge. Its a right to speak up, video tape and challenge. Of course Sunil Dutta is not interesed in rights.

Quote: Face

Good one, but this isn't the "Joke of the Day" thread. If serious, then still no. North Korea is thataway

That's not fair Face. That is as cheap as calling somebody a "Nazi" when they have a differnet opinion on police.

There are plenty of countries that are not totalitarian regimes that use a Federalized systems.

But before you call me un-American let me clear my throat by saying I love America, and the state system. But when it comes to Law Enforcement there is a lot of corruption at local levels, and there is ample amounts of cases and incidents to see this.

But yes, to play that game, I would like a centralized Law Enforcement system just like North Korea (and South Korea, and many Western countries...).

Quote: MrV

By report, after Wilson leaned in the cop car to punch the cop, he turned and walked away.

So riddle me this, Batman: why didn't the cop then drive away, monitor the situation from a comfortable distance from his locked and secure car and wait for backup which was enroute?

Coulda shoulda, dontcha think?

But no, his adrenalin was up, and he was a cop, and by god no black can assault a cop and get away with it, especially not in the south.

Here's the real issue with violence in the USA-
1. Black males-6% of the population, 60% of the murders.
2. Vermont-population 700,000. All white-7 murders a year.
Dee-troit, population 700,000. All blacks-432 murders a year.

Any questions?

Quote:

and by god no black person can assault a cop another person and get away with it, especially not in the south America.

See?

Make it cop vs black or white vs black if you want. It seems popular. It's also stupid and incorrect, but it's an option.

I'll agree that waiting was also an option for the cop. But cops are people, and as such are built differently.

One of my friends is Chief of Police in the local college town here. Born and raised. The most honorable and mellow guy you'd want to meet, a real good friend. The worst he has to deal with is getting glitter on him from picking a drunk chick out of the street, or ticketing the frat house for public urination. He'd probably wait for backup. My Sheriff buddy is more of an a-hole. He spends all day getting bitched at in traffic stops, in between fishing dead bodies out of the lake, or pouring brains into a garbage bag after a suicide. If something happened, he's more liable to end it now. My Fed buddy? Ferguson is a day at the beach compared to his multiple stints in Iraq. Forget shooting, Mr. Brown would've been choke slammed before he got a slap off, and if he grabbed for Fed's gun, Fed would rip his arms off and beat him with them. There wouldn't even have been a struggle with the Fed.

Cops are people, and as such, will act and react differently. But Monday morning quarterbacking is useless. All that matters is "did the cop act within procedure"? If you assault a cop, procedure is you get arrested. If you resist, you will receive pain. If you put him in a position to fear for his life, expect to lose yours.

That last isn't a cop thing. It's a People Thing. If someone grabs for my gun, they will get it. Starting with the small pieces first.

Quote: bobsims

Here's the real issue with violence in the USA-
1. Black males-6% of the population, 60% of the murders.
2. Vermont-population 700,000. All white-7 murders a year.
Dee-troit, population 700,000. All blacks-432 murders a year.

Any questions?

Over a five-year period, data show that fatal shootings by police officers in Utah ranked second only to homicides of intimate partners.
Killings by Utah police outpacing gang, drug, child-abuse homicides

http://www.sltrib.com/news/1842489-155/killings-by-utah-police-outpacing-gang

Quote: Gandler

That's not fair Face. That is as cheap as calling somebody a "Nazi" when they have a differnet opinion on police.

There are plenty of countries that are not totalitarian regimes that use a Federalized systems.

But before you call me un-American let me clear my throat by saying I love America, and the state system. But when it comes to Law Enforcement there is a lot of corruption at local levels, and there is ample amounts of cases and incidents to see this.

But yes, to play that game, I would like a centralized Law Enforcement system just like North Korea (and South Korea, and many Western countries...).

Yeah, that was smarmy. But I stand by the statement. You want to fix an overreaching and corrupt system by... giving them unfettered power? The cop with a .40cal and a Dodge Charger gets too big for his britches, so let's give him a Mk 17 and an M60?

If that's not deserving of smarm, then I'd need a further explanation of your opinion.

Quote: Gandler

However, I'm not sure how people trust local police more than Federalized police. There are so many cases of corruption at local levels. Federal police can be designed much more militaristic to keep uniformed procedures.

Quite simple, if I have bad local cops I can do many things. I can move or I can possibly run for office. I might know the cops and their families for years. The cops intend to stay local so will not have some career ambitions of "getting to Washington." And the cops bosses will be local. It will be far easier to "know someone who knows someone" if it came to that.

OTOH, feds might be transferred in from who knows where. I totally do not want "militaristic and uniform procedures." First, the cops are not the military. The USA is already enough of a police-state, we do not need to go further down that path. Second, I do not know what the big deal about "uniform procedures" is all about.

Cops need to be allowed to use local judgment. An example is that in six days there will be people here in PA walking around with rifles. All over the state. Some will stop into C-Stores with them, others will be walking along the road. You see, the Monday after Thanksgiving starts Deer Season here, a huge thing in man parts. Local cops might know the hunters, or at least "know hunters." A friendly, "can you show that thing is not chambered" or a, "hey, not on the side of the road, OK?" from a local makes much more sense than a Fed "following procedure" and calling for back-up for something harmless. And if someone does get a citation there is more chance a local JP can give leeway to a guy everyone knows is a good guy. Feds not so much.

A good prosecutorcan ger a fireplug indicted if he wants to. But only if he wants to. Still curious as why after 3 months, he could not wait until daylight to announce the verdict ?

Quote: bobsims

Here's the real issue with violence in the USA-
1. Black males-6% of the population, 60% of the murders.
2. Vermont-population 700,000. All white-7 murders a year.
Dee-troit, population 700,000. All blacks-432 murders a year.

Any questions?

whatis average income per capita in vermont versus detroit? How many vermonters would like to live in Detroit?

how many detroiters would prefer to l7ve in vermont .

Quote: charles

A good prosecutorcan ger a fireplug indicted if he wants to. But only if he wants to. Still curious as why after 3 months, he could not wait until daylight to announce the verdict ?

Probably wanted working folks to be home and not trapped by the riots would be my guess.

Quote: charles

whatis average income per capita in vermont versus detroit? How many vermonters would like to live in Detroit?

how many detroiters would prefer to l7ve in vermont .

What does any of that have to do with the murder rate?

When is last time a millionaire shot another millionairee? Lots of murders involve drugs. Not one involved a fat radio millionaire
who got the maid to buy his drugs !

Quote: charles

When is last time a millionaire shot another millionairee? Lots of murders involve drugs. Not one involved a fat radio millionaire
who got the maid to buy his drugs !

So everyone that lives in VT is a millionaire? Are you saying there are no low income areas in the entire state of VT?

I still don't get the connection of income and murder rate.

Start by looking at the average income of murder victims in detroit. Any many upper class victims. Try living in an inner city. Check murder stats in other countries. Always find highest rates among the poorest cities .
Do you think poverty breeds crime ? Yes or no

I've been following this and think the most important point has been missed for the most part. And, I predict that my opinion will be largely unpopular. LOL!
But I don't really care what anybody else thinks. As I've said before: "Owning yourself is priceless." So here is my take on the whole thing. Flame away!

Our country enjoys a long history of violent protest. It's how the country was formed. It's in our F*&^%$#g DNA.
I would imagine that the British had much the same mind-set and opinion as most I've seen here and the rest of the internet. They ended up sending armed military and we all know the end result of that. Not too good for the British.

We are living in a country that is quickly becoming a Military State right before our eyes. The police are brutalizing and killing unarmed citizens every single day. And no court has seen fit to indict any of these "Thugs". The police today are truly the most well organized and well armed gangs in the country.The only people who are protesting are the people most affected; the poor and mostly overlooked members of our society. They have lived in fear and have been treated as second class citizens for decades. But guess what? They aren't being silent anymore. Of course the powerful and middle class think this is absurd. How can they be so ungrateful?

Change needs to happen. And change will happen. But change has never happened as a result of peaceful protest. Sometimes a cop car has to burn. And people will surely die.

There are no Gandhi's here. And Gandhi would fail. We treat kindness as weakness. And always have. Yet we consistently tell people that peaceful protest is the only acceptable form of protest. Give me a break!

And the saddest thing that I predict will happen after it is all said and done? The history books won't reflect what really went down. The population most deserving credit won't get the credit that they deserve. No, they will credit rich and middle class white people with affecting this change. They will still be largely overlooked.

Quote: charles

Start by looking at the average income of murder victims in detroit. Any many upper class victims. Try living in an inner city. Check murder stats in other countries. Always find highest rates among the poorest cities .
Do you think poverty breeds crime ? Yes or no

If this was the case then there would be murder rates in the poor parts of VT an even higher rates in dirt-poor areas of Appalacia, etc. Yet they come nowhere near Detroit in murder rate.

Do I think poverty breeds crime? NO-criminal behavior breeds crime.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quite simple, if I have bad local cops I can do many things. I can move or I can possibly run for office. I might know the cops and their families for years. The cops intend to stay local so will not have some career ambitions of "getting to Washington." And the cops bosses will be local. It will be far easier to "know someone who knows someone" if it came to that.

OTOH, feds might be transferred in from who knows where. I totally do not want "militaristic and uniform procedures." First, the cops are not the military. The USA is already enough of a police-state, we do not need to go further down that path. Second, I do not know what the big deal about "uniform procedures" is all about.

Cops need to be allowed to use local judgment. An example is that in six days there will be people here in PA walking around with rifles. All over the state. Some will stop into C-Stores with them, others will be walking along the road. You see, the Monday after Thanksgiving starts Deer Season here, a huge thing in man parts. Local cops might know the hunters, or at least "know hunters." A friendly, "can you show that thing is not chambered" or a, "hey, not on the side of the road, OK?" from a local makes much more sense than a Fed "following procedure" and calling for back-up for something harmless. And if someone does get a citation there is more chance a local JP can give leeway to a guy everyone knows is a good guy. Feds not so much.

Nailed it.

Maybe, Gandler, it's just our different perceptions of government. Me? I think Federal needs nothing other than dismantling, bit by bit. That's it's already grossly inflated, and any power that can be denied them must be denied them. It appears you have more faith, and maybe our disagreement is nothing more than that.

But AZ nailed it. When I got pinched for weed by the local constabulary, there was no abuse, no asset forfeiture. The guy knew me. He knew I wasn't a thug or a thief, knew I wasn't tearing up the town or robbing its population. I was just a drifter that liked to burn and skip rocks at the crick. I wasn't a threat to safety, I wasn't a threat to the population. He cited me because he had to, and he later tore the ticket up because the punishment wouldn't have fit the *ahem* "crime". Same with AZ's example about the guns. The local runs up on me toting a weapon (and it's happened before) and I wasn't drawn upon and made to lie in the road face down. He drives right up to me and all he asks is "any luck?". I get nicked ripping down the road on a dirt bike and I wasn't cuffed and stuffed and my ride auctioned off. Rather, I get a "stern talking to" that amounts to little more than "c'mon, really?". Those are the benefits of the law having to answer to the population.

Create a centralized, militaristic police force? It's the stuff of nightmares. There is only one thought that should run through one's head when they hear "government". And that thought is "less".

Quote: charles

When is last time a millionaire shot another millionairee? Lots of murders involve drugs. Not one involved a fat radio millionaire
who got the maid to buy his drugs !

Nice Rush reference. How does it fit here other than the fact that you don't like him and call him fat. Say Hi to Buzz for me when you get a chance!

Quote: Face

Yeah, that was smarmy. But I stand by the statement. You want to fix an overreaching and corrupt system by... giving them unfettered power? The cop with a .40cal and a Dodge Charger gets too big for his britches, so let's give him a Mk 17 and an M60?

If that's not deserving of smarm, then I'd need a further explanation of your opinion.

Yes, and I am happy to do so.

You start off by saying a corrupt system. Where does the most corruption lie? In small local departments with often unchecked power in their towns or in strict disciplined Federal agencies? Lets face it, even larger towns that have their own "Internal Affairs agents" very rarely take any substantial action against their fellow officers who are corrupt.

And you say give them unfettered power? No not at all that is the opposite of what I want. I want to limit their power (and consequential abuse of power) by strict oversight and monitoring. Federalized oversight can not only crack down on problems but scare away corrupt potential acts from before they occur. I want to end "unfettered power" of local police by having balanced and strict federal oversight.

As for the loadout of a street cop, it depends on the scenario. Right now in Ferguson for instance, it makes a whole lot of sense for cops to carry heavy weapons since large mobs of people have been ganging up on innocent bystanders.

But also, you say .40 cal like its a bad thing. I know some people in this thread (I honestly forget if it was you or not) cited the fact that the cop shot Brown 10 or 11 or whatever it was times as a bad thing. If you are using a low caliber weapon especially on a big man, people don't drop in one shot like the movies, you can hit somebody 10 times with a 9mil and they will keep coming at you. If he had a powerful weapon 1 shot may have been enough to wound him to stop charging (which may have also saved his life), so the caliber and rate of fire of weapons is also not as cut and dry as people like to make it appear. Sometimes large sidearms may actually save lives of criminals in certain shootout scenarios.

But to return to the overall premise. You seem (rightfully, as am I) concerned about cops abusing their power. So if anything you should be onboard with expanded federal oversight to keep strict discipline and prevent corruption. As you know corruption at local levels can range from a cop not arresting his brother for drunk driving, to working hand in hand with local gang members to smuggle drugs. This is possible because there is so little oversight.

My proposition for a start would be:
1. Federally monitored dashcams on all duty vehicles even undercovers. And the local department has no ability to "lose" the footage accidently.
2. All Police lines including 911 are recorded for archive and monitoring by the Fed. Including radio transmissions.
3. For "beat" cops walking the street, some form of cam on their uniform. Before you say this is not possible, several departments have done it before, the technology is there.
4. A requirement for police to turn in officers who they witness violate the law, anything from letting their friend off from a DUI to high level corruption. Not reporting can result in disciplinary action.
5. Routine undercover checks from Fed. officers who slip into a department uniform and work side by side to prevent corruption and listen for tips on corrupt officers.
6. Fed. archive and instant access to all CCTV and in department and cells security footage. (this is another segment of footage that frequently gets "lost").

All of these are technologically doable and in todays connected world, extremely easy to set up. Many are in place at the local and state levels, but without Fed. oversight so some Chiefs conveniently lose security and dashcam footage whenever accusations are brought up. If the Fed. has a record of all of this there can be no chance of that.

I don't hate cops, in the case of Ferguson I am strongly on the side of the Police. However, some corrupt departments can ruin your faith in all of them. Which is why despite being a Neoconservative I believe in strong and uniformed regulation for local police. They can retain their sovereignty, but essentially they need to be made "puppet states" of the Fed system, by use of oversight.

And also, to add the defense of the police. Many of these technologies help the police more than anyone. More police are proved innocent from dashcam footage and beat footage when foolish accusations are brought against them (I have heard this from a Police Union spokesman). So this technology helps good cops, harms corrupt cops, and protects the public from abusive cops, I don't see any downside.

That in summary is my view, hopefully that clears things up, I am happy to debate any of the finer points.

Quote: Gandler

And you say give them unfettered power? No not at all that is the opposite of what I want. I want to limit their power (and consequential abuse of power) by strict oversight and monitoring. Federalized oversight can not only crack down on problems but scare away corrupt potential acts from before they occur. I want to end "unfettered power" of local police by having balanced and strict federal oversight.

You are missing the point that Face, myself, and others are trying to make. Said point being that what you propose will just trade state and local abuses to federal abuses. And here is what would happen with "federal oversight." "Judgement Calls" on the part of local cops? GONE! Near the legal limit but a block from home? Haul your tail in! Taillight out? CITATION! Borderline case? You will be taken in. Why? Because your records will be leaving a trail and some group somewhere will see money to be made and try to sue for some kind of discrimination. Or if it is not that it might be some kid somewhere pouring over data wants to make a name for himself so he launches an investigation.

Here is an example. I was pulled over last year on the way back from a dealing gig. It was a stretch of road easy to speed on and I had made a few lane changes with no signal. I could have been cited. Cop asks where I am coming from and why I am driving so fast. I explain I was at a gig and so near home I just kind of wanted to hit the pillow after a 16 hour and counting day. So I got the standard, "hey, take it easy out here!" and was let off with a warning. Now, suppose he gave a black guy a ticket for drag racing on the same stretch of road and when he pulled him over the guy gave nothing but attitude. What looks like a similar stop on paper would come down to, "he cited the black guy and let the white guy off!"

Now, if the feds have their boot on the neck of the local cops just to have their boot there, it is worse for everybody.

Quote:

My proposition for a start would be:
1. Federally monitored dashcams on all duty vehicles even undercovers. And the local department has no ability to "lose" the footage accidently.

And the feds who have never "lost" emails or other things are going to oversee this?

Quote: beachbumbabs

They had to indict in order to go through the process and begin some healing in the sunshine, regardless of the ultimate decision at trial. This is completely in-your-face politicking.

Keep in mind that the grand jury only sees what the prosecution is willing to present in order to make a case. And, in this situation, the prosecution did not want this to go to trial, so who knows what-all actually got said; GJ proceedings are secret. It's not like anyone in there made Michael Brown's case for him. There's no cross-examination, no defense presentation - that all happens in the trial, if there is one. The GJ reportedly (experts parsing the prosecutor's statement; it's early yet) completely disregarded eyewitness testimony as biased or and only looked at the officer's statement and the autopsy/forensics as valid information.

The bar to indict is very low; doesn't take a preponderance of the evidence, just any indication it's possible a crime was committed. They should have recognized that there was at least a possibility that one of the 5 counts could be proven through the trial process. It's also questionable that they allowed this particular prosecutor to take this before the GJ. He has many relatives in local law enforcement, including his deceased father. Likely he should have recused himself.

The prosecutors bent over backwards to present even Michael Baden as a witness. Baden was the person who did the family autopsy. A world renowned forensic pathologist working for the family. The prosecutors allowed evidence where "witnesses" saw the man shot in the back, on his knees, standing with his hands raised.
I think the problem is that "witnesses" so wanted to string up the cop that they felt they were doing the family a favor by lying through their teeth, and then retracting their testimony when the evidence proved otherwise. According to the person who made the announcement and listed the evidence that the grand jury heard....it seems the grand jury had a wide range of conflicting testimony to sift through..to the point where it may have seemed that the community was going out of their way to vent their hatred of police through convicting this individual cop with lies under oath.The grand jury had instances of people changing their testimony. Then they had solid physical evidence.

Far be it from me to sit in my comfortable armchair and proclaim what should have occurred based purely on media releases.

It seems people wanted this particular cop to be the pinata to beat up as a poster boy for real incongruous enforcement of laws that occurred elsewhere.

Some white people who wring their hands with guilt needed to see this cop paraded for months in the media for a trial to make them feel all warm and fuzzy...so they can say "look at us white people..we are so fair". Well this was obviously the wrong case to back.

Quote: AZDuffman

You are missing the point that Face, myself, and others are trying to make. Said point being that what you propose will just trade state and local abuses to federal abuses. And here is what would happen with "federal oversight." "Judgement Calls" on the part of local cops? GONE! Near the legal limit but a block from home? Haul your tail in! Taillight out? CITATION! Borderline case? You will be taken in. Why? Because your records will be leaving a trail and some group somewhere will see money to be made and try to sue for some kind of discrimination. Or if it is not that it might be some kid somewhere pouring over data wants to make a name for himself so he launches an investigation.

Here is an example. I was pulled over last year on the way back from a dealing gig. It was a stretch of road easy to speed on and I had made a few lane changes with no signal. I could have been cited. Cop asks where I am coming from and why I am driving so fast. I explain I was at a gig and so near home I just kind of wanted to hit the pillow after a 16 hour and counting day. So I got the standard, "hey, take it easy out here!" and was let off with a warning. Now, suppose he gave a black guy a ticket for drag racing on the same stretch of road and when he pulled him over the guy gave nothing but attitude. What looks like a similar stop on paper would come down to, "he cited the black guy and let the white guy off!"

Now, if the feds have their boot on the neck of the local cops just to have their boot there, it is worse for everybody.

I actually fully understand that. And while I respect that you view that as a negative. I disagree. I would rather a few more tickets here and there and no corruption, than crooked cops doing whatever the heck they feel like. In my view it is well worth the extra few tickets.

And I say this as somebody who almost always "gets off with a warning", however, I would gladly pay the extra couple hundred bucks a years for a fair and balanced system for all and no more corruption at local levels. If there is a law there is a law and it needs to always be enforced, cops should not be able to whimsically give tickets or not based on how much they like you or how much you suck up to them etc...

There should be a set standard if somebody violated a lane change for your example, then yes they should be ticket, and if wrong it can be solved in court.

Yea trust me I get it, we all like getting off with a warning, it sucks getting a ticket, but having corrupt departments sucks more.

Quote:

And the feds who have never "lost" emails or other things are going to oversee this?

Yes, but using the NSA as a great example, there can easily be a Fed. database with all local data (Dashcams, CCTV, audio lines , etc...). And this can be used as an archive or also instantly accessed if the computer detects the officer sounding like he is in a crooked scenario. For example if the overseeing system detects a cop talking about exchange money, it can indicate to the central authority that something sketchy may be happening on that line so an agent can observe the footage in real time.

Quote: Face

Nailed it.

Maybe, Gandler, it's just our different perceptions of government. Me? I think Federal needs nothing other than dismantling, bit by bit. That's it's already grossly inflated, and any power that can be denied them must be denied them. It appears you have more faith, and maybe our disagreement is nothing more than that.

But AZ nailed it. When I got pinched for weed by the local constabulary, there was no abuse, no asset forfeiture. The guy knew me. He knew I wasn't a thug or a thief, knew I wasn't tearing up the town or robbing its population. I was just a drifter that liked to burn and skip rocks at the crick. I wasn't a threat to safety, I wasn't a threat to the population. He cited me because he had to, and he later tore the ticket up because the punishment wouldn't have fit the *ahem* "crime". Same with AZ's example about the guns. The local runs up on me toting a weapon (and it's happened before) and I wasn't drawn upon and made to lie in the road face down. He drives right up to me and all he asks is "any luck?". I get nicked ripping down the road on a dirt bike and I wasn't cuffed and stuffed and my ride auctioned off. Rather, I get a "stern talking to" that amounts to little more than "c'mon, really?". Those are the benefits of the law having to answer to the population.

Create a centralized, militaristic police force? It's the stuff of nightmares. There is only one thought that should run through one's head when they hear "government". And that thought is "less".

There are plenty of posts that need addressing. Wish I had the time and energy.

I partially fault the cop and his superiors. You said he had a .40, I haven't watched any of this, just as you haven't. Right away my first thought was this cop was packing a pissy ass little 9mm. I hate those, that cop is so lucky the damn thing didn't jam. He was probably using those worthless little fmj's for the reason he didn't want it to jam. He should at least had parabellums. If the cop would have been using a manly gun, say a .357 with hollow points [yeah hollow points] he would have probably only had to shoot the guy once, twice max. Then everybody could calm the eff down and realize the cop was just doing his job. That is a problem with all this excess military gear and body armour making these guys look like their some futuristic bullet proof warriors ala escape from New York. The cop would have been as successful with a .22, ala Brady. Did you see the film when Brady [Reagan] got hit with the .22 hornet round? It lifted him off the ground.

Anybody that thinks this cop shouldn't have fired hasn't lived in a Ghetto and also hasn't had their ass kicked real good. Never been on the receiving end of racism, it is a frightening thing regardless of a persons color. I am a revolver guy, they NEVER jam, I never wonder if I jacked one in, no lint in the slide, never get the web in my hand removed firing in excitement, etc.

On this militarization going on nationwide. I agree that AZ. nailed it. Also with local police and your descriptions of same. Policing like charity should start at home and work its way out from there. The feds have been waiting for an opportunity for martial law. Be it ebola and using the power of the cdc, or the nwo using the faux authority of the UN, they are well geared up for mass civil unrest. It could be some "terrorist" threat, who knows where it will come from. It will happen. Stop the ebt handouts for 3 days, and the cops will have a hard time putting the genie back in the bottle.

Quote: Gandler

My proposition for a start would be:
1. Federally monitored dashcams on all duty vehicles even undercovers. And the local department has no ability to "lose" the footage accidently.
2. All Police lines including 911 are recorded for archive and monitoring by the Fed. Including radio transmissions.
3. For "beat" cops walking the street, some form of cam on their uniform. Before you say this is not possible, several departments have done it before, the technology is there.
4. A requirement for police to turn in officers who they witness violate the law, anything from letting their friend off from a DUI to high level corruption. Not reporting can result in disciplinary action.
5. Routine undercover checks from Fed. officers who slip into a department uniform and work side by side to prevent corruption and listen for tips on corrupt officers.
6. Fed. archive and instant access to all CCTV and in department and cells security footage. (this is another segment of footage that frequently gets "lost").

I totally agree. Like Reagan said, trust but verify.

Quote: Face

That is the minimum force required. If a six and a half foot, 300lb giant wants to tangle, a wrist lock ain't gonna cut it.

None of this bullspit matters. These buzzwords of "black" and "white" and "unarmed" are completely disgusting. At its base, you have a man attacking a cop, a man who has the power to end his life. I don't care if it's this skinny white cop, man mountain Brock Lesnar, or my 56yr old mother. If someone threatens your safety, you empty the mag in his chest.

The Canadian way for that 6 ft 6 inch 300 lb guy


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQt2f93z6z8

Quote: Gandler

I actually fully understand that. And while I respect that you view that as a negative. I disagree. I would rather a few more tickets here and there and no corruption, than crooked cops doing whatever the heck they feel like. In my view it is well worth the extra few tickets.

And I say this as somebody who almost always "gets off with a warning", however, I would gladly pay the extra couple hundred bucks a years for a fair and balanced system for all and no more corruption at local levels. If there is a law there is a law and it needs to always be enforced, cops should not be able to whimsically give tickets or not based on how much they like you or how much you suck up to them etc...

But you are assuming just because "the feds are watching" that corruption will vanish and it will be all rainbows and unicorns. Sorry, but corruption will still be there. How much watching of the Teamsters did the fed do and they are still a mess of corruption.

As to "if there is a law there is a law" I suggest you consider how many laws you break per day. I would bet the average person breaks between 5 and 10. There is a thing called "spirit of the law" to explain cops letting you off. In my example above the speed limit was 40-45 and I was going 50-55. The speed limit is not on the road to give tickets, it is there so guys in a Dodge Demon do not rear-end a bunch of guys in a Chevette an send them to the hospital. (Yes, Face, that is who I am talking about and same road!)

Generally speaking, cops do not want to write tickets because when they do more people hate cops. Now, I am not sure how my being polite to said cop and making sure to announce "I have to reach to the glove compartment to get my registration" is "sucking up." I just call it politely letting him know I know he is on edge when he makes a stop and I know "reaching" can be an issue.

OTOH, some people will immediately start saying, "Am I being detained?" and a bunch of other nonsense they saw on YouTube or some cop show. Such people make themselves get written up.

Quote:

Yes, but using the NSA as a great example, there can easily be a Fed. database with all local data (Dashcams, CCTV, audio lines , etc...). And this can be used as an archive or also instantly accessed if the computer detects the officer sounding like he is in a crooked scenario. For example if the overseeing system detects a cop talking about exchange money, it can indicate to the central authority that something sketchy may be happening on that line so an agent can observe the footage in real time.

I am not sure what kind of world you want to live in, but perhaps you need to start writing to the Embassies of Russia, Cuba, Iran, and China. In those places the government watches your every move. I do not want that nor do I want to have the cops dealing with being monitored like little children. If there is corruption it can be investigated without bringing on a police state, which we are on our way to enough as it is.

Quote: MrV

I am aware of the role the liberal whites played in the civil rights movement.

I'm talking about boots on the ground in a riot.

The rioters were all black in Plainfield, in Newark, in Detroit.

Watts too, IIRC.

Its really still the case. Yes in the LA riots on film you could see some white or hispanic looters. But it was a party thrown by blacks and there were some other hangers on. Same for riots in the 60's that you mentioned, that occurred outside of NJ as well and scared the hell out of me as a kid to the point where I was continually scared to hear when a black family moved into the neighborhood. They were to me after all the kind of people who would burn down their neighborhoods.(and if according to you outside black folks come into black neighborhoods and burn it down...whats the difference, the net result is a burnt down neighborhood and who wants to live with that hanging over your head, especially as a kid.) Kids watch this today with the 24/7 images on tv and are affected.

Ironically,we can now remember another Ferguson, Colin. William Kunstler a huge liberal lawyer took this mass killer's case. And used a "black rage" defense. This defense stated that the most mild mannered black person has inner rage that can just explode due to their past dealings with racism. Hmmm prospective employers be put on notice. Not one black leader denounced this defense.....as long as it helps get a brotha off.....who cares if an entire race is publically soiled in the process.

So as a young child I was exposed to images of neighborhoods being torched and looted without the leaders of the black community(like the naacp) coming out and denouncing these actions. All we heard from them is that the community is frustrated and other excuses.

And people wonder why some white folks don't want blacks in their neighborhood or wont hire them. The images ingrained in us as we grow up definitely affect us.
Where I grew up there were sympathy riots across the country that sprung up when people saw the newark riots in the media....just a few miles from my home....and I couldn't sleep at night thinking the house would be burned down while I slept. Any noise outside..I ran to the window hoping not to see a group of blacks torching the homes.It took many months for me to get over it.

And then a few years later there was an 'All in the Family" episode where the Jeffersons bought a house next to Archie.....and Archie didn't want a black family moving in....and me as a child watched that based on what I went through with the riots...and said...."yeah Archie is right". What else would a 12 year old think at the time.

And now a new generation who know nothing of the Newark riots or the L.A. riots or "black rage" of Colin Ferguson, see images of rioting a looting in Ferguson, in Oakland Ca and other cities through out the year when they don't agree with verdicts and form their opinions of the black community. These images are ingrained in a childs mind. Dont think it wont have an effect on them in life. Will they resist hiring blacks, will they resist opening up a business in a mixed or black neighborhood?, will they continually seek to reside in a white neighborhood. Its seems history is repeating itself.

JOY

Quote: coilman

The Canadian way for that 6 ft 6 inch 300 lb guy


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQt2f93z6z8

Watched it, what a clown. If you are surrounded by 4 officers saying you are under arrest, just accept it.

Thanks, Gandler. It appears that this really is just a case of faith in government. Your ideas, reasonable. You just think the Fed is capable of performing this task, whereas I do not. My political stance lands somewhere between libertarian and anarchist, so given a choice of militarized and Federally controlled police like South Korea (happy? =)), or the personal responsibility of protection like the US circa 1850, I'd pick the wild, wild, west.

And I'll admit, despite my desire to dismantle the Police State (and most "States"), I am as biased for local police as rudeboyoi is against them. And like him, my bias is from personal experience. I've no argument that there are corrupt police and corrupt police forces. Seizing money for no other reason that "it's a large amount", reprehensible. Covering up crimes within the force, shameful. But I'm nowhere near cynical about police because of what I've seen personally.

You know what the Sheriff is doing right now? He's suiting up to go dive Erie. It's 40* and he'll be in the lake for 5 hours, while 5' of snow sits in the city. He does so because come January, he's gonna have to cut a hole in the ice during a 10* snowstorm and swim around for however many hours or days it takes to find the kid that fell through. And in those dark and cold waters he's gonna come across a little corpse. And he has to retrieve it, and present it, and bag it. There will be no parade for him. There will be no shouts of joy or offers of thanks. All he'll have at the end is hypothermia and the curse of that memory that will last a lifetime. And after he dries off, he'll hop in his cruiser and get berated by some soccer mom on a cell phone, asking him why he doesn't get a real job. And after he sends her on her way, he'll attend a suicide and be scooping someone's father's brains out of the change tray of his truck. No awards given for brain scooping, so off he goes. He leaves that and will attend a domestic, where some child raping, wife beating bastard will sit pretty as the victim refuses to press charges.

He'll go home exhausted and to an empty house, as he lost his wife to the job. And tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, for the rest of his 25 years, it's the same slog. Daily exposure to the evils of domestic abuse, daily exposure to loss of life. Unwrapping teens from around trees, pulling toddlers out of ponds, finding remains of Alzheimer's sufferers in the woods. And when he finally gets to just be in normal life, it's business men threatening his job, or shopkeepers lamenting his unavailability, and everyone regarding him with a general sense of mistrust. Only by sheer luck will one of his retrievals result in feel good story; maybe the lost boy was just holed up in a shed in the woods and was found alive. And for that he'll get a handshake, maybe a blurb in the local paper. Then it's right back to the dregs, dealing with society's worst.

I didn't say all this to defend corruption. Rather it's just to show a peek at the life of the flatfoot. So many people want to cry "intimidation" or "abuse", when really all that happened is they got stopped for a moving violation and the cop was gruff, probably even had his hand on his pistol. These "victims" felt "threatened" by his demeanor and his actions. Well, toughen up, Sally. You have no idea what horrors that guy saw just a half hour ago, or the felony stop he was involved in right before stopping your stupid ass.

As far as actual corruption, sure, there are things we could do. Dashcams, tie cams, whatever, it's all possible. Some even do it already. But before you go voting to make a change, know the problem. Can you name incidents of corruption? You seem involved in this issue, so I bet you can. But can you name incidents where the corruption was handled? Where cops were fired, arrested, or even jailed for their offenses? I bet that list is shorter. Yet it absolutely happens. Of course, "doing good" isn't newsworthy. Right now there's a white cop patching up a black man who got hit by a car. There's a black cop getting a white man medical attention for an overdose. There's a black cop and a white cop rescuing a family of Hispanics from a burning building. But ain't nobody got time fo dat, this is the American media. "If we can't incite, we don't write" - Since 1791.

You want a good example, look at my home. State of Emergency, every Local, State, and Federal unit is here. And the Feds are a machine. They got the manpower, they got the equipment. They're digging us out faster than any unit could hope for. But they're a machine, impersonal. Move the snow, move the snow, move the snow. They're not pushing citizens out of the ditch, those are the Sheriffs. They're not going door to door checking on the citizen, those are the Sheriffs. The local fuzz went to where my kid was trapped. And upon hearing the furnace cut out due to snow covering the exhaust, the local fuzz climbed up on the roof and shoveled it out.

You want Federal police, you're asking for machine police. Ol' Ed is a harmless drunk. A local cop shoo's him home. The Fed dumps him in jail. Steve Dave hasn't registered his car since the 70's. The local cop knows he never goes more than 30mph or more than 3 miles from his house. The Fed throws him in jail. Face is burning down at the bridge again. The local cop knows he's just fishing after work. The Fed throws him in jail. If that's corruption, I'll take it. Because the Fed is a machine, and there's only one thing to do to a machine.

Quote: terapined

Watched it, what a clown. If you are surrounded by 4 officers saying you are under arrest, just accept it.

I guess you didn't count the 95lb woman cop in your total for cops on scene.

Quote: coilman

I guess you didn't count the 95lb woman cop in your total for cops on scene.

Just rewatched, it was 5 officers :-)
He almost got away, he just about slipped out of that nice jacket. If it wasn't for one cop grabbing the shirt, might have made it.
Still would have gotten busted eventually. Clown.

Quote: MrV

By report, after Wilson leaned in the cop car to punch the cop, he turned and walked away.

So riddle me this, Batman: why didn't the cop then drive away, monitor the situation from a comfortable distance from his locked and secure car and wait for backup which was enroute?

Coulda shoulda, dontcha think?

But no, his adrenalin was up, and he was a cop, and by god no black can assault a cop and get away with it, especially not in the south.

He was not walking away, the actual evidence shows that is not the case, including the autopsy the family had performed. He was shot in the front. This is a large part of the problem. In the internet age anybody can say anthing they want, it doesn't need to have any relationship to the truth. Those that want to believe it do.

The Grand Jury met for over 70 hrs since August trying to sort out the internet crap from the facts. I believe they went above and beyond trying to get it right and probably did so, unless the Tin Hats are right and there is a major conspiracy. That seems unlikely since this Grand Jury was chosen before the incident occurred. The Wilson incident just happened to be the next to hit them.

It goes both ways... the public gives information to the cops who say "c'mon really" at a little too exuberant dirt biking.
The public tend not to give information to cops they fear as a dna-swabbing microphone planting army of occupation.
Crimes in rural areas... its friends and neighbors who report new items to the police or drugs being sold.

A state trooper with a deer carcass on his hands due to a speeding Cadillac versus Deer collision knows which families in the area will be in need of it. That "Out of Season-Legal" tag the trooper affixes to the ear is valuable to the family that hauls it away but its also of value to the trooper. He knows that it may be a few months or it may be a few years but someone will show up and give him some information he needs in return for that extra venison.

Quote: coilman

The Canadian way for that 6 ft 6 inch 300 lb guy


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQt2f93z6z8

Challenge accepted.

Whatever the cause for that confrontation, the video begins with it being contained and under control. The police were on scene, he did not appear irate or confrontational, they were merely trying to keep control of the situation. In Ferguson, 5-0 was responding to a robbery. Robbery is defined as the taking of something of value by force or threat of force, or through the use of fear. One incident affords talking. The other requires acting.

When the SHTF in Canada, officers were already present, with overwhelming force, already had their tasers drawn, and were afforded time to decipher the situation before them. In the US, the cop and the crim met instantly, while the cop was still in the car, and he was immediately battered. No time for processing, you're in the s$%^ already.

In Canada, this man was clearly not complying, but up until he started to run, was also completely docile. This looks more like drunken stubbornness rather than an angry confrontation. In Ferguson, even the most biased, race-baiting reports have stated the the crim attacked the cop before he even got out of the car.

Tasers, mace, and talking are all weapons to be used when circumstances allow. But for every man and woman, the gun is the primary defense. That's why we carry them where they're easy to grab and defend.

Forget cop vs citizen. Forget black vs white. At its very base, a guy assaulted and battered another guy. In America, we're allowed to defend ourselves from that. Defense was engaged, and safety was secured.

Yet here we are again, villainizing the victim and defending the criminal.

Don't start no, won't be no.

Quote: AZDuffman

But you are assuming just because "the feds are watching" that corruption will vanish and it will be all rainbows and unicorns. Sorry, but corruption will still be there. How much watching of the Teamsters did the fed do and they are still a mess of corruption.

As to "if there is a law there is a law" I suggest you consider how many laws you break per day. I would bet the average person breaks between 5 and 10. There is a thing called "spirit of the law" to explain cops letting you off. In my example above the speed limit was 40-45 and I was going 50-55. The speed limit is not on the road to give tickets, it is there so guys in a Dodge Demon do not rear-end a bunch of guys in a Chevette an send them to the hospital. (Yes, Face, that is who I am talking about and same road!)

Generally speaking, cops do not want to write tickets because when they do more people hate cops. Now, I am not sure how my being polite to said cop and making sure to announce "I have to reach to the glove compartment to get my registration" is "sucking up." I just call it politely letting him know I know he is on edge when he makes a stop and I know "reaching" can be an issue.

OTOH, some people will immediately start saying, "Am I being detained?" and a bunch of other nonsense they saw on YouTube or some cop show. Such people make themselves get written up.

I agree, I hate all of those youtube rousers, and 2nd amendment heroes (those guys that walk around with M4s in public restaurants and film it to "preserve their rights"). I will normally side with the citizen over the cop, but when you go out looking for trouble you will likely find what you look for.

That being said, I don't want to spend too much time arguing about seatbelt and speeding tickets, since it is a trivial part of the overall issue, and I doubt we will change each others mind.

Quote:

I am not sure what kind of world you want to live in, but perhaps you need to start writing to the Embassies of Russia, Cuba, Iran, and China. In those places the government watches your every move. I do not want that nor do I want to have the cops dealing with being monitored like little children. If there is corruption it can be investigated without bringing on a police state, which we are on our way to enough as it is.

Oh come on, you are clearly an intelligent person, you know that is another cheap point, that is barely one bar higher than calling me a "Nazi"...

I am not advocating a police state. Quite the opposite I am advocating policing the police. Even if you disagree with my view, surely you must at least admit that this is a major issue.

Filming the police while working (and hence exercising "authority") is not even slightly equivalent to living in a 1984 type world. That is just a cheap shot. In fact I would go even further and say policing the police federally is the opposite of a "police state" as it forces fairness and justice.

I am only part time Army (National Guard, weekend warriors, etc...), but I am currently deployed so I am full time until we are done here, and where I work over here, everything I do while working is both video and audio recorded, as well as myself and others from our unit our encouraged to document any action we see each other taking to be used as evidence agains each other if the need arises, and I have no problem with any of this. Because I know I follow the rules, and these systems will only protect me if I get accused of something. In the military there is no "Blue Line" mentality, everyone watches everyone to make sure that there is universal integrity. And if we see any kind of violation it is ingrained in us to even report our best friend which is great.
Now that being said obviously I don't want this is my home etc...

But when you have a position where you are payed by tax money and can be in scenarios where there may be violence, it makes all of the sense in the world to encourage recording of everything. And I have no problem when it applies to me. And in my view, the only people who could complain are people who abuse their position. These systems prevent everything from petty theft, sexual harassment, workplace bullying, to much larger issues like wide spread corruption, etc...

So I fundamentally disagree, surveillance works and very effectively (and again even if it is politically incorrect to say, there is much evidence to show its effectiveness at scaring people out of all levels of crime) , it both solves problems, and prevents problems with fear.

Quote: Gandler

Quote:

That's not fair Face. That is as cheap as calling somebody a "Nazi" when they have a differnet opinion on police.

Or, as sleazy as calling someone an anti-semite who doesn't approve of Palestinian genocide.

Quote:

There are plenty of countries that are not totalitarian regimes that use a Federalized systems.

That would depend on your opinion of totalitarian, so under your description can I assume you approve of Ayatollah Khomeni, or Libya under Ghadafi, Iraq during Saddam?

Quote:

But before you call me un-American let me clear my throat by saying I love America, and the state system.

Working for you, is it? It appears that you have an agenda, and you approve of central government, central police, central everything. Although you deny being un-American your want for central control is the antithesis of America and her constitution, Bill of Rights, and the American way so maybe rethink that one.You see here, it was supposed to be a government by and for the people, not the other way around.

Quote:

But yes, to play that game, I would like a centralized Law Enforcement system just like North Korea

So, you want to live under Kim jong Ill, or Kim Jong Un? Great, maybe catch the next plane with Rodman? Report back, especially where when you get to watch as he hangs his uncles and other family, or demands sex with all the minors he chooses, that doesn't work for me. Maybe take a trip out to the slave camps where the slaves only eat grass soup and no one lives long enough to leave.

Are you saying there is no malfeasance at the federal level. Hahahaha. I needed a good laugh. Ever heard of the NSA? Maybe not. A super secret federal 3 letter agency solely at the disposal of an out of control government. You don't think the IRS, oversteps their legal authority? Puhlease. CIA? The cocaine import agency? The DEA, war on drugs, How about the DOA, Is there something that makes you think the Dept. of Education is somehow working in the National interest? Or any other bought off politically appointed government agency? Maybe it's just nation states that bother you,You and Orwell. Or how about the NDAA, the "Patriot Act", another guffaw, patriot act, now there is a prime example of an oxymoron. The authority given to the feds by the feds "illegally" that allows them to kill any American citizen wherever they are located in the world, solely at the discretion of the "central authorities? No thanks, my local law enforcement might bend the rules sometimes but being local, I want to be able to trust their judgement and their use of common sense. The local cops have to listen to me. The authority's in D.C., the property of a foreign held corporation formed under British Admiralty law, not so much. http://youtu.be/lVsMUpPgdT0

Do you also approve of torture at Guantanamo? That is federally sanctioned [cia], and locally abhorred. And you are trying to sell that the feds will follow the rules. I'm missing something here, or am I?

Let me see what other police state do you admire? [quote: I agree. I have been a long supporter of racial profiling. Anyone who says it does not work is just not grounded in reason. If you evaluate the Isreali profiling system it is highly effective. But unfortunately it is incorrect in America to say such things.

However, I'm not sure how people trust local police more than Federalized police. There are so many cases of corruption at local levels. Federal police can be designed much more militaristic to keep uniformed procedures.]

What do you think is so great about Israeli profiling? Is it the mass sterilizing of the immigrants from Ethiopia? Or the genocide of the Palestinians? The seizing of territory from other nations beyond the agreements of the Balfour declaration, illegal settlements in occupied territory, fill me in.

Quote: Face

Thanks, Gandler. It appears that this really is just a case of faith in government. Your ideas, reasonable. You just think the Fed is capable of performing this task, whereas I do not. My political stance lands somewhere between libertarian and anarchist, so given a choice of militarized and Federally controlled police like South Korea (happy? =)), or the personal responsibility of protection like the US circa 1850, I'd pick the wild, wild, west.

And I'll admit, despite my desire to dismantle the Police State (and most "States"), I am as biased for local police as rudeboyoi is against them. And like him, my bias is from personal experience. I've no argument that there are corrupt police and corrupt police forces. Seizing money for no other reason that "it's a large amount", reprehensible. Covering up crimes within the force, shameful. But I'm nowhere near cynical about police because of what I've seen personally.

You want Federal police, you're asking for machine police. Ol' Ed is a harmless drunk. A local cop shoo's him home. The Fed dumps him in jail. Steve Dave hasn't registered his car since the 70's. The local cop knows he never goes more than 30mph or more than 3 miles from his house. The Fed throws him in jail. Face is burning down at the bridge again. The local cop knows he's just fishing after work. The Fed throws him in jail. If that's corruption, I'll take it. Because the Fed is a machine, and there's only one thing to do to a machine.

I used to be very similar, I have been a registered Republican since the day I turned 18, but for all of my adult life until about a year ago, I have been a libertarian (yes I used to be one of the "Ron Paul Fanatics" or whatever else they use to call us). I voted for Johnson last election and Paul the election prior.

But I have since changed my views. Now I would describe myself as a Neoconsvietive. Its a word ("Neocon" specifically) that frequently gets thrown around by both conservatives and liberals as an insult, and there are very few of us indeed, and I even understand why we can appear "Hawkish". But the more I experience and study of global politics, the more I become a Neocon.

I guess I have lost faith in some people. The basic principle of Neoconservatism is classic liberalism socially (freedom of the individual, free thought, etc..., no true Neocon would be against Gay Marriage for example, though many people get inaccurately described as Neocons, usually as a generic insult, most people don't actually know what it means). However, I am fiscally conservative, and militarily "Hawkish" (another unfair tem but I'll go with it), but yes I do believe in strong Federalization, and a strong presence, for the same reason that strong and trustworthy police are critical, that our (not just America, but other NATO and UN allies) presence helps prevent violence in many countries, uniformed police at home deter crime. And the same principle for keeping local police under control.

But I will go further and say that the best way to prevent crime (both at home as well as in developing countries) is a strong economy and to get people working and being productive. When people are poor and unemployed all they do is sit at home and boil up hatred, helping people move up in the world makes the world better for everyone.

In watching the video of last night, those
involved were having the time of their
lives. Nobody seemed upset or angry.
They were laughing and grinning as
they ran with arms full of liquor. The
party will end soon, all the good stuff
is gone, not much left to steal.

Quote: petroglyph

Or, as sleazy as calling someone an anti-semite who doesn't approve of Palestinian genocide.


What do you think is so great about Israeli profiling? Is it the mass sterilizing of the immigrants from Ethiopia? Or the genocide of the Palestinians? The seizing of territory from other nations beyond the agreements of the Balfour declaration, illegal settlements in occupied territory, fill me in.

A lot of your other points I have responded to in other posts.

Israeli politics aside, their profiling system is effective, even if you hate it, if you deny it works, you are simply wrong.

There is no genocide in Israel, you clearly don't know the U.N. definition of genocide. Settlements are bad, but they are in the process of stopping the settlers and giving the land back. But none of this has anything to do with their police profiling systems....

you are clearly just trying to start and Anti-Israeli argument. And then you try to defame me by acting like I worship North Korea.... I'm sorry, but there is so much incorrect in what you said and I don't want to get off topic and turn this into an issue about Israel (if you want to start a thread about Israel, we can debate in that topic as that would be proper) .

So for the sake of this thread I will end with this, Israeli politics aside (none of your points have even the slightest relevance to its profiling policies, and are just making blanket criticisms of the country as a whole), speaking strictly on their profiling system, it works. Even the most liberal critics of Israel admit this, if you do not, your argument is simply not grounded in reality.

What was the cop supposed to do? He has
a 300 pound guy wrestling him for his gun,
so he can no doubt kill him, then witnesses
say he charged the cop like a linebacker, head
down and coming at him full force. You wouldn't
have shot him? I sure as hell would, he was
out to kill him. The tox screen showed he had enough
THC in his body that he was probably hallucinating.

Quote: petroglyph

Right away my first thought was this cop was packing a pissy ass little 9mm. I hate those, that cop is so lucky the damn thing didn't jam. He was probably using those worthless little fmj's for the reason he didn't want it to jam. He should at least had parabellums. If the cop would have been using a manly gun, say a .357 with hollow points [yeah hollow points] he would have probably only had to shoot the guy once, twice max.

9mm's are extremely reliable and they rarely jam.

When they do, it is almost always due to a stovepipe, in which case, the officer has only to tap, roll and rack.

Revolvers only hold six rounds, and criminals are usually armed with semi-automatics.

Officers have been killed while trying to reload their revolvers.

Hollow points do not assure stopping anyone.

One of the main reasons for using hollow points is that conventional rounds can go through their target and hit innocent bystanders.

As for needing only one or two rounds, it can take up to ten minutess to expire after being shot in the stomach.

It can take as much as ninety seconds to expire after getting shot in the heart.

It's not like the movies.

In 1986, a bank robber who was already shot multiple times and fatally wounded with a bullet through his lung, lived four more minutes and killed two FBI agents before being shot dead.

Brown was shot multiple times.

No doubt those were hollow points.

The shot that ultimately brought him down was the one to the top of his head that he received while he 'charged like a football player, head down' as one witness described.

Quote: EvenBob

What was the cop supposed to do? He has
a 300 pound guy wrestling him for his gun,
so he can no doubt kill him, then witnesses
say he charged the cop like a linebacker, head
down and coming at him full force. You wouldn't
have shot him? I sure as hell would, he was
out to kill him. The tox screen showed he had enough
THC in his body that he was probably hallucinating.

Some say 7 shots is excessive. I don't know about anyone else, but I know if someone's charging me (someone the size of a baby hippo), I'm not pulling the trigger once or twice. I'm pulling the trigger until he is either laying on the ground, stopped charging, or I'm out of bullets. There is no "Hopefully 2 shots will be OK, let's wait and see".

You forget, shooting a moving target, even if it's coming at you, isn't easy. Shoot 7 times and you might expect to miss 2 or 3. You don't shoot 2 times: you might miss.


You do bad stuff, bad stuff's gonna happen to you. Nobody deserves to die and unfortunate he lost his life.


A couple interesting notes I heard from whoever it was giving that speech.... All the eye witnesses were black...even the ones who said Brown bull-charged Wilson. The witnesses who claimed Brown had his hands up, was shoot in the back, etc... later said they actually didn't see what happened but heard from others (word on the street) that's what had happened.


The case is very straightforward, kind of like the Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman / Florida case. Someone who is white was in danger by someone who is black...and it turns into some racist conflict. (Oh yeah, Zimmerman isn't even white....he's Mexican or something else.)