Ferguson cop
Quote: MozartThe cop did nothing wrong!
He did his job. If you're a white cop
these days, that can be a bad thing
in some neighborhoods. A black cop
would have shot the kid too, but nobody
talks about that. And he never would
have heard a word about it.
1) Recruit a more diverse make-up for the Ferguson Police Dept.
2) Use Dashboard or on-person cameras for officers.
3) Reinstate 2 person patrol cars.
The cost for 2 & 3 would be higher, BUT I am sure much less than the havoc and destruction caused by the rioting.
Pretty funny. Sign gets thrown at a cop. Then another cop trips. Watch the leg of the guy on the ground.
Quote: rudeboyoihttps://vine.co/v/On1x6iUuwxK
Pretty funny. Sign gets thrown at a cop. Then another cop trips. Watch the leg of the guy on the ground.
I don't get why that's funny. Explain the humor
to me.
Quote: rudeboyoiI see a gang of thugs trying to kidnap someone and the one getting kidnapped gets in the last laugh by tripping up one of the kidnappers.
The cops are kidnappers to you? Seriously?
Quote: EvenBobThe cops are kidnappers to you? Seriously?
A man is being taken against his will and wont be released unless his ransom is paid.
Just because you decide to call something by other names (arrest and bail), it doesnt change what it is.
Quote: rudeboyoiA man is being taken against his will and wont be released unless his ransom is paid.
Holy cow, dude. That's a messed up way of
looking at how law enforcement works. You
really think arrest for a crime is kidnapping?
I'm speechless.
Quote: EvenBobHoly cow, dude. That's a messed up way of
looking at how law enforcement works. You
really think arrest for a crime is kidnapping?
I'm speechless.
I see things for what they are. Im not religious. Scripture means nothing to me. Theyre just words on paper.
Quote: EvenBobHe did his job. If you're a white cop
these days, that can be a bad thing
in some neighborhoods. A black cop
would have shot the kid too, but nobody
talks about that. And he never would
have heard a word about it.
Which is exactly why inner city police depts try to hire more black cops.
Black kids getting shot by black cops doesn't get the department any bad press.
Quote: rudeboyoiA man is being taken against his will and wont be released unless his ransom is paid.
Just because you decide to call something by other names (arrest and bail), it doesnt change what it is.
It does.
Kidnapping is taking somebody illegally. Arrest is taking somebody legally.
And bail is not a ransom since you get it back at court if you show up.
Quote: SanchoPanzaExactly. The prosecution has the field to itself. Officer Wilson was even denied the presence of his legal counsel.Quote: beachbumbabsIn a GJ proceeding, only one side is heard. In a trial, both are.
Officer Wilson was allowed to tell his side of the story. The prospective defendant almost NEVER gets to tell his side of the story to a GJ. That's part of what's screwed up about this.
No one spoke for the dead kid. Especially not the prosecutor, who normally does.
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: SanchoPanzaExactly. The prosecution has the field to itself. Officer Wilson was even denied the presence of his legal counsel.Quote: beachbumbabsIn a GJ proceeding, only one side is heard. In a trial, both are.
No one spoke for the dead kid. Especially not the prosecutor, who normally does.
Except 90+% of the media, which constantly skewed the story against the cop. And intentianlly failed to report key sections of the story.
Quote: GandlerQuote: beachbumbabsQuote: SanchoPanzaExactly. The prosecution has the field to itself. Officer Wilson was even denied the presence of his legal counsel.Quote: beachbumbabsIn a GJ proceeding, only one side is heard. In a trial, both are.
No one spoke for the dead kid. Especially not the prosecutor, who normally does.
Except 90+% of the media, which constantly skewed the story against the cop. And intentianlly failed to report key sections of the story.
But the GJ is instructed to avoid and disregard the media. In that room, where the decision was made, it was all about what the prosecutor allowed to be heard.
I'm not saying a jury trial would have come out any differently; it might not have. I'm saying justice would have been better served if there had been a trial with representation from all sides.
Quote: beachbumbabs
But the GJ is instructed to avoid and disregard the media. In that room, where the decision was made, it was all about what the prosecutor allowed to be heard.
I'm not saying a jury trial would have come out any differently; it might not have. I'm saying justice would have been better served if there had been a trial with representation from all sides.
Uh, a regular jury is instructed to disregard the media as well. And in a regular trial it is about what the prosecutor brings in and "allows to be heard."
How would "justice be served" by having a trial when the facts of the case showed one was not warranted?
All due respect, Babs, but it sounds like you just want blood from the cop no matter what the facts of the case.
EDIT: Babs, does this cop need to go on trial to "heal the community?"
Quote: AZDuffmanUh, a regular jury is instructed to disregard the media as well. And in a regular trial it is about what the prosecutor brings in and "allows to be heard."
How would "justice be served" by having a trial when the facts of the case showed one was not warranted?
All due respect, Babs, but it sounds like you just want blood from the cop no matter what the facts of the case.
EDIT: Babs, does this cop need to go on trial to "heal the community?"
I don't know if you're misunderstanding me on purpose or just don't get the difference I'm trying to describe.
The prosecutor in the GJ only presents the evidence that shows there's enough available to justify a trial. That evidence may or may not be presented at trial, but if the GJ indicts, then the prosecutor makes their best case for conviction and the defense makes their best case for acquittal.
Using the GJ in this process turned everything on its head, which the prosecutor and his presentation team pointed out repeatedly to the GJ, how unusual the presentation POV was. The prosecution did NOT want an indictment. The prosecution essentially put on a defense case, allowing in the evidence that corresponded to the defendant's POV, and allowed the defendant to testify. None of that was rebutted or cross-examined. The witnesses whose testimony did not correspond to the exoneration story were not allowed. No one spoke for the dead kid, which is ordinarily the prosecution's job. How could the GJ make any other decision when they only heard one side?
There's a saying; there's one person's story, there's another person's story, and the truth usually somewhere in the middle. There is no "truth" position to take in this proceeding; that's what a trial is supposed to bring out. There's only one person's story, told by the prosecutor, backed only by corroborating evidence and testimony he allowed in.
There was also a study done: in the year 2010, the last year they have statistics available, where there were 162,000+ cases put before GJ's nationwide. Of all of those, only 11 failed to return a true bill of indictment. source, but the stat's being widely quoted . The process was flawed in this case because the prosecution was not representing the correct party.
Three blacks are shot dead over a crack deal gone bad. Was drug use the problem? Was the gang lifestyle the problem? Was lax parenting, or absentee fathers a contributing factor? Let's not comment about that because black culture would have to admit that it has responsibility for its own failings.
And one of those failings is the whole proliferation of black rap culture which has its basis in a basic attitude: We don't need education, don't need to appreciate good grammar, don't need to be polite and courteous.
One person died in Ferguson, but thousands of blacks have been killed by other blacks for senseless reasons. Disrespect, the wrong look, being in the wrong neighborhood. Reasons to take a life?
What the heck does this have to do with what happened in Ferguson? Let's not be abtuse. The negative direction and attitude of the deceased during and before the altercation with the officer had its origins in disrespect, lawlessness and tragedy waiting to happen. And the negative aspects of black culture is the breeding ground that set the stage.
Is it okay to discuss the negative aspects of black culture? Or is that still several years away? We can bash white culture without censorship. It is still fertile ground in our pop culture world.
What did the cop do? What did the deceased do? There are bigger issues involved here!
Remember the song Cop Killer by Body Count? Maybe the deceased picked the wrong cop.
If this message seems blunt and does not address the issues completely, or with enough deference, it is the best I can do with these few words.
Quote: Gandler
Kidnapping is taking somebody illegally. Arrest is taking somebody legally.
In order for this to be true you have to accept the scripture that is law. By your logic an infidel getting killed is okay because the quran says its okay. I reject all forms of scripture.
Quote: rudeboyoiIn order for this to be true you have to accept the scripture that is law. By your logic an infidel getting killed is okay because the quran says its okay. I reject all forms of scripture.
Calling law "scripture" is absurd. Law is a democratically agreed upon set of rules for a Nation/State.
And in some societies (such as IS) they do regard that as legal. That is their laws, which are modeled on scripture.
But in America we live in a secular constitutional Republic. So our laws are not modeled after religious texts.
So if you reject all forms of law, where do you live?
Quote: Gandler
But in America we live in a secular constitutional Republic. So our laws are not modeled after religious texts.
Very well said. Arresting a criminal
is the opposite of kidnapping. People
who feel it is usually end up in a very
special place with others who feel the
same way. They don't believe in the law either.
Quote: GandlerCalling law "scripture" is absurd. Law is a democratically agreed upon set of rules for a Nation/State.
And in some societies (such as IS) they do regard that as legal. That is their laws, which are modeled on scripture.
But in America we live in a secular constitutional Republic. So our laws are not modeled after religious texts.
So if you reject all forms of law, where do you live?
Why is it absurd? I fail to see the difference between the two.
Why do you believe that democratically agreeing upon something makes it right? If the majority agrees that 2+2=5, does that then make it right?
I live right here. Do you also believe that non-muslims dont live in muslim countries?
Quote: rudeboyoiWhy is it absurd? I fail to see the difference between the two.
Why do you believe that democratically agreeing upon something makes it right? If the majority agrees that 2+2=5, does that then make it right?
I live right here. Do you also believe that non-muslims dont live in muslim countries?
If you fail to see the differences between religious texts and National Law, then perhaps you need to read more? (That's the safest way I can put it without violating the "scripture" of the fourum).
And you are right, democracies are not always right, however that is a cheap point, you can't equate scientific matters with social policy to quote Richard Dawins "Democracy is great for policy not for matters of science".
They do (I currently live in a Muslim country, and I'm atheist). However, the locals decide that these laws are best for them. There is much I disagree with, but that is what legal campaign and debate is about. You can't just disrepetc the sovereignty of a country and just ignore their customs.
If you refuse to follow laws you will not last long in modern society.
Quote: beachbumbabsQuote: AZDuffmanUh, a regular jury is instructed to disregard the media as well. And in a regular trial it is about what the prosecutor brings in and "allows to be heard."
How would "justice be served" by having a trial when the facts of the case showed one was not warranted?
All due respect, Babs, but it sounds like you just want blood from the cop no matter what the facts of the case.
EDIT: Babs, does this cop need to go on trial to "heal the community?"
I don't know if you're misunderstanding me on purpose or just don't get the difference I'm trying to describe.
The prosecutor in the GJ only presents the evidence that shows there's enough available to justify a trial. That evidence may or may not be presented at trial, but if the GJ indicts, then the prosecutor makes their best case for conviction and the defense makes their best case for acquittal.
Using the GJ in this process turned everything on its head, which the prosecutor and his presentation team pointed out repeatedly to the GJ, how unusual the presentation POV was. The prosecution did NOT want an indictment. The prosecution essentially put on a defense case, allowing in the evidence that corresponded to the defendant's POV, and allowed the defendant to testify. None of that was rebutted or cross-examined. The witnesses whose testimony did not correspond to the exoneration story were not allowed. No one spoke for the dead kid, which is ordinarily the prosecution's job. How could the GJ make any other decision when they only heard one side?
There's a saying; there's one person's story, there's another person's story, and the truth usually somewhere in the middle. There is no "truth" position to take in this proceeding; that's what a trial is supposed to bring out. There's only one person's story, told by the prosecutor, backed only by corroborating evidence and testimony he allowed in.
There was also a study done: in the year 2010, the last year they have statistics available, where there were 162,000+ cases put before GJ's nationwide. Of all of those, only 11 failed to return a true bill of indictment. source, but the stat's being widely quoted . The process was flawed in this case because the prosecution was not representing the correct party.
BBB,
I'm not sure I get what you are asking for either.
There are a couple of members on the forum who challenge you on most every suspension and nuking. You handle it well, but at times it is clear you are annoyed. Here you are just doing your job, and yet people get in your face over your decisions.
NOW, suppose that supporters of the last person you nuked are demanding that you be put on jury trial for your decision. You will need to hire a good legal team, your life is going to be hell for the next year, and obtw, if you happen to get that one dumb jury, you could go to prison for the next 20 years.
But fear not, it is for the collective good of this forum, so that we can all rest comfortably knowing your suspension was correct.
Wouldn't you feel wronged to have to hire a legal team and go through all of that just because you were doing your job? Wouldn't you be scared knowing you might lose, even though you KNOW what you did was right?
If I believed for one second that this was a cold blooded killing, I would be all for a trial. But there is nothing to suggest that is what took place. All of the 'witnesses' who proclaimed that to be the case have been discredited. The physical evidence does not support any of those accounts. So why should $100ks of money be spent taking a non winnable case into an over crowded court system?
With the benefit of hindsight, it appears some procedures were not followed correctly, and thus contributed to the final result. But none of those process breaks are worthy of a criminal trial. And has been previously pointed out, if the officer had known how this was going to go down, I am quite sure he would have waited for backup before engaging any farther. But he had no way of knowing this. This same scenario probably played out a dozen times a week for him, and none of the previous encounters went down this way.
Asking the officer to stand trial when there is no evidence of guilt, is not showing any compassion for what the man has been through.
Quote: rudeboyoiThe most dangerous religion in the world.
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-statism-a-religion
Also, statism is not a religion. A religion is an organized belief in spirituality or God(s). Regardless of how much you love or hate statists, it cannot be called a religion. Statism is founded on policy and data.
Quote: rudeboyoiThe most dangerous religion in the world.
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-statism-a-religion
Also, statism is not a religion. A religion is an organized belief in spirituality or God(s). Regardless of how much you love or hate statists, it cannot be called a religion. Statism is founded on policy and data.
Quote: GandlerAlso, statism is not a religion. A religion is an organized belief in spirituality or God(s). Regardless of how much you love or hate statists, it cannot be called a religion. Statism is founded on policy and data.
So if statism isn't religion does that mean money/power isn't worshipped?
Quote: petroglyphSo if statism isn't religion does that mean money/power isn't worshipped?
They may be worshipped by some. Though I don't think most worship them, at most respect them.
But even if they are worshipped, they are material objects in this universe, they are not a deity, and they are not spiritual. Hence not a religion...
Quote: GandlerAlso, statism is not a religion. A religion is an organized belief in spirituality or God(s). Regardless of how much you love or hate statists, it cannot be called a religion. Statism is founded on policy and data.
What is believing in god but believing in a higher power?
Quote: beachbumbabs
I don't know if you're misunderstanding me on purpose or just don't get the difference I'm trying to describe.
The prosecutor in the GJ only presents the evidence that shows there's enough available to justify a trial. That evidence may or may not be presented at trial, but if the GJ indicts, then the prosecutor makes their best case for conviction and the defense makes their best case for acquittal.
Using the GJ in this process turned everything on its head, which the prosecutor and his presentation team pointed out repeatedly to the GJ, how unusual the presentation POV was. The prosecution did NOT want an indictment. The prosecution essentially put on a defense case, allowing in the evidence that corresponded to the defendant's POV, and allowed the defendant to testify. None of that was rebutted or cross-examined. The witnesses whose testimony did not correspond to the exoneration story were not allowed. No one spoke for the dead kid, which is ordinarily the prosecution's job. How could the GJ make any other decision when they only heard one side?
In reality the DA need not even bring charges it he or she feels that prosecution is not warranted. Given that certain members of the community threatened violence the DA put it to a GJ. The GJ decided the cop was in the right and it was a good shoot. The prosecution did "speak for the dead kid" but the dead kid is dead because he attacked the cop. The cop still has to live with this and will have to quit his job and uproot his life.
The kid was not on his way from church choir practice to read to the blind. He had just strong-arm shoplifted a case of cigars. He was intentionally walking in traffic for no reason other than to cause trouble. And he clearly attacked the cop. Nothing he did was accidental. Race had not a thing to do with it. No reason to destroy the cop's life more than it was.
What will now happen is the quality of life for working people of Ferguson will decline. The cops will not patrol as robustly as before. They will figure that if they are going to be called "racist" at every turn then why even bother. Ferguson will join Newark, Detroit, L.A., and any number of cities where the cops do the bare minimum since the citizens see the cops as the enemy.
Quote: rudeboyoiWhat is believing in god but believing in a higher power?
Deism.
Quote: AZDuffmanbut the dead kid is dead because he attacked the cop. .
And kept attacking and attacking, according
to the cop and eyewitnesses. Some of the
original 'eyewitnesses' who made up the
story that the kid was shot in the back with
his hands raised over his head, they couldn't be
found to testify at the GJ. Upright citizens
that they were..
Quote: GandlerDeism.
God is an intangible entity just as government is. You cant reach out and touch it.
Quote: rudeboyoiGod is an intangible entity just as government is. You cant reach out and touch it.
No it is not.
The government exists in this reality.
Both are tangible concepts formulated here on earth.
You say you don't regard law as any different than scripture? You said before you live "here" (I assume that means Vegas?). Last time NV Highway patrol pulled you over, did you say that? I assume you frequent casinos, since you are a long term member here, when a casino staff tells you not to do something, do you say that?
If not, you already accept our Nation/State has rules, and businesses within our Nations have rules (Casinos have LOTS of rules). Structure and rules are what makes civilized society. One of the critical ways to study our primate ancestors is to see their society. What kind of world would you like to live in where there are no governments, no rules, no laws?
It would be a nonexistent world (for humans), we (human primates), succeeded over neathdrathals and other competitors (who we destroyed from the planet) by organizing and forming structures that is how we thrive and defeat others. Being against government can be argued to be against our nature from an evolutionary perspective. We survived and continue to exist by watching our for our species as a whole.
All the protestors, rioters, and looters seriously gotta stop. They're pissing me off.
Quote: rudeboyoiWhy is it absurd? I fail to see the difference between the two.
I do not believe in god: there is no god.
Never was, never will be.
I do believe in the state, and I believe in the rule of law.
So then, under your reasoning there is no law because there is no scripture.
don't believe in the law, or the law doesn't
apply to them. That's why we have prisons,
they think alike and should all be together.
Quote: EvenBobPrisons are full of people who say they
don't believe in the law, or the law doesn't
apply to them. That's why we have prisons,
they think alike and should all be together.
Any religion one refuses to believe in can get your life taken away by a fanatic of that religion.
Quote: rudeboyoiAny religion one refuses to believe in can get your life taken away by a fanatic of that religion.
Different concept entirely.
I asked earlier, but you missed it, what is your ideal society if you could have any society that you desire?
Quote: GandlerDifferent concept entirely.
I asked earlier, but you missed it, what is your ideal society if you could have any society that you desire?
A society with no rulers. Where interactions with others are voluntary not coercive.
Quote: rudeboyoiA society with no rulers. Where interactions with others are voluntary not coercive.
Not possible with humans. Even our far back primate ancestors relied on structured societies to survive (its one of the signs on evolved primates, the more evolved the more advanced the society).
Do you honestly think that no government, would be superior for the majority of people than having a government?
To get back to issues like Ferguson, it would be mob rule. As horrible as the mob is, how much worst would it be with no police or national guard, or threat of arrest and punishment? The town would be in flames.
One reason it is so bad, is that the police are being extremely conservative about arresting and force, because they are afraid of more bad publicity. I think they should be doing mass arrests on everyone who even assists with mugging and looting.
You say you are afraid of Religions ruling your life? What would happen if all government were abolished? Powerful Religious Groups (Catholic Church, various Muslim Groups) would rule the population, through "scripture", and fear. There will always be "rulers", with secular Democratic governments, the rulers are in our hands, and held to strict standards.
Quote: GandlerNot possible with humans. Even our far back primate ancestors relied on structured societies to survive (its one of the signs on evolved primates, the more evolved the more advanced the society).
Do you honestly think that no government, would be superior for the majority of people than having a government?
To get back to issues like Ferguson, it would be mob rule. As horrible as the mob is, how much worst would it be with no police or national guard, or threat of arrest and punishment? The town would be in flames.
One reason it is so bad, is that the police are being extremely conservative about arresting and force, because they are afraid of more bad publicity. I think they should be doing mass arrests on everyone who even assists with mugging and looting.
You say you are afraid of Religions ruling your life? What would happen if all government were abolished? Powerful Religious Groups (Catholic Church, various Muslim Groups) would rule the population, through "scripture", and fear. There will always be "rulers", with secular Democratic governments, the rulers are in our hands, and held to strict standards.
I didnt say no structure. Just no rulers. I absolutely believe society would be better off without government. We know from history that more murders have happened in the name of government than any other. Something like 250million in the 21st century alone. Everything in ferguson happened as a result of government oppression. Government has failed time and time again yet people keep believing that next time it will work. Isnt that the definition of insanity?
Quote: rudeboyoiEverything in ferguson happened as a result of government oppression.
I can't believe you're saying that. If it's government oppression, it's a government conspiracy.
Quote: rudeboyoiI didnt say no structure. Just no rulers. I absolutely believe society would be better off without government. We know from history that more murders have happened in the name of government than any other. Something like 250million in the 21st century alone. Everything in ferguson happened as a result of government oppression. Government has failed time and time again yet people keep believing that next time it will work. Isnt that the definition of insanity?
I would argue that Captiliztic Democracy has succeeded and made the world a far better place. With America igniting the enlightenment in the 1700s.
Saying: Goverments have failed their people, is like saying sports are boring. Some are boring, some are exciting, there are thousands of different sports some more exciting and popular than others.
But as for Ferguson, you mean perceived oppression. The cop was found to be not even indicateable. It's an excuse for people looking to get free stuff taking advantage of a situation that was started by the race baiting media with no evidence. And now, in the midst of the chaos it's the lack of "oppression " causing the problem, the cops are not even stopping people breaking glass or fighting.... the cops are so frightened of being called raisisct they are just standing there telling people to disperse and calm down...
Quote: Gandler...There will always be "rulers", with secular Democratic governments, the rulers are in our hands, and held to strict standards.
Really?? I think it would be closer to the truth to say that the rulers are in the hands of those who control the Republican and Democrat parties. Held to strict standards? You might have to reach back to Calvin Coolidge to find a president who did not exceed the power and authority granted him by the US Constitution. This country was not, at its founding, a democracy. I just cringe when I hear elected officials of this country refer to our government as a "democracy". They are either ignorant or corrupt, as their power is much more limited in a constitutional republic and they are likely angling for more of it. Scandals abound involving elected officials and unelected bureaucrats, and rarely is anyone held to account. Lest you think I am an Obama basher, I had almost as many problems with Bush the Lesser by the time he was done with his 8 years of economy-crushing rule.
Sorry, not trying to hijack the thread. I just have a hard time reading some of these things that are easily disproved by a simple perusal of major news outlets.
Quote: DaddydocReally?? I think it would be closer to the truth to say that the rulers are in the hands of those who control the Republican and Democrat parties. Held to strict standards? You might have to reach back to Calvin Coolidge to find a president who did not exceed the power and authority granted him by the US Constitution. This country was not, at its founding, a democracy. I just cringe when I hear elected officials of this country refer to our government as a "democracy". They are either ignorant or corrupt, as their power is much more limited in a constitutional republic and they are likely angling for more of it. Scandals abound involving elected officials and unelected bureaucrats, and rarely is anyone held to account. Lest you think I am an Obama basher, I had almost as many problems with Bush the Lesser by the time he was done with his 8 years of economy-crushing rule.
Sorry, not trying to hijack the thread. I just have a hard time reading some of these things that are easily disproved by a simple perusal of major news outlets.
Corruption no doubt exists, as it does in every enterprise involving humans. But we still have the power to vote. You can always vote independent if you don't like the party options.
Quote: GandlerI would argue that Captiliztic Democracy has succeeded and made the world a far better place. With America igniting the enlightenment in the 1700s.
Saying: Goverments have failed their people, is like saying sports are boring. Some are boring, some are exciting, there are thousands of different sports some more exciting and popular than others.
But as for Ferguson, you mean perceived oppression. The cop was found to be not even indicateable. It's an excuse for people looking to get free stuff taking advantage of a situation that was started by the race baiting media with no evidence. And now, in the midst of the chaos it's the lack of "oppression " causing the problem, the cops are not even stopping people breaking glass or fighting.... the cops are so frightened of being called raisisct they are just standing there telling people to disperse and calm down...
Ive provided links to what was wrong with those indictment procedures. Scroll back a few pages and take a read.
Even non-religious fanatics "take away" life. So what.Quote: rudeboyoiAny religion one refuses to believe in can get your life taken away by a fanatic of that religion.
