Ferguson cop
Quote: EvenBobThere are people who don't believe this?
OMG. When I drove cab in the black
neighborhoods, they use the street more
than the sidewalk. The middle of the street.
They walk and stand in groups and make
you come to a stop, and they eventually
wander out of the way. It's an FU game,
a way of making you do something.
I don't care who you are, maybe the nicest
sweetest most forgiving person in the world.
Drive a cab for 3 months in mixed neighborhoods
and it will change you for life.
It's a great point. I don't have the same experience. But I have spent much time in not so great neighborhoods. But the ironic thing was that was not even a bad neighborhood. However, gang culture encourages such things. And Brown was stated to be making gang signs before the incident.
I guarantee all of the upper class progressives minded people on here, would be the first to complain if somebody was walking down the middle of their nice suburban street blocking cars, waving around gang signs... And they would be very eager for police intervention...
Quote: Rxwinenah, my point was, the bias in the amount of investigation. Black dude died. Guilty black dude. Gavel. Done and over.
Benghazi, can we eternally investigate this thing!
That's what I'm talkin' about.
We've had the president address the the situation, we've had Holder and the justice dept. intervene, and we had how many autopsies?
Are you serious? Do you honestly feel this was a done and over situation? The only done and over part about it was the rush to judgement on the police officers actions by the president, Holder, liberals, and the racist minorities. They all decided that he was guilty, long before the facts were even known!
What about the white guy that was killed by the black cop in Utah? Where was the president in his case? Where was Eric Holder? LOL
Quote: Face
It's Fox, man. You are what you hate.
Spoken like somebody who never watches
it. Just like Rush, the people who hate him
most have never heard him even one time.
Al Franken wrote a book about Rush and
admitted he had never in his life listened to
him, yet felt qualified to write a book about
the guy. Yeah, those are the informed people
I want an opinion from.
The step father who is a grown man should NOT be wearing his jeans/pants all the way down showing his undies! Plus he was inciting violence and rampage. For that he deserves a big wedgie and someone should buy him a belt.
Quote: petroglyphI wish someone as literate as Morgan Freeman would step up to the microphone instead of Sharpton or Jackson. .
Sir Charles Barkley has spoken up.
Quote: Gandler
I guarantee all of the upper class progressives minded people on here, would be the first to complain if somebody was walking down the middle of their nice suburban street blocking cars, waving around gang signs... And they would be very eager for police intervention...
Yes, the same ones that call the HOA if the trash cans are out an hour too long or the grass is 1/2" too high.
Back to EB's point about how driving a cab will change you, I say there are many things that you can do that will change your attitude towards how races behave toward each other. When I listen to liberals defend this guy I see people who have never gotten out into the real world.
Quote: EvenBobSpoken like somebody who never watches
it. Just like Rush, the people who hate him
most have never heard him even one time.
Al Franken wrote a book about Rush and
admitted he had never in his life listened to
him, yet felt qualified to write a book about
the guy. Yeah, those are the informed people
I want an opinion from.
I used to listen to Rush all the time, and will again if my commute time ever lines up. He reminds me of my grandpa. I like him, I passionately agree with him on some things. Occasionally, I wish he was in control of something other than just a radio show. Other times, his passion overflows into the land of extremism, and I don't care for that. But if just rating pass/fail, I'd give Rush a big, fat PASS.
Fox is much the same. Some of it is OK. I think Bill O. is an asshat, but I can see that some of it is just because he's a talking head. Underneath, there is some value. But when I say "Fox", I include the entire product. I don't just think of Bill O. or others who I simply disagree with. I think of Hannity and Beck and Hasselbeck and the outright loons who I'm embarrassed to even overhear.
My point is, rude's extreme leftist slant is no different than one who only subscribes to Hannityism. Hannity is batspit crazy; subscribing to Maher does not save you from this. It's the same thing. Different sides, same coin.
Watching Fox does not make you stupid. Watching MSNBC does not make you stupid. Watching only one source, completely subscribing to one side, is what keeps us all retarded. I've read every word that rude has ever wrote concerning his opinions of the law. I can see, behind the anger and under the rage, that rude has a damn good point. Rude knows things, rude has experienced things, and the things rude spouts are problems that every single one of us should concern ourselves with. But, just like Hannity, just like Coulter, just like Sharpton, and just like Maher, whatever value the point has is buried under an "all or nothing" presentation. It makes it beyond easy to discredit and completely ignore.
Rude is free to keep his point as potent and unfiltered as he feels is right. But like sushi, he's only going to reach those who are already on board with him. If he just sacrificed a bit of self and prepared his point in a more palatable fashion, he could spread his message far and wide. Like a fish fry. And reaching the masses is the key to change.
Quote: FaceI think of Hannity and Beck and Hasselbeck and the outright loons who I'm embarrassed to even overhear.
Beck has been gone for years, Hannity is
a flag waver, and Hasslebeck is about as
extreme as a kitten. O'Reilly has had the
number one show on cable news for 14
years in a row for a reason. He's an old
news business warhorse, he's very bright,
and has an entertaining show. He's a
prolific writer, has written 15 books, half
a dozen were NYT best sellers, some were
on the list for a year and a half.
Quote: GandlerI guarantee all of the upper class progressives minded people on here, would be the first to complain if somebody was walking down the middle of their nice suburban street blocking cars, waving around gang signs... And they would be very eager for police intervention...
Yeah, Justin Bieber is pretty annoying.
Quote: EvenBobBeck has been gone for years, Hannity is
a flag waver, and Hasslebeck is about as
extreme as a kitten. O'Reilly has had the
number one show on cable news for 14
years in a row for a reason. He's an old
news business warhorse, he's very bright,
and has an entertaining show. He's a
prolific writer, has written 15 books, half
a dozen were NYT best sellers, some were
on the list for a year and a half.
Bill O. does well because he gives unbiased news from the center and does not allow a guest to evade the question. He needs to be a moderator for a POTUS debate, there would be no hiding.
The context of his comment was global warming and his target were those who either don't think it's warming or, if it is, that it's not caused by man. (His point was that the re-release of all the energy stored in fossil fuels back into the system would re-create the high temperature conditions that once existed. Never mind that fossil fuels are created by anaerobic decomposition of dead things, and that his statement presupposes that nothing will ever again die.)
It was his "Only a sith speaks in absolutes" moment.
Tyson is brilliant and I'm in no position to contradict him scientifically, but he is, self-admittedly, a very weak philosopher. He in fact discourages people to pursue it. Accordingly, he doesn't seem to grasp that his comment applies across many a spectrum, including those who would believe a youth threw his hands in the air and surrendered when, in fact, he aggressively charged ... all to support a belief in ubiquitous police-held racism.
Racism exists, and is a problem. Abuse of power exists (oh boy, does it!), and is a problem. But two things ...
1. The liberal "solution" to these problems does not seem to work as two generations of programs designed to eliminate them have only made them worse. Whatever the solution is, it's not the liberal progressive one.
2. I can't remember the last time a policeman (ostensibly) abused his power to this point ... Rodney King, maybe 20+ years ago ... so it does not appear to be as pervasive as we would be led to believe. Something other than fact is keeping this at the forefront.
Quote: MrWarmth
1. The liberal "solution" to these problems does not seem to work as two generations of programs designed to eliminate them have only made them worse. Whatever the solution is, it's not the liberal progressive one.
IMHO the "solution" has to come from minorities themselves and it has to be they have to quit acting like a group and start acting as individuals. As we are today, blacks take any attack on any black anywhere as an attack on all blacks, everywhere. Doesn't matter how in the wrong the black may be, they must be defended to the end. Examples are everywhere. O.J. Simpson, defended to the end despite a history of violence to Nicole and loads of evidence. Marion Barry, caught smoking crack on camera, gets elected again. But not only are they and the aforementioned Rodney King defended to the end, they are made heroes! Each and every time it seems.
Quote:2. I can't remember the last time a policeman (ostensibly) abused his power to this point ... Rodney King, maybe 20+ years ago ... so it does not appear to be as pervasive as we would be led to believe. Something other than fact is keeping this at the forefront.
Here is the thing about Rodney King, the police actually followed the procedure for force escalation. He was high on PCP and uncontrollable. Two other people were in the car at the time, kind of strange for cops to just randomly pick a guy with passengers if they wanted to just beat him up. The cops were not found "not guilty" for no reason.
Quote: SanchoPanzaA far more useful measure is where would an average person feel less safe. That is if one insists on comparing the questionable killing of an aggressive young thug and the well-planned torture and execution of high American officials.
The protesters felts safer around the rioters than they did around the police.
Quote: rudeboyoiThe protesters felts safer around the rioters than they did around the police.
I, along with (what I believe) most other people, would feel safer around the police than the rioters.
Quote: rudeboyoiThe protesters felts safer around the rioters than they did around the police.
Perhaps that says more about the protesters than the police.
Quote: rudeboyoiThe protesters felts safer around the rioters than they did around the police.
You're just trolling now, I'm done with you.
You have been for days, now you're not
even trying to hide it.
Quote: EvenBobYou're just trolling now, I'm done with you.
You have been for days, now you're not
even trying to hide it.
Im not trolling. Thats what the protesters firmly believed. Who would you feel safer around? Someone thats leaving you alone or someone thats lobbing tear gas at you? Its not a difficult concept to understand.
How much would it cost to give each of the policemen an Uzi so they could moe down the rioters?
That'll give them something to cry about. Ffs.
Quote: rudeboyoiIm not trolling. .
Sure you are. You're just saying things to
get a reaction, that's what trolling is. All
you care about is the attention it gets
you. You've been doing it for a couple
days now, and you know it.
Quote: RSThey're protesting something stupid.
How much would it cost to give each of the policemen an Uzi so they could moe down the rioters?
That'll give them something to cry about. Ffs.
Explain to me how protesting against police brutality is stupid? Feel free to keep looking the boots of your oppressors. These people decided they have had enough.
Quote: EvenBobSure you are. You're just saying things to
get a reaction, that's what trolling is. All
you care about is the attention it gets
you. You've been doing it for a couple
days now, and you know it.
Im not trolling. This is how I feel and this is how I see things. Whether you agree with my opinions or not is your own prerogative.
Quote: EvenBobSure you are. You're just saying things to
get a reaction, that's what trolling is. All
you care about is the attention it gets
you. You've been doing it for a couple
days now, and you know it.
Rudeboyoi has made his opinion on police very clear in the past and he feels strongly about his views. Most reasonable people disagree with him on them but he has his reasons based on past histories. That alone keeps it from being trolling, IMO.
Quote: rudeboyoiExplain to me how protesting against police brutality is stupid? Feel free to keep looking the boots of your oppressors. These people decided they have had enough.
No they want an excuse to loot and pillage.
Shooting an attacker (after giving verbal warning even after getting attacked) is not police brutality.
As somebody who distrusts local police normally, and hates police power abuse, I will be the first to say anyone who says there was any police brutality in this case is totally wrong.
Its a shame the shopkeeper did not have a weapon, would have saved a lot of trouble for the town. This is one incident where the police officer was 100% in the right. This fact is proven by how he is not even indictable.
The people rioting are not educated in the slightest about the details of the case. They want an excuse to get worked up and pretend they are the victim, since its clear the people camping out, and protesting for weeks on end clearly don't have a job or are in school...
But its a great way for the professional race baiters to get on TV and drum up tons of money for their "causes"....
Quote: GandlerNo they want an excuse to loot and pillage.
Shooting an attacker (after giving verbal warning even after getting attacked) is not police brutality.
As somebody who distrusts local police normally, and hates police power abuse, I will be the first to say anyone who says there was any police brutality in this case is totally wrong.
Its a shame the shopkeeper did not have a weapon, would have saved a lot of trouble for the town. This is one incident where the police officer was 100% in the right. This fact is proven by how he is not even indictable.
The people rioting are not educated in the slightest about the details of the case. They want an excuse to get worked up and pretend they are the victim, since its clear the people camping out, and protesting for weeks on end clearly don't have a job or are in school...
But its a great way for the professional race baiters to get on TV and drum up tons of money for their "causes"....
Its not just about michael brown. Its about victims across the whole country. There are protests going on in many different cities. Regardless of which side you believe in the michael brown story, it was the tipping point that brought about activism across the country. Its not isolated to just ferguson.
Quote: rudeboyoiIts not just about michael brown. Its about victims across the whole country. There are protests going on in many different cities. Regardless of which side you believe in the michael brown story, it was the tipping point that brought about activism across the country. Its not isolated to just ferguson.
THAT doesn't even make sense.
If they're protesting police brutality, why would they do it in the face of Michael Brown? That was not police brutality. So is this just a gigantic coincidence?
Quote: RSTHAT doesn't even make sense.
If they're protesting police brutality, why would they do it in the face of Michael Brown? That was not police brutality. So is this just a gigantic coincidence?
You may believe it isnt police brutality. They believe it is police brutality though. You may see justification in darren wilson shooting an unarmed man but they dont.
Quote: rudeboyoiYou may believe it isnt police brutality. They believe it is police brutality though. You may see justification in darren wilson shooting an unarmed man but they dont.
And you're with them?
Quote: rudeboyoiYou may believe it isnt police brutality. They believe it is police brutality though. You may see justification in darren wilson shooting an unarmed man but they dont.
If I recall correctly you are libertarian. So I assume you support carry rights? Perhaps you carry yourself.
If you were driving down that street. The street was being blocked by a big man flashing gang sign at you when you honked. He then approached your vehicle yelled at you and started punching you in the face and reached for your sidearme, what would you do?
I would not hesitate to shoot him.
A. It is self-defense. 100% legally and morally justified.
B. It does the city a service. Surely the world will be a better place with one less violent thug.
Quote: RSAnd you're with them?
Absolutely. It doesnt matter what either of us believe though. Im just trying to explain whats going on with this movement. What the reasons are.
Quote: GandlerIf I recall correctly you are libertarian. So I assume you support carry rights? Perhaps you carry yourself.
If you were driving down that street. The street was being blocked by a big man flashing gang sign at you when you honked. He then approached your vehicle yelled at you and started punching you in the face and reached for your sidearme, what would you do?
I would not hesitate to shoot him.
A. It is self-defense. 100% legally and morally justified.
B. It does the city a service. Surely the world will be a better place with one less violent thug.
Im a voluntaryist. I agree with both A and B. That doesnt mean thats what happened in this instance though. Also there are about 800k violent thugs in this country right now where I believe the world would be a better place without.
Quote: rudeboyoiIm a voluntaryist. I agree with both A and B. That doesnt mean thats what happened in this instance though. Also there are about 800k violent thugs in this country right now where I believe the world would be a better place without.
I'm pretty sure you made that number up, but its irrelevant, as an individual community would be better with one less violent criminal. And if he attacks you it is irrelevant.
And I don't want to get back into a debate about Voluntarism. But there is a reason it is so unpopular.
Quote: GandlerI'm pretty sure you made that number up, but its irrelevant, as an individual community would be better with one less violent criminal. And if he attacks you it is irrelevant.
And I don't want to get back into a debate about Voluntarism. But there is a reason it is so unpopular.
Google "how many police officers are in the united states".
Quote: rudeboyoiGoogle "how many police officers are in the united states".
Surely you are not advocating killing 800k police officers?
I think you as many of the rioters are, are using this case as an excuse to vent hatred against police and make a political point. But its backfiring since this is a cut and dry incident...
Quote: GandlerSurely you are not advocating killing 800k police officers?
I think you as many of the rioters are, are using this case as an excuse to vent hatred against police and make a political point. But its backfiring since this is a cut and dry incident...
I advocate peacefully disbanding them.
FYI - Grand juries don't issue "verdicts." That is they do not decide whether a person is guilty or not guilty. Their function is solely investigative and they can hand down presentments, true bills or indictments or other statements, depending on the jurisdiction.Quote: rudeboyoiFWIW the grand jury verdict on whether or not to indict the officer that choked eric garner to death is expected to be released tomorrow.
It looks like Brown's stepfather may be blamed for some of the looting and certain riots. At least they are debating charging him.
Quote: strictlyAPthey should charge him
How do you think that would go over? lol
Quote: EvenBobHow do you think that would go over? lol
Agreed. No chance of that right or wrong. Holder would charge the DA with something for even trying this.
Quote: strictlyAPthey should charge him
I don't want to condemn somebody before knowing too many details (like the Micheal Brown supporters have been the last few months and continue to do).
But if the investigation finds that he organized burnings of some or even one of the many buildings that were burnt and looted, he should be charged for inciting terror or whatever the technical term is. People have been charged for far far less.....
Quote: rudeboyoiFWIW the grand jury verdict on whether or not to indict the officer that choked eric garner to death is expected to be released tomorrow.
Grand jury voted not to indict.
Quote: bwGrand jury voted not to indict.
Whose going to attempt to justify the cops action in this decision? Theres video footage of victim being choked to death. The cop used an illegal chokehold.
Heres a live stream of this protest starting to get underway.
Quote: rudeboyoihttp://m.ustream.tv/stopmotionsolo
That one went down. Might pop back up idk. citizenstreams.com.
Quote: rudeboyoiWhose going to attempt to justify the cops action in this decision? Theres video footage of victim being choked to death. The cop used an illegal chokehold.
Heres a live stream of this protest starting to get underway.
Yea I have to say I am disturbed by this decision.
This just throws more gasoline on the rage in this country concerning police violence.
Whether you support or are against the police regarding various incidents in this country.
I have no doubt the violence is escalating over the years regarding the police.
Its debatable if the escalation is in response to more violent crimes or the militarization of law enforcement.
Its a mixture of both.
Quote: rudeboyoiWhose going to attempt to justify the cops action in this decision? Theres video footage of victim being choked to death. The cop used an illegal chokehold.
Heres a live stream of this protest starting to get underway.
I'm not an expert in laws? But since when are chokeholds "illegal"?
I am not going to comment on this yet as I know nothing about this case (as I am sure is the case with a large percentage of social media users who feign outrage) , but Facebook is already blowing up with anger, so I may read into it.
Whenever there is instant outrage I am skeptical.
Also it makes me wonder why all of these people just magically form mobs in the middle of the work week as if they were sitting around waiting to get angry at something...
Quote: terapinedYea I have to say I am disturbed by this decision.
This just throws more gasoline on the rage in this country concerning police violence.
Whether you support or are against the police regarding various incidents in this country.
I have no doubt the violence is escalating over the years regarding the police.
Its debatable if the escalation is in response to more violent crimes or the militarization of law enforcement.
Its a mixture of both.
I don't know. But I just wanted to comment on that line (bolded).
I know what you are saying. You are implying militarization based on all of the fancy (and I am the first to agree, unesecary) toys local forces are getting.
However, if police were actually militarized this would not be an issue. Militarization does not refer to high powered weapons or tanks, but to uniformity and working towards your goal with structure. If cops actually had a strict militaristic system these incidents would be far rarer (obviously there will always be bad cops who press their power). But with a strict power structure and universal codified regulations for every scenario (use of force especially) it would force restraint. A group of drunk rednecks can run around the woods with high powered rifles and fancy body armor, that does not mean they are "militarized".
Take a look at the Coast Guard, the only Federal military branch who has Law Enforcement Power, (most people don't even know they are a branch of the military). When is the last time the Coast Guard has been accused of abuse of power or brutality on any of the thousands of stops and arrests they do weekly? And the Coast Guard is a huge organization that not just works all over America (not just the Coast, lakes, rivers, etc...), but all over the world, even in Canada with their cops. And it probably has far far less brutality accusations than NYPD or any city department.
That is why I don't agree with using "militarization" as a negative term. As it would solve most issues with police brutality.
However, in this case, if you watch the video as I just did (still determining my opinion), it was all "regular street cops" who did it, not a high gear swat team or such, so I don't think militarization (or its misperception) is relevant in this individual incident...
Quote: GandlerI'm not an expert in laws? But since when are chokeholds "illegal"?
They're not. The NYPD says they're against policy.
Out of 41,000,000 blacks in the US, 123
were killed by police last year. Al Sharpton
says this is an 'epidemic'. Yawn. Hardly..
The fine citizen who died was out on bail
for selling cigs with no tax stamp on the
street. What does he do the day after
he gets out? You guessed it. He resisted
and resisted and they finally used force.
No indictment.
Quote: rudeboyoiWhose going to attempt to justify the cops action in this decision? Theres video footage of victim being choked to death. The cop used an illegal chokehold.
Heres a live stream of this protest starting to get underway.
Alright, after watching the video a few times and reading reports from various sites this is what I determined:
He was being investigated by undercover police for supposedly selling cigarettes on the street. They attempted to arrest him for the charge. He "resisted arrest".
During their "attempt to subdue him", they did various things including chokeholding him. This results in his death (according to the medical examiner).
Chokeholding is banned as per departmental policy since the early 90s. The officer who chokeholded him has a history of being aggressive.
I find it absurd that he is not indictable. The police are clearly in the wrong. I don't know about homicide, but manslaughter certainly.
The EMS staff also were not following protocol (ironically they were the only officials who were punished, granted rightfully so, not the person who caused the scenario), they may or may not have been able to stabilize him, of course nobody can say certainly.
So yes he should have been indicted.
This is a prime example of why police militarization is necessary, these cops involved are clearly thugs out to get him (also look at the cops tattoos!), but I guess they have friends in the right places in the city or union... The watchers always need to be watched. Local Police can too easily set their own "standards" and hire thuggish people with bad backgrounds.
However, despite my strong feelings, rioting and looting is not an acceptable response. I hope the civil case is successful, and if there is justice it will be. And hopefully the department has enough honor to take its own action (but I'm not holding my breath).
