- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The Chief made the request of his men. If the order was unlawful, I'm sure he or his men would have not carried it out.
What is so hard to understand?
You want to focus on the DoJ, the rioters, the protests, the looters, the dead kid, the officer that shot the kid.
Why not focus on the request by the Chief to his men. Period.
What are they protesting exactly?
Ask the person I was responding to. I have no idea.
I said the citizens have a right to protest. apdst said, "A right that the officers have, as well" which is true enough, but I'm not aware of any 'right' to do as you want while on the job, in uniform, which is what the current discussion is about.
Yes, their duty is to enforce the law, and as of yet that shooting is still under investigation. And there is no charge yet - the grand jury hasn't met, the investigation is ongoing.
It's obvious you've made up your mind that the Darren Wilson is innocent, the protesters are wrong, etc. And that conclusion before the facts are known is driving your opinion of the whole issue. Again, that's great for you. But it's unbelievable that you can't see the bracelets on the job in uniform are a terrible idea. If your son was shot by police, and they announced their biases this way, you'd be opposed. That's all it takes to understand why the community might object to them wearing them in this case.
No, but they serve the people of Ferguson, and they don't pay them to wear bracelets saying, "I AM [the person whose actions you are protesting]" while in uniform, on the job.
Well, that's not at all what I said, and I did qualify the statement. You can quote it if you want. I won't bother - not worth the effort.
You are misrepresenting what went down....Here is the opening paragraph from the OP:
"FERGUSON Mo. (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department asked the Ferguson, Missouri, Police Department on Friday to order its officers not to wear bracelets in support of the white policeman who shot to death an unarmed black teenager last month, sparking protests."
Further down:
"The DOJ said it had been assured by officials with the county and state police, which have been brought in to help in Ferguson, that their officers would not wear them. Ferguson police could not be reached for comment on Friday evening."
Now, it is clear to see what is going on here and it isn't what you just portrayed.
Did you read what you posted?
There was no formal "force of law" command from the DoJ.
The Chief chose to follow the recommendation of the DoJ and ask his men not to wear the bands.
The men complied with the request from the chief.
I highlighted in red the important facts...and in black the relevant words.
Under the Freedom of Information act...if there was, in fact, a formal order from the chief to the men to stop wearing the bands that should be documented.
I'll wait to see that order.
Yeah, so I have come to certain conclusions, what's the problem with that? I am not in LE at any level, I am allowed to have an opinion.
Show the regulation where it is prohibited, or dispense with the emotional argument.
"Even easier, be a professional and don't wear bracelets to work that have the potential to make the situation you're trying to defuse worse."
The thing making the situation worse are those on the MB side that are using this event for some trumped up agenda. The officer (I feel, and obviously so do those wearing the bracelets) was unfairly accused, tried, and convicted in the court of public opinion in the media for doing his job, and trying to return home alive. I don't see a problem supporting him. Now if there is some regulation in the Ferguson rules, and standards handbook you can point out concerning things like this then so be it....
But, my argument really is more along the lines of the DoJ not liking that anyone support the officer in this case tells (orders :winkFerguson's Chief to tell his men to take off the bracelet.
That shows more bias than the cops wearing the rubber band....I certainly wouldn't look for a fair investigation from the Fed's knowing this....
And further, how said is it now that the FBI has been so politicized? Ain't that great?
I would say no, but once the DOJ leans on the administration of the dept. Its over. They wont push back.Is the "policy" of any localities uniform, the business of the DoJ?
The only apparent racism has been by the perp, and his supporting cast of criminals who have smashed windows, set things on fire and in general have been nuisances. The attorney general supports the criminal element against the police.
If there has been any evidence against the police officer the AG would have already come to the cameras and sang like a canary. He hasn't. Has he?
The bracelets says "I Am Darren Wilson".
No problem at all, and I'm sure I said exactly that, twice.
It's an argument based on the common sense of a gnat, not emotional.
That's the quote, and the bolded part is the qualifier which you said didn't exist. Thanks for that.
You've come to a conclusion and it differs from that of the community, and your position is based on that conclusion. I don't think it's appropriate for police serving the community to broadcast their support of a conclusion while in uniform, on the job, serving the people who disagree quite strongly with them. Who should those officers serve - their fellow officer, wingnuts all across America or their community?
That's a pretty surprising couple of sentences to string together. You believe the DoJ has taken a side, and then say based on that you don't expect a fair investigation from the Feds. But you're OK with the police officers taking a side, and despite them doing so, expect a fair investigation from them and the rest of the Ferguson law enforcement community. It's stunning you can't see the disconnect in your own statements, in the same post.
I'm not sure what you're referring to there. Have the FBI issued a biased report on an investigation that I somehow missed?
So police officers have a right to protest while in uniform, on the job? That's a new one.
and the blacks who shot two police officers have the "right" to be felonious assholes"?I disagree. Ferguson police officers have the right to be racist asses.
Do all very liberal people find federal intimidation in local matters appropriate?
Redress, you have taken a side when you approved of intimidation by the federal government in a local matter.
Why do conservative people find every request intimidating? Have you lived in fear like this your whole life?
That is just ****ing stupid and an attempt to twist what I said.
Then you shouldn't try and use equivalency between myself and the officers to cloud the issue.
So by name calling to make a point has nothing to do with emotion, yeah ok...:roll:
I saw that, and posted it anyway to show that you did include the qualifier. I guess my point with that part was that Obama wears these rubber bracelets all the time for different causes in his political career to align himself with what ever group he is addressing at the moment. So, do you consider that unprofessional as well?
Do the LEO's fulfill their obligation to the community by siding with the mob, or by standing by the law? Showing solidarity with their accused brother is not a commentary on their oath to uphold the law.
If you had some evidence that if charged that these officers do not plan to take their fellow officer into custody then you'd have a point, but wearing a stupid rubber band showing solidarity is not proof of that. What I see from the Fed's is that, Holder comes out and makes a statement all but promising that they will conduct an investigation to ensure the officer is named, tried, and convicted for murder. Not exactly telling the people that they will get to the facts now is it. And now you have them interfering with local uniform policy, why? Because it furthers the investigation? No. But because they are playing to the mob. Because they agree with the mob.
No, they don't have to do that to display their intent through actions, and requests.
How are they protesting?
I didn't - the entire point is me or you having an opinion and broadcasting it to the world is an ENTIRELY different animal than those police officers doing it, WHILE IN UNIFORM, ON DUTY. I'm not sure how I can make the point clearer.
What you quoted didn't call anyone a name. I'll do the work this time, "No, but they serve the people of Ferguson, and they don't pay them to wear bracelets saying, "I AM [the person whose actions you are protesting]" while in uniform, on the job."
That statement seems self evident to me, and one need only exercise the barest amount of common sense to arrive at it, IMO.
Perhaps - I've always thought wearing rubber bracelets of any kind was silly - a meaningless gesture. Obviously lots of people disagree with me. But what the bracelets say, and the circumstances, do matter in any case. Wearing "WWJD" is different than wearing the bracelet "I Am Darrel Wilson" on the job, in uniform, while working protests against in part what Darrell Wilson did.
Again, you've just shouted your own biases, which is fine for you. I don't think it's appropriate for police officers in Ferguson. And a reasonable person could conclude that saying "I am Darrel Wilson" in Ferguson at this time is an unfortunate commentary on their oath to uphold the law, regardless of who that might implicate.
If Michael Brown was a friend or family member, I know how I'd feel about it, and I think if you're honest you'd agree with me if someone close to you was the person shot and killed by police, who now broadcast their support of the person who killed that friend or family member.
First of all, you can't quote him implying anything of the sort. Second, the bracelets appear to many people including me as the exact same kind of statement - that they'll do all they can to make sure Darrel Wilson is NOT charged, tried or convicted.
We've run out of points to debate - if you can't see that, then there is no real point is continuing the discussion.
Investigating something means they've been politicized.... Got it. And it makes sense because it's somehow obvious to you nothing needs investigating, Wilson did nothing wrong, etc.
You might wait till you see what if any charges are filed, and based on what evidence. Or you could go with your gut and then expect everyone else to agree with you.
It's you who said the police officers have that right. You must have had a point, but I don't know what it was apparently.
Link us to the post where I said they're protesting.
Jasper: I'm not defending looting or burning or lynch mobs - they should be arrested, charged, convicted and jailed. But then the vast majority of protesters are doing none of that - they're protesting, which is their right as an American.
You: A right that the officers have, as well.
Me: So police officers have a right to protest while in uniform, on the job? That's a new one.
You: How are they protesting?
Me: It's you who said the police officers have that right. You must have had a point, but I don't know what it was apparently.
You: Link us to the post where I said they're protesting.
"Ask the person I was responding to. I have no idea.
I said the citizens have a right to protest. apdst said, "A right that the officers have, as well" which is true enough, but I'm not aware of any 'right' to do as you want while on the job, in uniform, which is what the current discussion is about.
Then if they aren't protesting anything, they should be allowed to wear them.
Why does it have to make the statement that they are going to do whatever they want to do with impunity? Why cant it mean "We know him, we trust him, we believe in him, and we support him"?The U.S. Justice Department asked the Ferguson, Missouri Police Department on Friday to order its officers not to wear bracelets in support of the white policeman who shot to death a black teenager last month, sparking protests.
Read the article here: http://news.yahoo.com/justice-department-tells-ferguson-police-stop-wearing-bracelets-004135604.html35
I don't know what you think but it looks to me like it will be a long time before there's ever any peace in Ferguson, Missouri.
Basically what those cops are telling people is that they're going to do whatever they want to do.
I don't believe that's going to bring people together.
What do you think?
Why does it have to make the statement that they are going to do whatever they want to do with impunity? Why cant it mean "We know him, we trust him, we believe in him, and we support him"?
For people that dont know Tony Stewart, he is a NASCAR driver that killed a kid on a race car track. Some people suggested he did it intentionally, while others...drivers that know him, fans, track owners, and many others associated with NASCAR and sprint track racing...believe he would never have done anything to intentionally harm the kid and fully supported him. Does that mean all those that support Tony Stewart are pro murdering stupid 20 year old kids? (the fact the 20 year old is found to have been under the influence of marijuana AND got out of his car and ran towards the driver on a dark slick dirt track notwithstanding)
It's an irrelevant and stupid point, as the Officers are not, and have nothing to do with investigating Officer Wilson.then the family should rationally suspect that the investigation might not be objective.
It's really a very simple point - I can't believe it isn't obvious.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?