I'd agree that's what's supposed to happen but if the situation deteriorates there is a very real chance that the cop's career will be over and he and his family will be in serious danger just because he did what he's supposed to do.
This cop has been tried and convicted in the media and in the public sphere even though the evidence hasn't come out yet. He is looking at a federal indictment on civil rights crimes and it's pretty much a given that he will be charged with murder. The public has demanded it and the state authorities seem to be leaning in that direction just as a measure to sate the public venom. You have to admit that's a pretty ****ty situation to be in just because you're doing your job and it's exactly that kind of thing that might make another cop think twice before getting involved at all.
You are right, but the problem doesn't stop with the cop. It was bad enough that this started in the first place. Then it snowballs, because the video was released? Seriously? I read that people were pissed that the video was nothing more than a smear campaign against Brown. How is it a smear campaign if it's the truth???? This is pissing me off - like a lot. The kid was seen on video, practically picking up the store clerk by the neck, and we are supposed to believe that he's an innocent victim who was bullied by the cops? The governor needs to get ahold of this. Is the National Guard there yet? If not, why?
You are right on that as well. And now Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are getting involved, too. Yeah, that makes the entire stupid situation even more credible. :roll:
I feel badly for the cop. They should have never caved to public pressure and released his name.
I guess I just don't have an answer. Honestly, in this situation, I think Brown was dead wrong, and if what I heard was correct, the cop had no recourse but to shoot, because Brown was coming after him, even after repeatedly being told to stop. But this is the problem -- Rodney King. Amadou Diallo. Abner Louima. Trayvon Martin. Jordan Davis.
This bullcrap has been going on for so long, that when there is a guilty black man, nobody can say anything about it without it turning into a freaking civil rights issue. There are too many innocents that have been killed, so now all black men who are shot by white cops are going to be martyrs, whether they are guilty or not.
Which is pretty much why I'd opt to segregate cops into neighborhoods where they are the same race as the neighborhood majority. If you can't even trust the populations to keep their **** together when something like this happens, then you have to placate them like the children they are. That's one of our societal problems these days- people lose their minds when anything pisses them off. I get freaking tired of it.
People riot over college football, which is a very minor issue... I don't know what to say. :shrug:
What has a riot ever achieved?
I don't think of it as a personal problem to me since I have never lived in an area that has rioted. It is very sad however.
You do realize, of course, that if these "poor people of Missouri" would go their asses home, this wouldn't be happening. If they go home, the cops go home. It's not rocket science. They are rioting. They are looting. They are shooting towards the police cars.
What do you want the police to do, write them a strongly worded letter?
People have a right to free speech and peaceful protest. Nobody should lose their rights because of anybody else. There is no evidence to suggest the entire town is rioting, or that the entire town is violent. There actually have been peaceful protests. Furthermore, if you stay home during a riot, it doesn't exactly mean you are safe, nor does it mean you are preventing a riot.
Police need to keep the citizens safe, and citizens have a right to protest, but not to riot. It would be wrong of the cops to label every single protester and citizen a rioter.
I'm not so sure that segregated departments are really the answer. That's more like slapping a bandaid on a severed artery. A viable community requires that people of all races, faiths, etc. work together for the good of that community.
Well, this post was certainly pointless to read... hope you got something out of writing it at least.
People have the Constitutional right to protest on public streets. Protesting is not defying cops. Perhaps you prefer a dictatorial police state, but I prefer a constitutional republic.Oh my god... by leaving the scene, going home to bed and re-assembling at the court house the next day or a designated safe public area, that is how. Are we both not adults that can think of adult responses or are we emotionally compromised and can think of nothing other than standing in front of a group of militarized cops and defying them even though violence is occurring around you? What the ****... :roll:
Only to you, because it shows you to be wrong.
But I am sure you got the point, as you choose to respond to it. :shrug:
Where does it say 1st amendment rights can be suspended? Nowhere. Why? Because states cannot suspend federally granted rights. Same reason why they can't take guns and ammo--that would violate the 2nd amendment. You only prove my point.Under a declared State of Emergency certain rights can be suspended. In Missouri - Section 44-100 Emergency powers of governor. - Basically, they can take your house, your car and your food but (under 44.101) not your guns and ammo.
Yes it does. The means matter, not merely the intent of the government. Take a basic Con Law 101 class and you will understand this.Nothing you said changes anything I said.
And as for your scenario?
If that terrorist had a nuclear device that would kill thousands more, then yes, killing the hundreds in the square just to kill the terrorist would be justifiable.
But you scenario was absurd in comparison to gas and rubber bullets (non-lethal force) to stop rioting, looting, and damage.
People have the Constitutional right to protest on public streets. Protesting is not defying cops. .
Perhaps you prefer a dictatorial police state,
but I prefer a constitutional republic
Probably 90% of the young guys in his community fit the description. I want specifics on the description... was it based on an obvious and distinct piece of clothing? How did the officer suspect Michael but not his friend, and why isn't is friend in jail if they robbed a place together? Did Michael actually rob the place or not?
I am not asking the questions to be stupid. I really want to know...
And let's not forget, the initial reason he was stopped was for "blocking traffic." The officer identified him as suspect after letting him go for blocking traffic.
Where does it say 1st amendment rights can be suspended? Nowhere. Why? Because states cannot suspend federally granted rights. Same reason why they can't take guns and ammo--that would violate the 2nd amendment. You only prove my point.
Yes it does. The means matter, not merely the intent of the government. Take a basic Con Law 101 class and you will understand this.
You would killing everyone in Times Square? Really? Thank God you don't write the law or have any power as an official.
:doh Figures.No... it was really just that lame.
You clearly have no idea of what you speak.Yes it does. The means matter, not merely the intent of the government. Take a basic Con Law 101 class and you will understand this.
You would killing everyone in Times Square? Really? Thank God you don't write the law or have any power as an official.
If the police action is in response to, and in an attempt to prevent such looting and damage, then yes, their use of teargas and rubber bullets are acceptable.
:doh Figures.
You get shown to be wrong as usual, and you cry lame.
Yep. Figures.
Good to know you don't think accuracy of information is relevant.
Said the one acting as, well... you know. :dohLike I said, I agreed with you once my confusion was cleared up but you continued to act like... well, you. :lol:
Mike Brown was unarmed, walking down the street, and a cop killed him.
There's more to the story and we don't have all the details yet but that simple assessment is what seems to be in play right now and it has caused riots, looting, destruction of property, curfews and at least one more shooting. This all begs the question.....if you are a cop working in a predominantly black neighborhood what are you going to do if you are in a situation where you may have to use force against a black suspect? If it's not a life or death situation are you just going to walk away?
In the Mike Brown scenario Officer Wilson could have just blown the whole thing off. Yeah, maybe he just made contact with the kid that robbed the liquor store but is it really worth his career to take action and risk being thrust into the public spotlight? If he says, "Come here, please. I need to ask you a few questions" and the kid tells him to **** off should he just walk away?
If a cop has his own interests in mind he would certainly, in light of the circumstances in Ferguson, have to think twice before having any kind of physical contact with a confrontational black suspect.
That might be a good thing for community relations between police and blacks. Certainly less confrontation would be welcome....wouldn't it?
Where does it say 1st amendment rights can be suspended? Nowhere. Why? Because states cannot suspend federally granted rights. Same reason why they can't take guns and ammo--that would violate the 2nd amendment. You only prove my point.
Mike Brown was unarmed, walking down the street, and a cop killed him.
There's more to the story and we don't have all the details yet but that simple assessment is what seems to be in play right now and it has caused riots, looting, destruction of property, curfews and at least one more shooting. This all begs the question.....if you are a cop working in a predominantly black neighborhood what are you going to do if you are in a situation where you may have to use force against a black suspect? If it's not a life or death situation are you just going to walk away?
In the Mike Brown scenario Officer Wilson could have just blown the whole thing off. Yeah, maybe he just made contact with the kid that robbed the liquor store but is it really worth his career to take action and risk being thrust into the public spotlight? If he says, "Come here, please. I need to ask you a few questions" and the kid tells him to **** off should he just walk away?
If a cop has his own interests in mind he would certainly, in light of the circumstances in Ferguson, have to think twice before having any kind of physical contact with a confrontational black suspect.
That might be a good thing for community relations between police and blacks. Certainly less confrontation would be welcome....wouldn't it?
Said the one acting as, well... you know. :doh
And the above is not accurate because you did not. As shown. You were absurdly agreeing with an article that wasn't even relevant.
When that happens I will let you know.You just simply can't help acting doofy, can you? :lol:
When that happens I will let you know.
So how about we get back to your goofy statements. and maybe even your grrr anger?
You were not agreeing with me, but with an irrelevant (to the discharge) article.
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?