Ferguson Protests Grow Larger: ‘We Don’t Give a F--- about Your Laws’

[hadit]

Wilson had a good reason. The thug took it upon himself to act like a thug then paid the price for it.

Yes, Wilson had a reason, good reason? That's subjective. Good for him maybe.

Since the Grand Jury refused to indict based on lack of evidence, it's very objective.

I think the adjective you are looking for is "sufficient" reason.

I think it was!!!!!

Clearly it was sufficient. That is not up for debate, is it?

IMO the debate isn't whether the Cop was justified and/or had sufficient reason. The question is would you have killed him or not and if so why, and if not why. I probably would not have fired my weapon at all against this unarmed dude. When he cursed at me, knowing that I've got backup coming "seconds" away. I would have just hung back in my vehicle take some pictures of the guy strolling merrily down the street. Why start a chase against "two" guys when you have backup coming? See if it looks like he's armed. I'm not gonna let some big dude reach into my window I'd probably roll the window up. Epic foolhardy to try to open your door from a seated position with a big dude on the other side of the door and your window open.. WTH?

So, as a police officer, you would hide in your vehicle instead of doing what was necessary to apprehend the suspect? How long do you think you would remain employed as a cop, and how many other people would you allow to be victimized by the suspect before he is apprehended?

 

[jc456]

nope, it isn't. I don't live in a vacuum, I live in a world where my actions have ramifications. I supposed you don't live there. If I rush a cop because I feel like it, all bets are off on what might happen. Same is true if it is a thief who has a gun pointed at my chest. Any move I make has ramifications. The difference, the cop has justification entitled by his employment. The thief, no.

Ayup the cops are entitled and justified to be jury, judge, and executioner. It's all legal like.

Yeppers, that's why they carry a gun, they are available to serve and protect. The stupid and the needy, they don't get to make a choice. Just stay in your dream world, you enjoy it.

Ayup killing unarmed children.. that's the new spin on to serve and protect. Got a court order? Go for it, toss that grenade into the baby carriage. The guy has a gun? Kill him, it's the law!

If the "child" is of large adult size and is assaulting a police officer, attempting to steal his weapon, guess what? There's a good chance he's going to end up dead.

No shit.

he's responding so as not to offend your stupidness.

 

[jc456]

Yes, Wilson had a reason, good reason? That's subjective. Good for him maybe.

Since the Grand Jury refused to indict based on lack of evidence, it's very objective.

I think the adjective you are looking for is "sufficient" reason.

I think it was!!!!!

Clearly it was sufficient. That is not up for debate, is it?

IMO the debate isn't whether the Cop was justified and/or had sufficient reason. The question is would you have killed him or not and if so why, and if not why. I probably would not have fired my weapon at all against this unarmed dude. When he cursed at me, knowing that I've got backup coming "seconds" away. I would have just hung back in my vehicle take some pictures of the guy strolling merrily down the street. Why start a chase against "two" guys when you have backup coming? See if it looks like he's armed. I'm not gonna let some big dude reach into my window I'd probably roll the window up. Epic foolhardy to try to open your door from a seated position with a big dude on the other side of the door and your window open.. WTH?

So, as a police officer, you would hide in your vehicle instead of doing what was necessary to apprehend the suspect? How long do you think you would remain employed as a cop, and how many other people would you allow to be victimized by the suspect before he is apprehended?

yes he would. He'd even invite him out for drinks later as well.

 

[hadit]

I think it was!!!!!

Clearly it was sufficient. That is not up for debate, is it?

IMO the debate isn't whether the Cop was justified and/or had sufficient reason. The question is would you have killed him or not and if so why, and if not why. I probably would not have fired my weapon at all against this unarmed dude. When he cursed at me, knowing that I've got backup coming "seconds" away. I would have just hung back in my vehicle take some pictures of the guy strolling merrily down the street. Why start a chase against "two" guys when you have backup coming? See if it looks like he's armed. I'm not gonna let some big dude reach into my window I'd probably roll the window up. Epic foolhardy to try to open your door from a seated position with a big dude on the other side of the door and your window open.. WTH?

nope, it isn't. I don't live in a vacuum, I live in a world where my actions have ramifications. I supposed you don't live there. If I rush a cop because I feel like it, all bets are off on what might happen. Same is true if it is a thief who has a gun pointed at my chest. Any move I make has ramifications. The difference, the cop has justification entitled by his employment. The thief, no.

Ayup the cops are entitled and justified to be jury, judge, and executioner. It's all legal like.

Would shooting the suspect been any MORE justified if there were 3 cops standing around? Perhaps we need to start hiring lawyers to do ride alongs so they can advise the police in every potentially violent situation. You know, "Okay, now you may advise the suspect that if he attempts to take your weapon, you will tell his mother, and she will be mad", "Okay, that didn't work, now he's charging at you. Protocol states that you may make a scary frowny face at him". Would that help?

And yes, a cop is fully justified in shooting a person who is assaulting the cop and attempting to take his weapon. That's why the smart thing to do when an armed cop tells you to do the chicken dance is to do the chicken dance. Let a lawyer engineer a big payday for you. Better than ending up in the morgue. Even better, don't do anything stupid that will attract the cop's negative attention to you in the first place.

Evidently there's no difference. The cops could have him surrounded by a dozen officers and they would still be justified in killing him. Now if they broke his arm or left him alive to talk, then they would be in trouble.

If a suspect shows the ability and tendency to take violent action, the police WILL take whatever steps necessary to restrain him and prevent him from hurting either the cops or other people. In this case, a non-lethal means to subdue the suspect would have probably been a better option for the cop, but did he have one on him?

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, Wilson had a reason, good reason? That's subjective. Good for him maybe.

Since the Grand Jury refused to indict based on lack of evidence, it's very objective.

I think the adjective you are looking for is "sufficient" reason.

I think it was!!!!!

Clearly it was sufficient. That is not up for debate, is it?

IMO the debate isn't whether the Cop was justified and/or had sufficient reason. The question is would you have killed him or not and if so why, and if not why. I probably would not have fired my weapon at all against this unarmed dude. When he cursed at me, knowing that I've got backup coming "seconds" away. I would have just hung back in my vehicle take some pictures of the guy strolling merrily down the street. Why start a chase against "two" guys when you have backup coming? See if it looks like he's armed. I'm not gonna let some big dude reach into my window I'd probably roll the window up. Epic foolhardy to try to open your door from a seated position with a big dude on the other side of the door and your window open.. WTH?

So, as a police officer, you would hide in your vehicle instead of doing what was necessary to apprehend the suspect? How long do you think you would remain employed as a cop, and how many other people would you allow to be victimized by the suspect before he is apprehended?

I would've rode up on my horse and thrown a rope over both of them and hog tied em. Then I'd walk them to the store, make them give the cigs back and apologize to the store owner. Then I'd drove them to their momma's houses and make sure they got a good spanking.

If not allowed to ride my horse... I would have been driving a man's truck not a sissy SUV. I also would've had a man's gun. Those boy's would've peed their pants & laid down on the ground on command when I showed up. My voice carries. I once got Joe Theisman to look up in the stands at me when he was at the line of scrimmage playing against the dolphins.

 

[RKMBrown]

Since the Grand Jury refused to indict based on lack of evidence, it's very objective.

I think the adjective you are looking for is "sufficient" reason.

I think it was!!!!!

Clearly it was sufficient. That is not up for debate, is it?

IMO the debate isn't whether the Cop was justified and/or had sufficient reason. The question is would you have killed him or not and if so why, and if not why. I probably would not have fired my weapon at all against this unarmed dude. When he cursed at me, knowing that I've got backup coming "seconds" away. I would have just hung back in my vehicle take some pictures of the guy strolling merrily down the street. Why start a chase against "two" guys when you have backup coming? See if it looks like he's armed. I'm not gonna let some big dude reach into my window I'd probably roll the window up. Epic foolhardy to try to open your door from a seated position with a big dude on the other side of the door and your window open.. WTH?

So, as a police officer, you would hide in your vehicle instead of doing what was necessary to apprehend the suspect? How long do you think you would remain employed as a cop, and how many other people would you allow to be victimized by the suspect before he is apprehended?

yes he would. He'd even invite him out for drinks later as well.

That boy wasn't old enough to drink.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What does this incident have to do with socialism?

You know, when I first read your post, I thought you were G5000, and responded to you in kind...

Of course, that's because you SOUND exactly like G5000 in this thread.

We've all seen the video, we all know what the options for Wilson were. Why do you believe that he should not have been allowed to go home to his wife and kids? Because he is white?

Under what circumstanced should a cop be allowed to protect himself? When the attacker is white? If the attacker is black, the cop has a duty to die?

 

[jc456]

What does this incident have to do with socialism?

You know, when I first read your post, I thought you were G5000, and responded to you in kind...

Of course, that's because you SOUND exactly like G5000 in this thread.

We've all seen the video, we all know what the options for Wilson were. Why do you believe that he should not have been allowed to go home to his wife and kids? Because he is white?

Under what circumstanced should a cop be allowed to protect himself? When the attacker is white? If the attacker is black, the cop has a duty to die?

pretty much with these fools.

 

[jc456]

I think the adjective you are looking for is "sufficient" reason.

I think it was!!!!!

Clearly it was sufficient. That is not up for debate, is it?

IMO the debate isn't whether the Cop was justified and/or had sufficient reason. The question is would you have killed him or not and if so why, and if not why. I probably would not have fired my weapon at all against this unarmed dude. When he cursed at me, knowing that I've got backup coming "seconds" away. I would have just hung back in my vehicle take some pictures of the guy strolling merrily down the street. Why start a chase against "two" guys when you have backup coming? See if it looks like he's armed. I'm not gonna let some big dude reach into my window I'd probably roll the window up. Epic foolhardy to try to open your door from a seated position with a big dude on the other side of the door and your window open.. WTH?

So, as a police officer, you would hide in your vehicle instead of doing what was necessary to apprehend the suspect? How long do you think you would remain employed as a cop, and how many other people would you allow to be victimized by the suspect before he is apprehended?

yes he would. He'd even invite him out for drinks later as well.

That boy wasn't old enough to drink.

hmmmmmmm....so he got his fluids intravenously?

 

[jc456]

Yes, Wilson had a reason, good reason? That's subjective. Good for him maybe.

Since the Grand Jury refused to indict based on lack of evidence, it's very objective.

I think the adjective you are looking for is "sufficient" reason.

I think it was!!!!!

Clearly it was sufficient. That is not up for debate, is it?

IMO the debate isn't whether the Cop was justified and/or had sufficient reason. The question is would you have killed him or not and if so why, and if not why. I probably would not have fired my weapon at all against this unarmed dude. When he cursed at me, knowing that I've got backup coming "seconds" away. I would have just hung back in my vehicle take some pictures of the guy strolling merrily down the street. Why start a chase against "two" guys when you have backup coming? See if it looks like he's armed. I'm not gonna let some big dude reach into my window I'd probably roll the window up. Epic foolhardy to try to open your door from a seated position with a big dude on the other side of the door and your window open.. WTH?

So, as a police officer, you would hide in your vehicle instead of doing what was necessary to apprehend the suspect? How long do you think you would remain employed as a cop, and how many other people would you allow to be victimized by the suspect before he is apprehended?

cause Wilson's job was to babysit Brown and wait for the real police to show up, whoever they are.

 

[RKMBrown]

What does this incident have to do with socialism?

You know, when I first read your post, I thought you were G5000, and responded to you in kind...

Of course, that's because you SOUND exactly like G5000 in this thread.

We've all seen the video, we all know what the options for Wilson were. Why do you believe that he should not have been allowed to go home to his wife and kids? Because he is white?

Under what circumstanced should a cop be allowed to protect himself? When the attacker is white? If the attacker is black, the cop has a duty to die?

Where did I say he should not be allowed to protect himself?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Where did I say he should not be allowed to protect himself?

Then you openly state that you agree with the Grand Jury?

 

[RKMBrown]

Where did I say he should not be allowed to protect himself?

Then you openly state that you agree with the Grand Jury?

Yes, why wouldn't I? The law is clear.. the cops can kill people for pretty much any plausible excuse.

The issue is civil not criminal.

I'd rather our cops used non-lethal means, but that's not the law. You hire a guy like Wilson... this is what you get. Similar to hiring Obama. The people you hire are gonna have an affect on outcomes.

 

[Conservative65]

Since the Grand Jury refused to indict based on lack of evidence, it's very objective.

I think the adjective you are looking for is "sufficient" reason.

I think it was!!!!!

Clearly it was sufficient. That is not up for debate, is it?

IMO the debate isn't whether the Cop was justified and/or had sufficient reason. The question is would you have killed him or not and if so why, and if not why. I probably would not have fired my weapon at all against this unarmed dude. When he cursed at me, knowing that I've got backup coming "seconds" away. I would have just hung back in my vehicle take some pictures of the guy strolling merrily down the street. Why start a chase against "two" guys when you have backup coming? See if it looks like he's armed. I'm not gonna let some big dude reach into my window I'd probably roll the window up. Epic foolhardy to try to open your door from a seated position with a big dude on the other side of the door and your window open.. WTH?

So, as a police officer, you would hide in your vehicle instead of doing what was necessary to apprehend the suspect? How long do you think you would remain employed as a cop, and how many other people would you allow to be victimized by the suspect before he is apprehended?

I would've rode up on my horse and thrown a rope over both of them and hog tied em. Then I'd walk them to the store, make them give the cigs back and apologize to the store owner. Then I'd drove them to their momma's houses and make sure they got a good spanking.

If not allowed to ride my horse... I would have been driving a man's truck not a sissy SUV. I also would've had a man's gun. Those boy's would've peed their pants & laid down on the ground on command when I showed up. My voice carries. I once got Joe Theisman to look up in the stands at me when he was at the line of scrimmage playing against the dolphins.

You would have run like a pussy when confronted.

 

[Conservative65]

I think the adjective you are looking for is "sufficient" reason.

I think it was!!!!!

Clearly it was sufficient. That is not up for debate, is it?

IMO the debate isn't whether the Cop was justified and/or had sufficient reason. The question is would you have killed him or not and if so why, and if not why. I probably would not have fired my weapon at all against this unarmed dude. When he cursed at me, knowing that I've got backup coming "seconds" away. I would have just hung back in my vehicle take some pictures of the guy strolling merrily down the street. Why start a chase against "two" guys when you have backup coming? See if it looks like he's armed. I'm not gonna let some big dude reach into my window I'd probably roll the window up. Epic foolhardy to try to open your door from a seated position with a big dude on the other side of the door and your window open.. WTH?

So, as a police officer, you would hide in your vehicle instead of doing what was necessary to apprehend the suspect? How long do you think you would remain employed as a cop, and how many other people would you allow to be victimized by the suspect before he is apprehended?

yes he would. He'd even invite him out for drinks later as well.

That boy wasn't old enough to drink.

Not legally but he made an adult decision and he paid the price.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think the adjective you are looking for is "sufficient" reason.

I think it was!!!!!

Clearly it was sufficient. That is not up for debate, is it?

IMO the debate isn't whether the Cop was justified and/or had sufficient reason. The question is would you have killed him or not and if so why, and if not why. I probably would not have fired my weapon at all against this unarmed dude. When he cursed at me, knowing that I've got backup coming "seconds" away. I would have just hung back in my vehicle take some pictures of the guy strolling merrily down the street. Why start a chase against "two" guys when you have backup coming? See if it looks like he's armed. I'm not gonna let some big dude reach into my window I'd probably roll the window up. Epic foolhardy to try to open your door from a seated position with a big dude on the other side of the door and your window open.. WTH?

So, as a police officer, you would hide in your vehicle instead of doing what was necessary to apprehend the suspect? How long do you think you would remain employed as a cop, and how many other people would you allow to be victimized by the suspect before he is apprehended?

I would've rode up on my horse and thrown a rope over both of them and hog tied em. Then I'd walk them to the store, make them give the cigs back and apologize to the store owner. Then I'd drove them to their momma's houses and make sure they got a good spanking.

If not allowed to ride my horse... I would have been driving a man's truck not a sissy SUV. I also would've had a man's gun. Those boy's would've peed their pants & laid down on the ground on command when I showed up. My voice carries. I once got Joe Theisman to look up in the stands at me when he was at the line of scrimmage playing against the dolphins.

You would have run like a pussy when confronted.

lol no I'd have kicked his ass in.. and his friends. Now that cop with the gun... yeah that guy scares the shit out of me. I'd run from him unless you tell me it's ok for me to shoot back at the cops in self defense. I can fight a fat 300lb black kid. But a guy with a gun.. yeah that's why they call them equalizers.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, why wouldn't I? The law is clear.. the cops can kill people for pretty much any plausible excuse.

The issue is civil not criminal.

I'd rather our cops used non-lethal means, but that's not the law. You hire a guy like Wilson... this is what you get. Similar to hiring Obama. The people you hire are gonna have an affect on outcomes.

A guy like Wilson, who want's to live to the end of his shift...

 

[RKMBrown]

I think it was!!!!!

Clearly it was sufficient. That is not up for debate, is it?

IMO the debate isn't whether the Cop was justified and/or had sufficient reason. The question is would you have killed him or not and if so why, and if not why. I probably would not have fired my weapon at all against this unarmed dude. When he cursed at me, knowing that I've got backup coming "seconds" away. I would have just hung back in my vehicle take some pictures of the guy strolling merrily down the street. Why start a chase against "two" guys when you have backup coming? See if it looks like he's armed. I'm not gonna let some big dude reach into my window I'd probably roll the window up. Epic foolhardy to try to open your door from a seated position with a big dude on the other side of the door and your window open.. WTH?

So, as a police officer, you would hide in your vehicle instead of doing what was necessary to apprehend the suspect? How long do you think you would remain employed as a cop, and how many other people would you allow to be victimized by the suspect before he is apprehended?

yes he would. He'd even invite him out for drinks later as well.

That boy wasn't old enough to drink.

Not legally but he made an adult decision and he paid the price.

Yes he did.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, why wouldn't I? The law is clear.. the cops can kill people for pretty much any plausible excuse.

The issue is civil not criminal.

I'd rather our cops used non-lethal means, but that's not the law. You hire a guy like Wilson... this is what you get. Similar to hiring Obama. The people you hire are gonna have an affect on outcomes.

A guy like Wilson, who want's to live to the end of his shift...

AYUP.

 

[Conservative65]

I think it was!!!!!

Clearly it was sufficient. That is not up for debate, is it?

IMO the debate isn't whether the Cop was justified and/or had sufficient reason. The question is would you have killed him or not and if so why, and if not why. I probably would not have fired my weapon at all against this unarmed dude. When he cursed at me, knowing that I've got backup coming "seconds" away. I would have just hung back in my vehicle take some pictures of the guy strolling merrily down the street. Why start a chase against "two" guys when you have backup coming? See if it looks like he's armed. I'm not gonna let some big dude reach into my window I'd probably roll the window up. Epic foolhardy to try to open your door from a seated position with a big dude on the other side of the door and your window open.. WTH?

So, as a police officer, you would hide in your vehicle instead of doing what was necessary to apprehend the suspect? How long do you think you would remain employed as a cop, and how many other people would you allow to be victimized by the suspect before he is apprehended?

I would've rode up on my horse and thrown a rope over both of them and hog tied em. Then I'd walk them to the store, make them give the cigs back and apologize to the store owner. Then I'd drove them to their momma's houses and make sure they got a good spanking.

If not allowed to ride my horse... I would have been driving a man's truck not a sissy SUV. I also would've had a man's gun. Those boy's would've peed their pants & laid down on the ground on command when I showed up. My voice carries. I once got Joe Theisman to look up in the stands at me when he was at the line of scrimmage playing against the dolphins.

You would have run like a pussy when confronted.

lol no I'd have kicked his ass in.. and his friends. Now that cop with the gun... yeah that guy scares the shit out of me. I'd run from him unless you tell me it's ok for me to shoot back at the cops in self defense. I can fight a fat 300lb black kid. But a guy with a gun.. yeah that's why they call them equalizers.

Sure you would have big man. You couldn't kick you own ass.