Uncomfortable FACT about Ferguson for conservatives...

[The Rabbi]

I've fatally shot game animals with much higher caliber of bullet than what struck Michael Brown and those animals ran for hundreds of yards before dropping, RKM...fifteen feet is not far at all.

I'm a hunter too. That's not my point. This is not a case of a guy shooting a deer this is a case of a guy going up against a bear with the supposed intent to arrest it and having absolutely no means to do so without killing it... how stupid is that?

All Michael Brown has to do is fall to the ground and surrender. He'd be alive today. What was "stupid" was for him to turn back and close the distance between himself and a police officer firing at him. The outcome of that encounter was pretty much decided when Brown makes that decision just as it would be if a wounded bear turned and charged at you as a hunter. You're going to shoot until that bear drops...aren't you RKM?

Yes.. I would not put myself in that situation.

Correction, you would not willingly put yourself in that situation.
But no one is sworn to go hunting. It's recreation.
Wilson's job involved protecting his community from violent shitheads like Brown.

 

[Oldstyle]

The narrative that Wilson tried to hit the two young men with his SUV was provided by Brown's little buddy, Dorian Johnson. Your problem with his testimony is that Dorian has a bad habit of lying his ass off to make himself look good. If you'll recall, Johnson originally said that he met up with Michael Brown outside of the convenience store. When it became public knowledge that there was a tape showing what happened inside of the store that day, Johnson changed that story completely, admitting he was in the store with Brown but that he (Johnson) didn't steal anything.

 

[Oldstyle]

I've fatally shot game animals with much higher caliber of bullet than what struck Michael Brown and those animals ran for hundreds of yards before dropping, RKM...fifteen feet is not far at all.

I'm a hunter too. That's not my point. This is not a case of a guy shooting a deer this is a case of a guy going up against a bear with the supposed intent to arrest it and having absolutely no means to do so without killing it... how stupid is that?

All Michael Brown has to do is fall to the ground and surrender. He'd be alive today. What was "stupid" was for him to turn back and close the distance between himself and a police officer firing at him. The outcome of that encounter was pretty much decided when Brown makes that decision just as it would be if a wounded bear turned and charged at you as a hunter. You're going to shoot until that bear drops...aren't you RKM?

Yes.. I would not put myself in that situation.

Well, see that's a problem, RKM because it's the job of police officers to confront violent felons just as it's the job of firefighters to run into burning buildings. It's what you sign up for when you put on the uniform. If you AREN'T a cop or fireman you can walk away. They don't have that option.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeah I have no clue how the court system works. Its not like I have dealt with the courts for the past 7 years.

oh wait.

you do realize that 95% or so of people in the courts plead guilty because they *gasp* actually committed the crime they are accused of?

Empty statistics without any evidence. The Grand Jury in this case was a travesty of justice. But folks on the right are oblivious to anything government does wrong when it comes to arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating human beings.

I've seen the facts. The grand jury got it right. How them being correct is a travesty of justice when you don't like the results, I don't know.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeah I have no clue how the court system works. Its not like I have dealt with the courts for the past 7 years.

oh wait.

you do realize that 95% or so of people in the courts plead guilty because they *gasp* actually committed the crime they are accused of?

Empty statistics without any evidence. The Grand Jury in this case was a travesty of justice. But folks on the right are oblivious to anything government does wrong when it comes to arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating human beings.

How was this a "travesty of justice", because it didn't go your way? Were the jurors racist? Do the facts even matter to bigots like you?

In other words, Chief Sellout disagrees.

Now it's clear you're a troll. Permanent ignore.

Real men don't use the ignore function, but then again, you aren't one so carry on.

if you are the standard for manhood this nation is in far worse shape than I ever imagined

 

[1776]

Asswipe....the government's job is to protect the rest of Americans from scum like that goon that robbed a store, beat up the store owner and decided he can walk in the way of cars in the road. Oh, also thought he could attack a police officer "in his hood" as if the police officer doesn't have the right to tell him to get out of the street and even drive through the hood on behalf of the other citizens of that city, nevermind country overall.

Scum like you support criminals that rob, rape and kill others. I support the police protecting us from scum like you but I am always ready to defend myself if the police aren't there for me.

Just so we get this fact clear going forward...

YOU folks on the right are supporting GOVERNMENT over individuals and over people.

However you want to twist it, that is an irrefutable FACT...

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeah I have no clue how the court system works. Its not like I have dealt with the courts for the past 7 years.

oh wait.

you do realize that 95% or so of people in the courts plead guilty because they *gasp* actually committed the crime they are accused of?

Empty statistics without any evidence. The Grand Jury in this case was a travesty of justice. But folks on the right are oblivious to anything government does wrong when it comes to arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating human beings.

How was this a "travesty of justice", because it didn't go your way? Were the jurors racist? Do the facts even matter to bigots like you?

Do proper procedures and true justice matter to you? Or is it your blind allegiance to government when it protects thugs with badges?

Justice Scalia Explains What Was Wrong With The Ferguson Grand Jury

Justice Antonin Scalia, in the 1992 Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, explained what the role of a grand jury has been for hundreds of years.

It is the grand jury’s function not ‘to enquire … upon what foundation [the charge may be] denied,’ or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to examine ‘upon what foundation [the charge] is made’ by the prosecutor. Respublica v. Shaffer, 1 Dall. 236 (O. T. Phila. 1788); see also F. Wharton, Criminal Pleading and Practice § 360, pp. 248-249 (8th ed. 1880). As a consequence, neither in this country nor in England has the suspect under investigation by the grand jury ever been thought to have a right to testify or to have exculpatory evidence presented.

This passage was first highlighted by attorney Ian Samuel, a former clerk to Justice Scalia.

In contrast, McCulloch allowed Wilson to testify for hours before the grand jury and presented them with every scrap of exculpatory evidence available. In his press conference, McCulloch said that the grand jury did not indict because eyewitness testimony that established Wilson was acting in self-defense was contradicted by other exculpatory evidence. What McCulloch didn’t say is that he was under no obligation to present such evidence to the grand jury. The only reason one would present such evidence is to reduce the chances that the grand jury would indict Darren Wilson.

Compare Justice Scalia’s description of the role of the grand jury to what the prosecutors told the Ferguson grand jury before they started their deliberations:

And you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not act in lawful self-defense and you must find probable cause to believe that Darren Wilson did not use lawful force in making an arrest. If you find those things, which is kind of like finding a negative, you cannot return an indictment on anything or true bill unless you find both of those things. Because both are complete defenses to any offense and they both have been raised in his, in the evidence.

so justice scalia explained what was wrong with the Ferguson grand jury 22 years before it happened.

maybe if you stopped lying you would be in a better position to see justice done

 

[Avatar4321]

Just so we get this fact clear going forward...

YOU folks on the right are supporting GOVERNMENT over individuals and over people.

However you want to twist it, that is an irrefutable FACT...

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

The population of Ferguson is 60% black. The police force is 94% white. That alone says a great deal. The people and the cops do not have a positive, healthy working relationship. It is really the responsibility of the police force to create a good environment, and they clearly have not done so.

its the responsibility of the police really?

funny. I don't think that is the polices responsibility. I think it's one of the duties of citizenship and being an adult to create a good community. The police assist us by investigating and arresting those who commit crimes.

it's a mans duty to take care of his family. To protect them. To love them. To teach them to follow the law. To work to provide for them.

instead we have people like yourself saying it's someone elses responsibility. Is it any wonder that we have the crime problem we do? Or that we have riots in response? If everyone thinks it is someone elses responsibility then no one actually does what needs to be done.

we need to teach the men to step up and be men. Do your duty to yourself, your family, your community, and your God and you will be free.

It is absolutely amazing to me that you people deny that it's the responsibility of the police to establish and maintain a good relationship with the community they serve. What do you think, that the police can behave in any way they choose, and the people are supposed to insure they create and maintain a good relattionship with the police. That's absurd. Obviously none of you have studied law enforcement, not even a little. Or you are all being totally intellectually dishonest.

This is a small passage from a chapter in a text which one would read when studying law enforcement. It oulines how the police department needs to create and maintain a good relationship with the public it serves. This is not some idea I came up with. Everyone who has any knowledge of this subject knows that part of being a good police department is for everyone in the department to follow procedures that would create a good relationship with the public they served. It's so obvious that I find it unbelievable people don't know this.

Emergence of the Problem of Poor
Police–Community Relations

The notion of police–community relations derives from Sir Robert Peel’s
principles of law enforcement. As you may recall, before the creation of the
first modern police department, it was the duty of every able-bodied person
to take their turn at the watch, thereby contribute to the policing of their
community. If there was a threat to the community, the night watch would
raise a hue and cry. This would wake up the community, and its citizens
would collectively repel an attack from wild animals or intruders, help put
out a fire, and so on. Why did this break down?

Early History of Police–Community Relations

Developments during the early part of the 20th century (e.g., the advent of
motorized vehicles, the development of more efficient mass transportation systems,
police officers not living in the same jurisdiction in which they patrolled)
led to a breakdown in police–community relations. In short, there are numerous reasons for poor police community relations. These can include:
• Socialization of children by parents to fear/distrust the police
• Hostility toward the police
-Confidence in police ability has decreased
• Less contact by police with citizens
• Bad cops (rude, corrupt, violent)
• Some veteran officers would rather not deal with the community
• Police are not the best communicators
• Police and citizens have different perspectives on how crime is
caused and how to respond to it.

These factors in whole or in part prompted police reformers to search for
appropriate solutions. One of the more notable was the integration of the
human relations movement into law enforcement The human relations
movement and some astute police executives believed that police had to
move beyond simply being responsible for enforcing the law and actually
connect with the communities they policed (Radalet and Carter, 1994,
p. 23). Some of the initial attempts to increase awareness and techniques of police–community relations were started with the introduction of human
relations training into police training academies (Radalet and Carter, 1994;
Bayley and Mendelsohn, 1969). Human relations consisted of a series of
techniques to both better understand how individuals behaved in groups
and to improve their productivity and cooperation in organizational
contexts.

samples.jbpub.com/9780763771386/Ross_71386_CH08_115_130.pdf

Walk a mile in my shoes...

I wonder how many of these 'law and order' folks would feel the same way if THEY were profiled, stopped by police, searched and harassed on a regular basis. They would squeal like a bunch of children. But conservatives are totally unable to walk in another man's shoe.

I've found that if you obey the law the police dont bother you

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I've found that if you obey the law the police dont bother you

It truly is amazing, isn't it? I've had no negative contact with law enforcement and I mean EVER. And I'm not even white, so the Left can shove that narrative too. Maybe it has EVERYTHING to do with the fact I'm a law abiding citizen and always have been and NOTHING to do with race.

 

[Antares]

Just so we get this fact clear going forward...

YOU folks on the right are supporting GOVERNMENT over individuals and over people.

However you want to twist it, that is an irrefutable FACT...

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

The population of Ferguson is 60% black. The police force is 94% white. That alone says a great deal. The people and the cops do not have a positive, healthy working relationship. It is really the responsibility of the police force to create a good environment, and they clearly have not done so.

its the responsibility of the police really?

funny. I don't think that is the polices responsibility. I think it's one of the duties of citizenship and being an adult to create a good community. The police assist us by investigating and arresting those who commit crimes.

it's a mans duty to take care of his family. To protect them. To love them. To teach them to follow the law. To work to provide for them.

instead we have people like yourself saying it's someone elses responsibility. Is it any wonder that we have the crime problem we do? Or that we have riots in response? If everyone thinks it is someone elses responsibility then no one actually does what needs to be done.

we need to teach the men to step up and be men. Do your duty to yourself, your family, your community, and your God and you will be free.

It is absolutely amazing to me that you people deny that it's the responsibility of the police to establish and maintain a good relationship with the community they serve. What do you think, that the police can behave in any way they choose, and the people are supposed to insure they create and maintain a good relattionship with the police. That's absurd. Obviously none of you have studied law enforcement, not even a little. Or you are all being totally intellectually dishonest.

This is a small passage from a chapter in a text which one would read when studying law enforcement. It oulines how the police department needs to create and maintain a good relationship with the public it serves. This is not some idea I came up with. Everyone who has any knowledge of this subject knows that part of being a good police department is for everyone in the department to follow procedures that would create a good relationship with the public they served. It's so obvious that I find it unbelievable people don't know this.

Emergence of the Problem of Poor
Police–Community Relations

The notion of police–community relations derives from Sir Robert Peel’s
principles of law enforcement. As you may recall, before the creation of the
first modern police department, it was the duty of every able-bodied person
to take their turn at the watch, thereby contribute to the policing of their
community. If there was a threat to the community, the night watch would
raise a hue and cry. This would wake up the community, and its citizens
would collectively repel an attack from wild animals or intruders, help put
out a fire, and so on. Why did this break down?

Early History of Police–Community Relations

Developments during the early part of the 20th century (e.g., the advent of
motorized vehicles, the development of more efficient mass transportation systems,
police officers not living in the same jurisdiction in which they patrolled)
led to a breakdown in police–community relations. In short, there are numerous reasons for poor police community relations. These can include:
• Socialization of children by parents to fear/distrust the police
• Hostility toward the police
-Confidence in police ability has decreased
• Less contact by police with citizens
• Bad cops (rude, corrupt, violent)
• Some veteran officers would rather not deal with the community
• Police are not the best communicators
• Police and citizens have different perspectives on how crime is
caused and how to respond to it.

These factors in whole or in part prompted police reformers to search for
appropriate solutions. One of the more notable was the integration of the
human relations movement into law enforcement The human relations
movement and some astute police executives believed that police had to
move beyond simply being responsible for enforcing the law and actually
connect with the communities they policed (Radalet and Carter, 1994,
p. 23). Some of the initial attempts to increase awareness and techniques of police–community relations were started with the introduction of human
relations training into police training academies (Radalet and Carter, 1994;
Bayley and Mendelsohn, 1969). Human relations consisted of a series of
techniques to both better understand how individuals behaved in groups
and to improve their productivity and cooperation in organizational
contexts.

samples.jbpub.com/9780763771386/Ross_71386_CH08_115_130.pdf

Walk a mile in my shoes...

I wonder how many of these 'law and order' folks would feel the same way if THEY were profiled, stopped by police, searched and harassed on a regular basis. They would squeal like a bunch of children. But conservatives are totally unable to walk in another man's shoe.

I've found that if you obey the law the police dont bother you

Yup, no matter WHAT color you are.

 

[Anathema]

Walk a mile in my shoes...

I wonder how many of these 'law and order' folks would feel the same way if THEY were profiled, stopped by police, searched and harassed on a regular basis. They would squeal like a bunch of children. But conservatives are totally unable to walk in another man's shoe.

I have nothing to hide. An officer should feel free to walk up to me any time, ask me for my ID, where I'm coming from/going and what I'm doing there. I have no problem at all in answering him. If something were to occur that I felt was inappropriate, I would file a report AFTER the incident. If I were to react I would do so with the total understanding that I was about to get beat, or more likely shot.

 

[Clementine]

Just so we get this fact clear going forward...

YOU folks on the right are supporting GOVERNMENT over individuals and over people.

However you want to twist it, that is an irrefutable FACT...

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

You have that backwards. Liberals seek to keep people dependent on government, which is the exact opposite of encouraging them to take advantage of opportunity.

How many of those Ferguson protesters, or others in the same situation, have done everything within their power to improve their lives? Have they all completed high school and then taken advantage of the many programs to help them further their education? Have they taken steps to make themselves desirable to employers by working at entry level jobs to gain experience and prove dependability and stayed out of trouble with the law?

Opportunities are there, but if people don't even try to take advantage of them, it's pointless.

The right wants people to get off their asses and get busy. The left wants people to stay angry and run to government because a better life hasn't magically appeared.

People are staying angry over lies told after the Ferguson incident. The left is using this to keep them in place. The right isn't supporting government over people. While oppressive government threatens everyone's freedom, criminals pose an immediate danger. The left is all about central planning and a government that controls everyone. They also do nothing about the immediate dangers on the streets in cities. Can't even talk about it, let alone do anything. Just ask the thousands of victims each year. Most of the victims are black and most of the perpetrators are black. We've got a problem and the cause of it is an attitude that people shouldn't have to work hard to get ahead. If government doesn't give them enough, they just take it where they can get it, usually from people who are struggling to improve their own lives.

 

[RKMBrown]

The video that was aired on tv has been "CONVENIENTLY" edited. They start the video "after" he admits to trying to run the boy over. The media "changed" the officer's story to "nicely pulled the car beside him." But that's not what Wilson said.

 

[RKMBrown]

at 5:00 he expects cars to show up within 40seconds... then he motors his vehicle backwards "just past them." Here he admits to trying to run them over. So as I said.. cop gets angry with boy shoplifter... tries to run the boys over when they curse at him and walk away... this while backup is moments away.. then tries to get out of his car too stop two big angry black dudes with nothing but his pistol to defend himself, this after he admits to trying to run them over to stop them from getting away... the boys are defending their lives from a crazy ass white dude that wants to kill them for a couple cigars. Sure it's the boys fault but that cop didn't give them much of a choice. They even tried to stop him from getting out of his car but the crazy cop kept trying... then the cop went for his gun and proceeded to kill the boy as he tried to defend himself from this crazy ass white dude.

 

[Conservative65]

Just so we get this fact clear going forward...

YOU folks on the right are supporting GOVERNMENT over individuals and over people.

However you want to twist it, that is an irrefutable FACT...

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

The problem with the liberal claim they support opportunity is that they propose doing it by denying others the freedom to keep the money they've earned. You can't claim you believe in freedom then take more from certain groups to give to another calling it opportunity.

 

[orogenicman]

Didn't he? His life was in danger. The kid tried to take his gun after practically punching his lights out. The cop told him to stop, but the kid (who was six feet five inches tall and weighed over 250 pounds) kept running towards him after already being shot. What did you expect him to do? Sing Kumbaya?

Well let's see.. he's sitting in an SUV. With backup on the way... GEE WHIZ... I don't know maybe put his window up? Maybe take a picture of the guy? If he's too much of a girlie boy to fight the guy he has no business getting out of the car.

So our police are suppose to fight someone who is 6 feet five inches tall and weighs over 250 pounds and risk getting the shit kicked out of them, or worse, killed, all because you think they are girlie men if they don't? What planet are you from, anyway?

What part of DRIVE AWAY or STAY IN HIS SUV is confusing you?
What part of a little girl could have beat this kid up after he was shot twice in the CHEST is escaping you?

If he were just a citizen you might be right.
But it was his job as a police officer to apprehend a violent suspect. Wilson said as much in a recent interview. Driving away was not an option.

Driving away was an option, and it would have allowed him to call for backup. Wilson failed as a peace officer. He is a thug with a badge.

1) He didn't know who this kid was, so finding him again might have been difficult.

2) If he had driven away, the kid could have attacked someone else. He had already attacked a shop owner and a cop.

3) If he was a thug with a badge, then so are the majority of cops in the coountry, most of whom support him.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well let's see.. he's sitting in an SUV. With backup on the way... GEE WHIZ... I don't know maybe put his window up? Maybe take a picture of the guy? If he's too much of a girlie boy to fight the guy he has no business getting out of the car.

So our police are suppose to fight someone who is 6 feet five inches tall and weighs over 250 pounds and risk getting the shit kicked out of them, or worse, killed, all because you think they are girlie men if they don't? What planet are you from, anyway?

What part of DRIVE AWAY or STAY IN HIS SUV is confusing you?
What part of a little girl could have beat this kid up after he was shot twice in the CHEST is escaping you?

If he were just a citizen you might be right.
But it was his job as a police officer to apprehend a violent suspect. Wilson said as much in a recent interview. Driving away was not an option.

Driving away was an option, and it would have allowed him to call for backup. Wilson failed as a peace officer. He is a thug with a badge.

1) He didn't know who this kid was, so finding him again might have been difficult.

2) If he had driven away, the kid could have attacked someone else. He had already attacked a shop owner and a cop.

3) If he was a thug with a badge, then so are the majority of cops in the coountry, most of whom support him.

1) correct
2) Correct, hell he could've built a weapon of mass fear too and scared everyone to death.
3) there's a difference between supporting someone and killing someone so they can't get away

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Those looting illiterate thugs have no interest in freedom.....

 

[orogenicman]

Except when it comes to criminals who don't pay their range fees and allows armed NRA activists to scare off said government that is trying to enforce the law. Other than that, yeah, conservatives are all about supporting law and order over criminals.

Properly focused Government doesn't try to financially rape law abiding citizens fir using PUBLIC land their family has been using for years. At that point armed resistance falls under defense from all enemies foreign or DOMESTIC. Yes, our own Government can (and often is) a domestic enemy of thus country.

WTF? The man owed 8 million dollars in grazing fees, and he owed them because he NEVER paid those fees IN THE FIRST PLACE, when everyone else did. The land was and is not his or his family's. It belongs to you and me. And so if you lease land from the government (you and me) you pay the grazing fees. Period. End of story. Moreover, he not only grazed that land without paying for the priveledge, he overgrazed it which damaged the productivity of that land.

 

[orogenicman]

So our police are suppose to fight someone who is 6 feet five inches tall and weighs over 250 pounds and risk getting the shit kicked out of them, or worse, killed, all because you think they are girlie men if they don't? What planet are you from, anyway?

What part of DRIVE AWAY or STAY IN HIS SUV is confusing you?
What part of a little girl could have beat this kid up after he was shot twice in the CHEST is escaping you?

If he were just a citizen you might be right.
But it was his job as a police officer to apprehend a violent suspect. Wilson said as much in a recent interview. Driving away was not an option.

Driving away was an option, and it would have allowed him to call for backup. Wilson failed as a peace officer. He is a thug with a badge.

1) He didn't know who this kid was, so finding him again might have been difficult.

2) If he had driven away, the kid could have attacked someone else. He had already attacked a shop owner and a cop.

3) If he was a thug with a badge, then so are the majority of cops in the coountry, most of whom support him.

1) correct
2) Correct, hell he could've built a weapon of mass fear too and scared everyone to death.
3) there's a difference between supporting someone and killing someone so they can't get away

There is a difference between killing someone so they can't get away and killing someone who poses a serious threat to one's life and limb.