AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 18, 2014 18:38:28 GMT -5
It's possible that he fled, was ordered to "freeze" and he turned to surrender, and was shot while raising his arms to the sky? However, all of the witnesses- who may have helped if that were the case, have now discredited themselves-- and that would be a real shame if it allows a guilty man to walk. We underestimate, in our modern, sophisticated society-- the absolute importance of always being truthful. Who has been discredited? At the worst someone that said he was shot in the back just assumed he was hit when he turned around- doesn't mean he wasn't shot at running away- and in fact one of the arm wounds could have come from the back side if you look at where it was. And really the results are consistent- so far with the rest of the statements. What really bothers me is how one shot went in through the top of his head and came out the jaw area- that is going to be tough to explain. Didn't this guy carry a taser? It is my opinion that you've made up your mind, and now you're just twisting and spinning in the wind. Would it be so bad to just wait out the investigation? I don't know what happened- I've conceded the very scenario you've proposed MIGHT have happened. We just don't know.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Aug 18, 2014 19:21:46 GMT -5
When you claim certain witnesses have been discredited it sounds like you have made up your mind as well.
But really think about it- how many positions exist where a gunshot ends up traveling that way- into the top of head and out the jaw. That is not consistent with a typical self-defense center mass barrage. Same with the shots in the arms- at first glance you would think defensive wounds- hands and arms in front of the body. Distances will be key.
But I will await the rest of the story. You don't see me calling for an arrest do you?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 6:47:49 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2014 19:42:12 GMT -5
When you claim certain witnesses have been discredited it sounds like you have made up your mind as well.
But really think about it- how many positions exist where a gunshot ends up traveling that way- into the top of head and out the jaw. That is not consistent with a typical self-defense center mass barrage. Same with the shots in the arms- at first glance you would think defensive wounds- hands and arms in front of the body. Distances will be key.
But I will await the rest of the story. You don't see me calling for an arrest do you?
I agree that distance will be the key. As distance becomes greater, accuracy falls off... even for the BEST of marksmen. So a shot "aimed at center mass" could easily not hit "center mass" (that's why they say always aim for center mass... because the further away the target is the larger the probable area of actual impact... and if your intended target is, say, the knee {instead of "center mass"}... a few inches to the left or right and you miss entirely.).
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Aug 18, 2014 19:47:14 GMT -5
And with that here comes a train load of bullshit:
www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/08/18/new-eyewitness-cop-chased-after-brown.html
One side:
Earlier Monday, a new eyewitness who recorded footage of Michael Brown on her phone says he was chased down by officer Darren Wilson. Piaget Crenshaw has come forward with her account of the immediate events prior to Brown's murder. “I knew the police shouldn't have been chasing this young boy and firing at the same time,” she says. According to her, Wilson looked like he was trying to pull Brown into the police car. She said it “upset the officer” that Brown got away, and he began firing at him. By her account, when one of the bullets grazed Brown's arm, he turned around and “then he was shot multiple times.”
And the other:
Meanwhile, a second account was phoned into a local radio station that is reportedly consistent with what Officer Wilson told police investigators. A woman named only as "Josie" described Brown as punching Wilson in the face and grabbing for his gun. When the policeman fired the first time, Brown taunted and rushed at him full speed, and then was fatally shot, the woman said. Autopsy results released on Monday did not find evidence of a struggle.
One of these is much more credible, however. See if you can spot it
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2014 20:13:37 GMT -5
This thread has got to be the most endearingly funny example of four people striving to express how completely in the dark they are about a subject while simultaneously striving to defend their highly specific conclusions about that subject.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 18, 2014 21:01:11 GMT -5
i'm fairly bothered by that autopsy sheet. there are no exit wounds, and this is a very wide spray of bullets. it seems like they couldn't have been fired at a range that would allow positive ID or threat status. but what do i know? We don't have ANY IDEA of the range. The examiner had no access to the clothing. But even if we assume s8me distance- presumably the guy is IN the police officer's vehicle, he escapes and flees, as long as the officer doesn't lose sight of him and is in pursuit- the ID is certain. It doesn't become uncertain who it is after x number of feet. whatever you say, Paul. i am only going by what i have read from other autopsy reports. you are going by your experience with live targets, i am guessing?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 18, 2014 21:01:47 GMT -5
eye witness accounts are notoriously bad. evidence is way better. That's pretty much what I said... back on page 2 or 3. i was on vacation on page 2. thanks for bringing me up to date.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 18, 2014 21:03:45 GMT -5
This thread has got to be the most endearingly funny example of four people striving to express how completely in the dark they are about a subject while simultaneously striving to defend their highly specific conclusions about that subject. are you one of the four?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Aug 18, 2014 23:07:39 GMT -5
We don't have ANY IDEA of the range. The examiner had no access to the clothing. But even if we assume s8me distance- presumably the guy is IN the police officer's vehicle, he escapes and flees, as long as the officer doesn't lose sight of him and is in pursuit- the ID is certain. It doesn't become uncertain who it is after x number of feet. whatever you say, Paul. i am only going by what i have read from other autopsy reports. you are going by your experience with live targets, i am guessing? The further the distance, the worse it is for the officer.
The interesting thing to me about this case is that no one defending the officer is really questioning whether shooting an unarmed person is ok. It is taken as an assumption that it is ok to shoot an unarmed person 6 times or whatever as long as they were a 'threat'.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 18, 2014 23:19:11 GMT -5
whatever you say, Paul. i am only going by what i have read from other autopsy reports. you are going by your experience with live targets, i am guessing? The further the distance, the worse it is for the officer.
The interesting thing to me about this case is that no one defending the officer is really questioning whether shooting an unarmed person is ok. It is taken as an assumption that it is ok to shoot an unarmed person 6 times or whatever as long as they were a 'threat'.
yes, it is OK in the US. nowhere else, really.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 19, 2014 1:40:30 GMT -5
This thread has got to be the most endearingly funny example of four people striving to express how completely in the dark they are about a subject while simultaneously striving to defend their highly specific conclusions about that subject. are you one of the four? I've barely said anything in the thread. And I rated my confidence at a 3 out of 10, which more than covers any bias thus far. Certain other people (who shall remain nameless) rated their confidence at 0 but are vehemently defending specific theories of the crime as though it were 8.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 19, 2014 7:27:47 GMT -5
the legal system is utterly stacked against the victim in cases like this. hope everyone realizes this. I don't disagree. Its just very hard for me to see him as a victim rather than a person who just committed a robbery. I hope that, for once, actual truth prevails - whichever way it goes. It's entirely possible that he's both a criminal AND a victim. I'm with you, though. And I have confidence the truth WILL prevail. What I hope is that if it turns out he's not a victim, but that he brought this on himself like Trayvon Martin, that EVERYONE will be able to accept the truth this time. We don't live in a country where racist white people with guns murder black youths in the street for shits and giggles. But there's a significant percentage of people in the black community in particular who believe we do, and there are some nefarious whites and "black leaders" who make a nice living for themselves perpetuating the myth. Can you imagine the devastation for some people if even 30% of the black community worked out that the real problem is that for nearly three generations, the establishment has been buying them off with welfare, have destroyed the black family in the process, and the real problem is idle black youths killing other idle black youths in the street? Let me give you a stunning fact: If the GOP were to get a solid 30% of the black vote nation-wide, it would be mathematically impossible for Democrats to ever win another national election ever again. Think about that for a just a minute and let it soak in. Once you understand the desperate straights the Democrats would be in without black voters continuing to vote in lockstep for Democrats, you understand why it's so critical for Democrats to perpetuate the blacks-against-the-man mythology. In fact, I'm not convinced the left hasn't cooked up this whole scandal because they're in bigger trouble heading into the midterms than anyone knows? It's not far fetched- they cooked up the desperate 'war on women' for the same reason. Add this together with the frenzied effort to import as many illegals as possible, and it isn't difficult to connect the dots and realize that perhaps the wheels are finally coming off the Democrat strategy of herding cats, and maybe their Balkan coalition is on the verge of disintegration?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 19, 2014 7:36:16 GMT -5
whatever you say, Paul. i am only going by what i have read from other autopsy reports. you are going by your experience with live targets, i am guessing? The further the distance, the worse it is for the officer.
The interesting thing to me about this case is that no one defending the officer is really questioning whether shooting an unarmed person is ok. It is taken as an assumption that it is ok to shoot an unarmed person 6 times or whatever as long as they were a 'threat'.
We know the 'witness' is an accomplice. This is not in dispute. So, we can dispense with the "unarmed" because two against one is enough to justify deadly force. Further, the distance doesn't matter because the officer never had any question of the identity of Mr. Brown, AND-- this is important, so try to pay attention: if Brown reached for the officer's gun, and they struggled to the point where the gun discharged in the car, and then Brown fled- the officer must use any force necessary to apprehend such an erratic and dangerous person. I'm not an automatic defender of the police-- they are idiots at least 50% of the time because frankly we give them too many silly laws to enforce, we hire too many of them, pay them too much money, guarantee them fat pensions, take their word as gospel truth too often, and the average suburban cop's function in life is to waylay unsuspecting citizens and extract cash from them like modern day highwaymen. That being said, if the witness recording checks out, and the investigation reveals he assaulted the cop and went for his gun, it's silly to propose the officer should just let him run off.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 19, 2014 7:38:01 GMT -5
are you one of the four? I've barely said anything in the thread. And I rated my confidence at a 3 out of 10, which more than covers any bias thus far. Certain other people (who shall remain nameless) rated their confidence at 0 but are vehemently defending specific theories of the crime as though it were 8. My confidence level is at a 0 that I know what happened. If I had to place a bet though, I'm at least 3 to 1 that we're going to find out that Brown assaulted the officer, went for his gun, and that's why he was shot. The police weren't stopping him for the robbery- but Brown didn't know that.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 19, 2014 8:23:08 GMT -5
I've barely said anything in the thread. And I rated my confidence at a 3 out of 10, which more than covers any bias thus far. Certain other people (who shall remain nameless) rated their confidence at 0 but are vehemently defending specific theories of the crime as though it were 8. My confidence level is at a 0 that I know what happened. If I had to place a bet though, I'm at least 3 to 1 that we're going to find out that Brown assaulted the officer, went for his gun, and that's why he was shot. The police weren't stopping him for the robbery- but Brown didn't know that. Would you bet somebody 3:1 that a random coin toss would turn up heads? Because that's what a confidence level of 0 means.
|
|
Sam_2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:42:45 GMT -5
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by Sam_2.0 on Aug 19, 2014 8:48:46 GMT -5
So have you seen the claims that the full convenience store video shows him buying those cigars? Apparently the video is out on youtube.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Aug 19, 2014 9:05:39 GMT -5
So have you seen the claims that the full convenience store video shows him buying those cigars? Apparently the video is out on youtube. Nope.
Have you seen the claim the officer pulled up to the two youths, and asked them to not walk down the middle of the road, and he received the old F you, we are almost where we want to go, comments from them? He pulled ahead of them, stopped, to see if they were going to comply, and then the radio report came over, about the robbery and description of the perps involved, and when he tried to get out of his vehicle, the door either bounced off the perp, or was slammed shut against the officer? That is when the chaos unfolded. The officer then started to pull his weapon, the kid reached in the car, for the weapon, it discharged, and then he proceeded to run away, officer got out of the vehicle told them to stop, and the kid stopped, turned around, and said what are you going to do, shoot me? Other words were exchanged...... And then charged towards the officer.
Hmmn, wonder if this could be true?
Sounds like shot while being entirely stupid. And I do agree shot while being entirely stupid is not a valid excuse, fearing for your safety while an enraged perp much bigger than you is charging at you, who already tried taking your gun, would cause a policeman to use deadly force.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 19, 2014 9:16:20 GMT -5
My confidence level is at a 0 that I know what happened. If I had to place a bet though, I'm at least 3 to 1 that we're going to find out that Brown assaulted the officer, went for his gun, and that's why he was shot. The police weren't stopping him for the robbery- but Brown didn't know that. Would you bet somebody 3:1 that a random coin toss would turn up heads? Because that's what a confidence level of 0 means. Look, I never was one for getting all fancy with the numbers. Here's what it means to me: I don't know what happened. There's no way I could know. I have a few pieces of the puzzle- and here they are: 1. There MAY be a witness who saw Brown and the officer struggling in the police officer's vehicle, saw Brown flee, and saw Brown double back and charge the officer. I say there may be, because I don't know if that recording is authentic. I believe it's likely to be genuine- on a scale of 1 to 10, I'd put it at an 8 that it turns out that's a recording of someone at the scene. 2. I know the witness that claimed Brown was on his knees, with his hands up in surrender, and who stated the police officer shot him execution style is an accomplice with Brown in the robbery, and told an outright lie to distract from who he was, and his criminal responsibility the robbery, and possibly for what transpired. 3. I know the other witnesses, at best, got it wrong; at worst- lied to stir shit up. 4. I know the police were not looking for robbery suspects at the time, and apparently were just ordering Brown to get out of the street- as in, you can't walk down the middle of the street- go to the sidewalk. That's it- and I don't even know some that for absolutely certain. Take #1 for example- that may be a real recording, but the witness on it may have gotten it wrong. Questions I still have: 1. Was there a struggle inside the police car between Brown and the officer? 2. Did the gun discharge in the car during this struggle, and then Brown fled? 3. If he did flee, did Brown turn and put his hands up to surrender, and the officer shot him anyway? Just because he wasn't shot in the back doesn't necessarily mean the cop acted appropriately? 4. Where was Brown's accomplice and the lying witness during the events, and what was he doing? 5. Where is the stolen property Brown gave his accomplice, and why hasn't this accomplice / lying witness been arrested yet?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 19, 2014 9:19:53 GMT -5
So have you seen the claims that the full convenience store video shows him buying those cigars? Apparently the video is out on youtube. It doesn't matter. He still physically attacked the convenience store owner- a crime in and of itself.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 19, 2014 9:25:05 GMT -5
And to clarify - a confidence level of 0 that anyone knows what happened is just honesty. None of us know. My educated guess is that the investigation is going to reveal that Brown, who is a thug by definition, responded with hostility to the police officer's approach, he attacked the cop, a struggle ensued, and he was shot at least once in the officer's vehicle. It doesn't mean I think the cop was right to shoot him dead, but I can certainly understand why he would- right, or wrong.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Aug 19, 2014 9:32:19 GMT -5
I don't disagree. Its just very hard for me to see him as a victim rather than a person who just committed a robbery. I hope that, for once, actual truth prevails - whichever way it goes. It's entirely possible that he's both a criminal AND a victim. I know, and you are right. It's one of my many personal failings. I have zero sympathy for those who take from others - whether it be their property, their money or their right to safety. I don't care where a person comes from or what they have or don't have - they can't take what they want/need from others. Well...actually some can...and legally...I should have used the word "shouldn't" rather than "can't". The same goes for the police officer in this matter. If he took someone's life when another avenue was available, I'll feel the same way about him and hope that he's held accountable for what he did.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 19, 2014 10:20:58 GMT -5
It's entirely possible that he's both a criminal AND a victim. I know, and you are right. It's one of my many personal failings. I have zero sympathy for those who take from others - whether it be their property, their money or their right to safety. I don't care where a person comes from or what they have or don't have - they can't take what they want/need from others. Well...actually some can...and legally...I should have used the word "shouldn't" rather than "can't". The same goes for the police officer in this matter. If he took someone's life when another avenue was available, I'll feel the same way about him and hope that he's held accountable for what he did. I don't know if I could have said it any better. I do have sympathy for the victims of violent attacks, however. My feeling that the officer should use restraint is tempered by my feeling that when you physically attack someone, particularly with deadly force- going for their gun- you get what you get.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 19, 2014 12:03:14 GMT -5
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 19, 2014 12:08:45 GMT -5
Any excuse would have done to rob and loot and cause trouble.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Aug 19, 2014 12:25:46 GMT -5
Interesting article and I agree with much in it. There is NO excuse for not having a dashcam. None. I, too, feel like it's a conscious choice not to have one - a conscious attempt to hide certain actions. That should be addressed and addressed quickly - not just in Ferguson but everywhere.
I don't agree with the exception to what the police are wearing. They have to have some way of identifying one another. The reasons are obvious. If people object to them wearing camo and want them to wear yellow and pink polka dots, I guess that can be addressed, but with many budgets stretched to the max, I doubt any budget is going to allow for different clothing depending on the sensibilities of those who are rioting, looting, and burning.
Neither do I see anything wrong with the statement, "This is not up for discussion." My parents used to say that to me all the time. All it means is that you have given an order and you expect it to be obeyed NOW. Nobody has time to sit around and listen to arguments of why this or that is not allowed.
Instead of being incensed at the mililitarization of police - how about being incensed by the actions of people that make it necessary?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 19, 2014 12:26:49 GMT -5
Any excuse would have done to rob and loot and cause trouble. By some, yes. But I'll be honest- I'm very uncomfortable with the military response. And you can call them police, or you can call them a knitting club. This is a military action, and it is completely uncalled for-- and it has perhaps contributed to the problem. It's provocative. There's no need for the police to "get control" over the area. We only needed a shop owner to put a bullet in the head of some idiot, and the whole mess could have been solved without a police officer in sight.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 19, 2014 12:29:17 GMT -5
Interesting article and I agree with much in it. There is NO excuse for not having a dashcam. None. I, too, feel like it's a conscious choice not to have one - a conscious attempt to hide certain actions. That should be addressed and addressed quickly - not just in Ferguson but everywhere.
I don't agree with the exception to what the police are wearing. They have to have some way of identifying one another. The reasons are obvious. If people object to them wearing camo and want them to wear yellow and pink polka dots, I guess that can be addressed, but with many budgets stretched to the max, I doubt any budget is going to allow for different clothing depending on the sensibilities of those who are rioting, looting, and burning.
Neither do I see anything wrong with the statement, "This is not up for discussion." My parents used to say that to me all the time. All it means is that you have given an order and you expect it to be obeyed NOW. Nobody has time to sit around and listen to arguments of why this or that is not allowed.
Instead of being incensed at the mililitarization of police - how about being incensed by the actions of people that make it necessary?
We're the parents. They're the children. They're not charged with a mission to occupy and control the streets. Checkpoints, curfews-- this stuff is creepy, and I dare say- provocative. It's asking for it.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 19, 2014 12:29:30 GMT -5
Seriously, the shop owner would have been murdered by the animals. Why anyone would even have a store in an area like that is beyond me. Those people like acting like animals, sane people don't go there and just let them kill each other. You couldn't pay me enough to be a cop and go into the ghetto with its ghetto mentality and thug worship.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Aug 19, 2014 12:35:24 GMT -5
Some of it is - I agree. While I detest the need for military response, I don't see another way. I'm certain there are a large amount of responsible, law-abiding residents and business people in those neighborhoods. They don't deserve to be left to their own defenses while their neighborhood is being destroyed around them by destructive, opportunistic thugs.
I agree the peaceful protesters should have been left alone. I don't agree that there should have been an open pipeline for any other destructive, opportunistic thug who wanted to join in on the "fun".
I don't have a better answer. Wish I did.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 19, 2014 12:43:57 GMT -5
Interesting article and I agree with much in it. There is NO excuse for not having a dashcam. None. I, too, feel like it's a conscious choice not to have one - a conscious attempt to hide certain actions. That should be addressed and addressed quickly - not just in Ferguson but everywhere.
I don't agree with the exception to what the police are wearing. They have to have some way of identifying one another. The reasons are obvious. If people object to them wearing camo and want them to wear yellow and pink polka dots, I guess that can be addressed, but with many budgets stretched to the max, I doubt any budget is going to allow for different clothing depending on the sensibilities of those who are rioting, looting, and burning.
Neither do I see anything wrong with the statement, "This is not up for discussion." My parents used to say that to me all the time. All it means is that you have given an order and you expect it to be obeyed NOW. Nobody has time to sit around and listen to arguments of why this or that is not allowed.
Instead of being incensed at the mililitarization of police - how about being incensed by the actions of people that make it necessary?
i would argue that it is not necessary. so, it would seem we have a perspective difference.
|
|