Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,928 
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 19, 2014 20:22:29 GMT -5
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. Be careful there, Paul, you might have Tenn and a few others "liking" your last few posts and you are going to lose your street cred here 
Fear not. He lost all credibility with his horribly ìncorrect on facts source on the Obama did not attend the general funeral thread. |
|
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 20:25:10 GMT -5
Who in their right mind would build anything in that area? Thanks to criminals taking over the streets, decent people are frightened to even live there, let alone work there. I am not sure, but I think I actually drove thru this area a couple of years ago. It is not a "bad area" imo.
St Louis has much worse areas.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 19, 2014 23:16:29 GMT -5
I don't buy DJ's viewpoint that most of the people showing up to these protest rallies have constructive intentions. where did i say that? i think i said that only a few have destructive intentions. but that isn't the same thing at all. if i am just forgetting what i said, please identify the post, so i can review it. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,928
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 20, 2014 6:50:04 GMT -5
djAdvocate - you may want to start from scratch again regarding reply # 215. Somehow Virgil's statement ended up as my statement.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2014 9:41:48 GMT -5
djAdvocate - you may want to start from scratch again regarding reply # 215. Somehow Virgil's statement ended up as my statement. i think i can edit around it...... |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 20, 2014 10:20:06 GMT -5
I don't buy DJ's viewpoint that most of the people showing up to these protest rallies have constructive intentions. where did i say that? i think i said that only a few have destructive intentions. but that isn't the same thing at all. if i am just forgetting what i said, please identify the post, so i can review it. No matter what the intentions of the rabble rousers, how is this behavior by the police constructive? IMHO, this officer needs to be OFF THE FORCE, and put into prison for assault. |
|
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 20, 2014 10:24:07 GMT -5
DJ: Are we finally giving up on our no quoting rule?
As for your question, you stated in Reply #190 that there may be a small number of protesters who don't care, implying there's a large number of protesters who do care about the issue.
The rest depends on how we define "care", but I interpreted it to mean "genuinely desiring a fair resolution to the situation", or in other words, somebody who's shown up for some greater purpose other than to rage against the machine.
I suspect that relatively few protesters fall into this category. Most are simply there to agitate, harass, rage against the authority, and be seen doing it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2014 10:25:22 GMT -5
where did i say that? i think i said that only a few have destructive intentions. but that isn't the same thing at all. if i am just forgetting what i said, please identify the post, so i can review it. No matter what the intentions of the rabble rousers, how is this behavior by the police constructive? IMHO, this officer needs to be OFF THE FORCE, and put into prison for assault. their behavior toward the PRESS is also despicable. something will have to be done about them when this is is over. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2014 10:29:56 GMT -5
DJ: Are we finally giving up on our no quoting rule? As for your question, you stated in Reply #190 that there may be a small number of protesters who don't care, implying there's a large number of protesters who do care about the issue. The rest depends on how we define "care", but I interpreted it to mean "genuinely desiring a fair resolution to the situation", or in other words, somebody who's shown up for some greater purpose other than to rage against the machine. I suspect that relatively few protesters fall into this category. Most are simply there to agitate, harass, rage against the authority, and be seen doing it. regarding the quoting rule: you made a statement about something i said. i didn't want to misattribute you, just like you did to me. if i ever do that to you, you are welcome to quote me. regarding my statement: you are a very logical fellow. if there is a room full of 100 people, and i say that 10 of them care, does that imply that 90 don't? don't bother answering. it doesn't. 90 either don't care, or they neither care nor don't care. there are a lot of reasons to protest. for example, i have gone to protests out of solidarity with those that care. i didn't care per se. but it is for "community building", and that is what i assume is happening here. there are also some lookie loos in the group: people who are just there to SEE the chaos. i bet the fraction is substantial. but to reiterate, i never said that the majority were there for "constructive" reasons, only that they were not there for destructive ones. and i disagree that MOST are there for destructive reasons. that has never been my experience with protests- even ones that resulted in property damage. |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 20, 2014 10:33:07 GMT -5
The issues in Ferguson as I see them are the utter incompetence of the police force, the generally widespread, but very bad idea of the law enforcement 'best practice' of the primary mission of law enforcement being to gain 'control' and 'maintain order', and never ever backing down under any circumstances, supporting and defending even the most egregious over-reach in pursuit of the 'mission', and never being willing to admit a mistake, or that they might have been wrong.
Granted, some of this is due to our ridiculous tort system in which everything is a potential winning lottery ticket for an attorney. Right, wrong, or indifferent, have you ever apologized-- at the very least for the way you made someone feel-- for something even when you thought you were right, or it was no big deal, to live peaceably with someone? An apology by the police department for the death, and a sincere, heartfelt statement that they'll review the procedures for when deadly force is justified-- again, even if the people in the community are wrong-- would have gone a long way.
And here's an idea-- yeah, I know there are shouts of death to the police, and there are death threats flying-- how about we don't give them so damn many targets to shoot at?
In my opinion, if the streets emptied out of the police-- as in NO cops to be found-- this thing would calm down in about an hour. Confrontational people need resistance. They need an opposing force. They'll get bored and go home if one is not provided.
IMHO, it's time for everyone- including the police- to just go home.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 20, 2014 10:35:48 GMT -5
No matter what the intentions of the rabble rousers, how is this behavior by the police constructive? IMHO, this officer needs to be OFF THE FORCE, and put into prison for assault. their behavior toward the PRESS is also despicable. something will have to be done about them when this is is over. The way I see it, that officer should have been disarmed, arrested, and booked last night for terroristic threats- at the very least. Why is it that when you're a cop and you break the law, you're escorted away by your fellow officers. Those officers who didn't uphold the law- who are, in point of fact, accessories after the fact- should also be arrested and charged. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2014 10:38:16 GMT -5
their behavior toward the PRESS is also despicable. something will have to be done about them when this is is over. The way I see it, that officer should have been disarmed, arrested, and booked last night for terroristic threats- at the very least. Why is it that when you're a cop and you break the law, you're escorted away by your fellow officers. Those officers who didn't uphold the law- who are, in point of fact, accessories after the fact- should also be arrested and charged. as i have discovered, so long as we are arguing libertarian logic, we tend to agree. |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 20, 2014 11:52:14 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,928
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 20, 2014 13:05:07 GMT -5
If true, the police should have released this information the day of the shooting. |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 20, 2014 13:08:45 GMT -5
If true, the police should have released this information the day of the shooting. I agree with you on this. I'm not defending the police handling of this incident. I'm not even prepared to say for sure that the officer was justified in using deadly force. And I'm appalled at the police response since. That nice black man that was initially assigned, who marched with the protesters and seemed to calm things down for awhile-- you know why he's gone? Because he said the police should stand down. Don't get me wrong on this- I haven't "chosen sides". There are a LOT of issues in play here. |
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Aug 20, 2014 13:10:18 GMT -5
If true, the police should have released this information the day of the shooting. I wish there was a more...well known source for this information. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 17:36:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 13:12:43 GMT -5
If true, the police should have released this information the day of the shooting. I agree with you on this. I'm not defending the police handling of this incident. I'm not even prepared to say for sure that the officer was justified in using deadly force. And I'm appalled at the police response since. That nice black man that was initially assigned, who marched with the protesters and seemed to calm things down for awhile-- you know why he's gone? Because he said the police should stand down. Don't get me wrong on this- I haven't "chosen sides". There are a LOT of issues in play here. How is he gone? He gave a press conference last night at 2: am. There he was. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,928
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 20, 2014 13:12:40 GMT -5
If true, the police should have released this information the day of the shooting. I agree with you on this. I'm not defending the police handling of this incident. I'm not even prepared to say for sure that the officer was justified in using deadly force. And I'm appalled at the police response since. That nice black man that was initially assigned, who marched with the protesters and seemed to calm things down for awhile-- you know why he's gone? Because he said the police should stand down. Don't get me wrong on this- I haven't "chosen sides". There are a LOT of issues in play here. Releasing this type of information so far removed from the day of the incident only hurts police credibility. Much like the police releasing the store video the same day they release the name of the officer. Too little and too late. Most of the anger and damage to date could have been avoided. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2014 13:15:50 GMT -5
If true, the police should have released this information the day of the shooting. I agree with you on this. I'm not defending the police handling of this incident. I'm not even prepared to say for sure that the officer was justified in using deadly force. And I'm appalled at the police response since. That nice black man that was initially assigned, who marched with the protesters and seemed to calm things down for awhile-- you know why he's gone? Because he said the police should stand down. Don't get me wrong on this- I haven't "chosen sides". There are a LOT of issues in play here. Captain Johnson, i believe. and that is precisely what happened. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2014 13:16:30 GMT -5
I agree with you on this. I'm not defending the police handling of this incident. I'm not even prepared to say for sure that the officer was justified in using deadly force. And I'm appalled at the police response since. That nice black man that was initially assigned, who marched with the protesters and seemed to calm things down for awhile-- you know why he's gone? Because he said the police should stand down. Don't get me wrong on this- I haven't "chosen sides". There are a LOT of issues in play here. How is he gone? He gave a press conference last night at 2: am. There he was. he is gone from OPERATIONS. he got kicked to the curb for SUGGESTING that there was a non-violent solution. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Dec 1, 2024 17:36:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 13:18:38 GMT -5
Still very involved obviously from what he said at the press conference last night.
|
|
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 20, 2014 13:22:49 GMT -5
I agree that it should have been released sooner (assuming they had Officer Wilson's permission to do so). The part that gets me is even if this is found to be a 100% justified shooting, the police are still going to be blamed. As further details emerge, instead of thinking, "Hey. Maybe this was justified." everybody is STILL looking to find fault with the police department. They did this....they did that....they didn't do this....they didn't do that.
What would have avoided all the anger and damage is if BROWN wouldn't have done what he did. Plain and simple. Blame who is responsible and that's not Officer Wilson or the police department.
Now this is assuming this report is even right and that Officer Wilson's actions were justified - which I'm still not even close to being convinced of.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 20, 2014 13:25:08 GMT -5
I agree that it should have been released sooner (assuming they had Officer Wilson's permission to do so). The part that gets me is even if this is found to be a 100% justified shooting, the police are still going to be blamed. As further details emerge, instead of thinking, "Hey. Maybe this was justified." everybody is STILL looking to find fault with the police department. They did this....they did that....they didn't do this....they didn't do that. What would have avoided all the anger and damage is if BROWN wouldn't have done what he did. Plain and simple. Blame who is responsible and that's not Officer Wilson or the police department. Now this is assuming this report is even right and that Officer Wilson's actions were justified - which I'm still not even close to being convinced of. The officer's permission is a good point. I overlooked that.  |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 20, 2014 13:28:12 GMT -5
I agree that it should have been released sooner (assuming they had Officer Wilson's permission to do so). The part that gets me is even if this is found to be a 100% justified shooting, the police are still going to be blamed. As further details emerge, instead of thinking, "Hey. Maybe this was justified." everybody is STILL looking to find fault with the police department. They did this....they did that....they didn't do this....they didn't do that. What would have avoided all the anger and damage is if BROWN wouldn't have done what he did. Plain and simple. Blame who is responsible and that's not Officer Wilson or the police department. Now this is assuming this report is even right and that Officer Wilson's actions were justified - which I'm still not even close to being convinced of. I agree, but still hold that Brown could be a worthless thug, and the officer still may have acted improperly. I'm fairly close to being thoroughly convinced that the officer is not guilty of anything like murder. Excessive force? Still worth thinking about. Cops don't have to shoot and kill everyone that doesn't comply with their "orders"-- criminal, or not. |
|
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 20, 2014 13:31:51 GMT -5
I want more info, too, Paul. For instance, could he have used a stun gun instead? Did he have the time and opportunity to use less than lethal force? I don't know. We might never know. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,714
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 20, 2014 14:16:51 GMT -5
Still very involved obviously from what he said at the press conference last night. he is still very involved as a talking head. from what i have heard, he is not involved in any way with operations. |
|
tootsieroll
Junior Member
Joined: Feb 26, 2013 8:45:53 GMT -5
Posts: 222 
|
Post by tootsieroll on Aug 20, 2014 14:23:07 GMT -5
If there was information provided from the start - including the officer's possible injuries - I feel that so much of the protesting violence would have been decreased. To me it is looking like Michael Brown was physical with the officer. I just don't know that the officer should have shot to kill him. Of course the police response has been questionable, especially in their detaining of reporters and tear gas and rubber bullets. It is all around a bad situation.
It does remind me on an incident that happened when I was teaching in TX. We had an open campus and the students could eat lunch outside. A resource police officer (who was an armed city officer) was trying to detain a student when all of a sudden the cop was jumped by several students. They did not relent, he fired a warning shot that hit a student in the arm. He did not just keep firing his gun. All it took was one shot to break it all up. As a teacher, I had no idea what had happened other than that there was a shooting and blood. I had to hide kids in my room, fearing for the worst, listening to helicopters above. It was awful. That night, though, there was information in the news, and basically everyone clearly understood that there would be consequences if you jump a cop. Though of course it pales when compared to many school violence incidents.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Aug 20, 2014 14:57:07 GMT -5
I agree with you on this. I'm not defending the police handling of this incident. I'm not even prepared to say for sure that the officer was justified in using deadly force. And I'm appalled at the police response since. That nice black man that was initially assigned, who marched with the protesters and seemed to calm things down for awhile-- you know why he's gone? Because he said the police should stand down. Don't get me wrong on this- I haven't "chosen sides". There are a LOT of issues in play here. Releasing this type of information so far removed from the day of the incident only hurts police credibility. Much like the police releasing the store video the same day they release the name of the officer. Too little and too late. Most of the anger and damage to date could have been avoided. That's why the people have no faith in the police department- whether or not it turns out that the shooting was justified or not- lots of lessons to be learned from this. They need to go back to being police, not faux military 'taking control' of a town- they work for the town- those are their employers walking on their streets, not the other way around. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,928
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 20, 2014 16:52:26 GMT -5
I agree that it should have been released sooner (assuming they had Officer Wilson's permission to do so). The part that gets me is even if this is found to be a 100% justified shooting, the police are still going to be blamed. As further details emerge, instead of thinking, "Hey. Maybe this was justified." everybody is STILL looking to find fault with the police department. They did this....they did that....they didn't do this....they didn't do that. What would have avoided all the anger and damage is if BROWN wouldn't have done what he did. Plain and simple. Blame who is responsible and that's not Officer Wilson or the police department. Now this is assuming this report is even right and that Officer Wilson's actions were justified - which I'm still not even close to being convinced of. The officer's permission is a good point. I overlooked that. If he had eye damage, it would have been quite evident to any number of other police officers and investigators during the initial hours after the shooting. HIPAA does not nor would not apply in that type of situation. Too many people would have seen the injury. Only the hospital that treated the officer for his eye injury would probably have to follow HIPAA guidelines. His insurance provider would also have to follow HIPAA guidelines. Think about it: the officer would surely want it publicly known he was injured during the altercation. It may take some or all of the blame away from him and puts it all on the young man for starting a fight. Hiding behind HIPAA allowing no mention of his injury in this case might make him look guilty to the citizens who would not have that privileged information. And so the protests and riots would probably continue because as far as the protesters know, the officer was not injured. |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Aug 20, 2014 17:29:48 GMT -5
Pretty much all the witnesses saw a scuffle at the car- maybe he got hit by the door? Maybe he punched him in the face- but a bone shattering punch to the eye should have left some evidence on his hands no?, and no evidence of a struggle on the body.
Doesn't really matter- it only matters if he was shot surrendering or not. If he was shot charging the cop then they get to determine if deadly force was appropriate or not, maybe so. If he was not, being previously hit or injured does not give the right to shoot someone fleeing or with their hands up.
The cops really blew it on this- the only question is if that started before of after the shooting. Maybe get the eff out of the street was not the best choice of words- if that what was said- and looking at some of these videos I have no doubt that the original confrontation could be been overly hostile.
Sad part is they had ordered cameras and recorders, just not done anything with them, could have put a quick end to all this. Should be mandatory, and the more firepower and toys you bring into it the more it needs to be recorded- especially SWAT raids/no-knock warrants, etc. We need to reel these guys in- a lot of this is unnecessary bravado. |
|
