RE: Rioting is the answer (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 10:28:38 AM)

Is it what "hands up... don't shoot" means? Is there some leader among "the community" that made this request?

===============================
eulero you do know that this story, told by his accomplice has been contradicted by several witnesses. If the word of a accomplice was taken as gospel there would be no one in jail.




mnottertail -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 10:33:38 AM)

We also know that the 'police' side of this has made several disingenuous claims, and have proof of that, which has been cited on this thread.

But it seems to me that they are trampling on the towns peoples first and second amendment rights.




eulero83 -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 10:42:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

No they did it cause they thought they were so bad that nobody, not even the cops, would dare try to stop them. Think about this if Brown would attack a armed police officer for telling him not to walk in the middle of the road, what will he do to a private citizen who honks at him for being there.


probably nothing because the private citizen would just drive away showing his middle finger to Borwn

Not if they are blocking the road.


well I don't want to play this game of "writing fiction", there probably had been more than one car passing by without any incident before the police one, so let's cut this crap.




BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 10:45:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

No they did it cause they thought they were so bad that nobody, not even the cops, would dare try to stop them. Think about this if Brown would attack a armed police officer for telling him not to walk in the middle of the road, what will he do to a private citizen who honks at him for being there.


probably nothing because the private citizen would just drive away showing his middle finger to Borwn

Not if they are blocking the road.


well I don't want to play this game of "writing fiction", there probably had been more than one car passing by without any incident before the police one, so let's cut this crap.

If the cop had turned tail and run then they had been hit by a car what would you be saying. The cop is wrong no matter what he does.




eulero83 -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 10:52:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Is it what "hands up... don't shoot" means? Is there some leader among "the community" that made this request?

===============================
eulero you do know that this story, told by his accomplice has been contradicted by several witnesses. If the word of a accomplice was taken as gospel there would be no one in jail.


I was talking about the slogan the portesters were using

you mean accomplice in the criminal act of jaywalking or running away? say friend instead. But his declaration were also supported by other several witnesses, it is usually enough to arrest someone, can you give the source where those statements of material witnesses supporting the officer's version are reported? Because I know only about a friend of the officer's wife that talked at a radio being in his support, and she was not there but just told she believed him.




BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 10:58:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Is it what "hands up... don't shoot" means? Is there some leader among "the community" that made this request?

===============================
eulero you do know that this story, told by his accomplice has been contradicted by several witnesses. If the word of a accomplice was taken as gospel there would be no one in jail.


I was talking about the slogan the portesters were using

you mean accomplice in the criminal act of jaywalking or running away? say friend instead. But his declaration were also supported by other several witnesses, it is usually enough to arrest someone, can you give the source where those statements of material witnesses supporting the officer's version are reported? Because I know only about a friend of the officer's wife that talked at a radio being in his support, and she was not there but just told she believed him.

The Post dispatch says they have a dozen witnesses who contradict his story.
No I am not counting his friend she wasn't there.
Accomplice in the strong armed robbery (he has admitted to this) don't they tell you anything over there.
As far as it being a slogan they got it from the accomplice.




eulero83 -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 11:09:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

No they did it cause they thought they were so bad that nobody, not even the cops, would dare try to stop them. Think about this if Brown would attack a armed police officer for telling him not to walk in the middle of the road, what will he do to a private citizen who honks at him for being there.


probably nothing because the private citizen would just drive away showing his middle finger to Borwn

Not if they are blocking the road.


well I don't want to play this game of "writing fiction", there probably had been more than one car passing by without any incident before the police one, so let's cut this crap.

If the cop had turned tail and run then they had been hit by a car what would you be saying. The cop is wrong no matter what he does.


With turning tail you mean just give them a warning? Our traffic laws are less car friendly so if a second car hit the boys here the driver would be charged with involountary mayhem or manslaughter, and the cop would not be considered responsible.




BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 11:31:00 AM)

With turning tail you mean just give them a warning? Our traffic laws are less car friendly so if a second car hit the boys here the driver would be charged with involountary mayhem or manslaughter, and the cop would not be considered responsible.

Yes the driver would be charged but we would be hearing if they had been white he would have seen to it they were safe.
A warning? If they had left the road it would have been a verbal warning only.
So it is ok to be stupid and put yourself and drivers in danger as long as you promise not to do it again.
Doubt that you know it but recently a (white) man got seriously beaten by a gang of (black) thugs because he swerved to avoid a man driving down the wrong lane and hit a kid. He got out to help the kid and was attacked even though a blind man could see that not only was it not his fault but he was trying to help the kid. Since he was seriously injured he most likely would have been killed if not for the interference of a (black) woman who confronted the thugs (feeling safe to do so because she had a gun in her pocket. This is the kind of thing that a warning would have invited.




ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 11:40:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

There are some people in this world who just don't like to be told what to do, even if they're told by a police officer. Go figure.

In the real world, that's called tough shit.


A lot of things in the real world amount to "tough shit." What's your point?




How about this Zonie. You get home from work tonight to find a large man living in your home. When you confront him, he knocks you around and tells you to fuck off. You call the police. They interview the man, and tell you that he really likes it here and doesn't like to be told what to do. So rather then remove him, they're going to avoid pressuring him or causing any sort of social tension and just let him stay. Would you be OK with this? Or should the police maybe not give a shit if he doesn't like being told what to do, do their jobs, and get him out of your house?





eulero83 -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 11:50:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

With turning tail you mean just give them a warning? Our traffic laws are less car friendly so if a second car hit the boys here the driver would be charged with involountary mayhem or manslaughter, and the cop would not be considered responsible.

Yes the driver would be charged but we would be hearing if they had been white he would have seen to it they were safe.
A warning? If they had left the road it would have been a verbal warning only.
So it is ok to be stupid and put yourself and drivers in danger as long as you promise not to do it again.
Doubt that you know it but recently a (white) man got seriously beaten by a gang of (black) thugs because he swerved to avoid a man driving down the wrong lane and hit a kid. He got out to help the kid and was attacked even though a blind man could see that not only was it not his fault but he was trying to help the kid. Since he was seriously injured he most likely would have been killed if not for the interference of a (black) woman who confronted the thugs (feeling safe to do so because she had a gun in her pocket. This is the kind of thing that a warning would have invited.


I tell you honestly... all this strictness and violence is quite an aliene concept for me that I can't relate to.




BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 11:58:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

With turning tail you mean just give them a warning? Our traffic laws are less car friendly so if a second car hit the boys here the driver would be charged with involountary mayhem or manslaughter, and the cop would not be considered responsible.

Yes the driver would be charged but we would be hearing if they had been white he would have seen to it they were safe.
A warning? If they had left the road it would have been a verbal warning only.
So it is ok to be stupid and put yourself and drivers in danger as long as you promise not to do it again.
Doubt that you know it but recently a (white) man got seriously beaten by a gang of (black) thugs because he swerved to avoid a man driving down the wrong lane and hit a kid. He got out to help the kid and was attacked even though a blind man could see that not only was it not his fault but he was trying to help the kid. Since he was seriously injured he most likely would have been killed if not for the interference of a (black) woman who confronted the thugs (feeling safe to do so because she had a gun in her pocket. This is the kind of thing that a warning would have invited.


I tell you honestly... all this strictness and violence is quite an aliene concept for me that I can't relate to.

What you don't understand is that when they told the cop what to do with his direction to get out of the middle of the road it became, not the cops insistence to dominate them, but rather, their insistence on dominating him. Again I don't really expect the difference to sink in.




Gauge -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 12:04:59 PM)

This is a fast reply Re: Walking in the middle of the street.

When I was a kid, we were taught in school not to walk in the middle of the street. The reasoning was because it is dangerous and that sidewalks were readily available in most areas. It was made clear that in a battle royal between a human being and a vehicle, the vehicle will win. Being taught these things made me aware of the dangers of being in the middle of the street and if I did do it, I would get off the street if a car was coming. Simple, basic, logical safety.

The way I see it, this situation could go down this way:

1. Brown and friend were walking down the middle of the street. A car was coming, they get to the side and let the car pass and then resume walking.

2. Brown and friend were walking down the middle of the street and saw a cop car coming and they choose not to move. The cop makes a request to get out of the street, Brown and friend listen to the police officer and get out of the street.

3. Brown and friend were walking down the middle of the street and did not care about the fact that cars might come down the street. A cop sees them and asks them to get on the sidewalk. They refuse, the cop asks again, they refuse again, cop gets angry because they are now breaking the law by being in the middle of the street and not yielding to oncoming traffic, cop "escalates" the situation by stopping his vehicle and getting out to make the kids move.

Whether or not a cop was establishing dominance is irrelevant when the easiest, most logical response was to get out of the street when asked to do so. That it got out of control was solely up to Brown and friend. The bottom line is that if a cop asks you to do something, you have a choice, do it or don't do it. If you refuse to do something a cop asks of you and you have a good legal standing to refuse, then that is fine, but it still doesn't mean that the situation will not get worse. If a cop asks you to do something and you are the one in the wrong, then do what they ask.

It boils down to respect for authority and the difference between being reasonable and unreasonable. Every day, kids walk out in front of my car while it is moving and they don't care that they put themselves at risk and me at risk as well for an accident. Driving down a side street and kids walk in the middle of the street and don't get over, don't care and just continue on without regard for the fact that they are not crossing, but using the street as their sidewalk. If I beep my horn at them, they curse and act all tough even though they are wrong.

Tell me something, is it the cop that escalated the situation, or was it Brown and his friend? I am guessing, just based on what I have observed in my town, that the choice was in Brown's and his friend's hands.




ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 12:44:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

With turning tail you mean just give them a warning? Our traffic laws are less car friendly so if a second car hit the boys here the driver would be charged with involountary mayhem or manslaughter, and the cop would not be considered responsible.


So are you honestly trying to say that if a police officer in Europe saw someone doing something illegal, told them to stop, and instead of obeying they started mouthing off to him, that he'd just ignore it and let them go about their business? I find that incredibly hard to believe.




BamaD -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 12:52:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

With turning tail you mean just give them a warning? Our traffic laws are less car friendly so if a second car hit the boys here the driver would be charged with involountary mayhem or manslaughter, and the cop would not be considered responsible.


So are you honestly trying to say that if a police officer in Europe saw someone doing something illegal, told them to stop, and instead of obeying they started mouthing off to him, that he'd just ignore it and let them go about their business? I find that incredibly hard to believe.

Don't know about today but in the 70's I served with a guy who told us how reasonable European cops were. A fellow serviceman was in Germany, cop walked up to him and said something. The serviceman said "What?" and woke up in the hospital. And he was just standing in the wrong place.
Oh yes, the cops were ruled to just be doing their duty.




ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 12:56:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

No criminal charges were brought so no prosecutor found a problem with it. The arbitrator ordered the police force to reinstate the officer with back pay as well so it seems clear it was a clear cut case of self defense and the story being told by the right wing sites is not the whole story.


Wow! That's just amazing. You argue against every shooting, but this one you have no problem with.

By the way, I read several accounts of this, not just on "right wing sites". There was someone who posted the full account of what was said between the two, and the person who was shot was being a racist dick. He deserved to be ticketed, or arrested, for disturbing the peace. Possibly for assault on an officer with the "chest bumping" although at that point no ID had been presented (the officer was off duty and not in uniform).

The shooting itself was reminiscent of one that happened last year, one in which you blasted the shooter. The loud-mouth was in his car, the officer said he thought he was reaching for a weapon and shot him. There was no weapon found. But this was a good shooting to you. In the other incident a man got into an argument with a car-full of young-adults over the volume of their music. The argument got heated. The shooter swore he saw what appeared to be a shotgun being raised from the back-seat, and he fired. No weapon was found. That shooting was a horrible atrocity and the shooter deserved to rot in jail.

So what's the difference Ken?




PeonForHer -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 1:04:24 PM)

quote:

Don't know about today but in the 70's I served with a guy who told us how reasonable European cops were. A fellow serviceman was in Germany, cop walked up to him and said something. The serviceman said "What?" and woke up in the hospital. And he was just standing in the wrong place.
Oh yes, the cops were ruled to just be doing their duty.


I've had Germans tell me that 'you can't talk to German cops like you can British cops'. Different culture. I would expect it to vary a lot from one European country to another. I hear that Dutch cops are more amenable, whereas French cops aren't. Here in Britain, I'd expect the cop to rebuke the kid and if the kid were to take no notice, for him to get arrested. Physical fights between cops and citizens are rare in such minor public order events as this would normally be.




mnottertail -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 1:08:19 PM)

That's them, we're us. And I agree, you don't give Kripo any shit of any kind, and even if you don't know what they want, try to be real helpful.




mnottertail -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 1:18:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Don't know about today but in the 70's I served with a guy who told us how reasonable European cops were. A fellow serviceman was in Germany, cop walked up to him and said something. The serviceman said "What?" and woke up in the hospital. And he was just standing in the wrong place.
Oh yes, the cops were ruled to just be doing their duty.


I've had Germans tell me that 'you can't talk to German cops like you can British cops'. Different culture. I would expect it to vary a lot from one European country to another. I hear that Dutch cops are more amenable, whereas French cops aren't. Here in Britain, I'd expect the cop to rebuke the kid and if the kid were to take no notice, for him to get arrested. Physical fights between cops and citizens are rare in such minor public order events as this would normally be.


There was a time our cops were like your bobbies were, "Cease your obstreperousness, guv, theres a good fellow, move along........."

Now they are more like Germany's Kripo.




cloudboy -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 1:35:01 PM)


St. Louis Public Radio:

Why wasn't the officer arrested at the scene and charged with murder?

Police officers have the authority to use deadly force when it is reasonable and necessary and usually are not second-guessed. Experts could not think of a case when an officer accused of misusing deadly force was arrested at the scene.

“Police are not usually indicted for this,” said David Harris, an expert on policing at Pitt Law School. “In the majority (perhaps great majority of cases), shootings by officers are found to be justified. Officers do have the power to use force, even deadly force, when reasonable and necessary in the performance of their duties, so they get the legal benefit of the doubt.”


Would the video of Brown’s alleged robbery of a convenience store a few minutes before the shooting be presented to the grand jury?

Many protesters were angry at the release of the video of the convenience story robbery.

Yes. McCulloch already has said publicly that he planned to show the store video to the grand jury, and there are no rules of evidence in a grand jury.

“The grand jury is really a tool of the prosecution, although it can provide some sort of check,” said McCormick. “Only the prosecutor may appear, present evidence, examine witnesses and give the grand jury advice on what the law means. There are no rules governing the evidence that the grand jury may be presented or may ask for — so of course the video can be shown to it. It is extremely rare for a grand jury not to return an indictment that the prosecutor wants issued since the prosecutor controls all of the information given.”

She added: “In this case, it might be politically savvy for the St. Louis prosecuting attorney to present an extremely weak case to the grand jury, full of good information about the officer, bad information about the victim, and no information that would suggest the shooting was not justified. That would provide political cover.”




ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Rioting is the answer (8/19/2014 1:44:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Don't know about today but in the 70's I served with a guy who told us how reasonable European cops were. A fellow serviceman was in Germany, cop walked up to him and said something. The serviceman said "What?" and woke up in the hospital. And he was just standing in the wrong place.
Oh yes, the cops were ruled to just be doing their duty.


I've had Germans tell me that 'you can't talk to German cops like you can British cops'. Different culture. I would expect it to vary a lot from one European country to another. I hear that Dutch cops are more amenable, whereas French cops aren't. Here in Britain, I'd expect the cop to rebuke the kid and if the kid were to take no notice, for him to get arrested. Physical fights between cops and citizens are rare in such minor public order events as this would normally be.


And that's reasonable, same thing happens here. It varies from State to State, and sometimes departments within a State. It's generally accepted (whether true or not) that State Police are bigger hard-asses then local jurisdictions.

So what would a British officer do if the citizen escalated a minor public order violation into a real confrontation? Let's say he's trying to get a couple of your soccer hooligans to get out of the middle of the street and they just want to fight. Eulero83 seems to be implying that police in his area would just let it go.




Page: <<   < prev  32 33 [34] 35 36   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125