Fergurson

WalkingWolf said:

Whether Darren committed a criminal act left aside, and just taking his actions on that day, Darren Wilson is an idiot, or a Hero wannabe. He let a known suspect get within inches of him when he had a vehicle to act as a barrier. He had backup coming, within seconds that he was aware of and he did not wait on the backup. After getting his ass handed to him, and feeling like a child against a giant, his own description, HE STILL DOES NOT WAIT FOR BACKUP. If Brown had a knife Wilson would be DEAD, he F-D up, let's throw any hero worship that ignored protocol which helped spark millions in dollars of damage.

Click to expand...

If you really knew what you was talking about you would also know that you were not there therefor without the authority to make a judgement call on Darrin's judgement call.

You.

Were.

Not.

There.

Logan 5 said:

If you really knew what you was talking about you would also know that you were not there therefor without the authority to make a judgement call on Darrin's judgement call.

You.

Were.

Not.

There.

Click to expand...

I will repeat for those slow at or unable to read the transcript, DW WAS THERE. And my stance came from his actual testimony. Just like I told another, either take it up with DW or go pound sand.

garand_guy said:

It's a shame this got taken away from the facts. Either the officer was in fear for his life and the shoot was justified, or it wasn't and he'll be punished. It's no longer about that; it's about the grievances a certain segment of the black population has against the police/government.

Click to expand...

This is only true in the limited venue of a murder trial. Out here, it's entirely appropriate to lay blame beyond strict criminal culpability for murder, and to demand reform from policing practices, policies, training, and mindsets which have been excessive for decades.

This whole thing remains absurd.

1. There is plenty of blame to spread around; blameworthiness is not mutually exclusive. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that Wilson oughtn't be prosecuted for murder, but that he isn't fit for employment and should therefore be fired and barred from future "public service". Law enforcement is no place for wannabe tough-guys.

2. It's entirely plausible – and in fact likely given the ample historical precedent – that the "rioters" in Ferguson are inspired by a core of professional agent provocateurs.

3. And yet, somehow, everyone wants to pick "sides" in this ridiculous boondoggle. But it's a canonical [South Park Season 8, Episode 8] situation; neither gets my vote.

marshaul said:

This whole thing remains absurd.

1. There is plenty of blame to spread around; blameworthiness is not mutually exclusive. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that Wilson oughtn't be prosecuted for murder, but that he isn't fit for employment and should therefore be fired and barred from future "public service". Law enforcement is no place for wannabe tough-guys.

2. It's entirely plausible – and in fact likely given the ample historical precedent – that the "rioters" in Ferguson are inspired by a core of professional agent provocateurs.

3. And yet, somehow, everyone wants to pick "sides" in this ridiculous boondoggle. But it's a canonical [South Park Season 8, Episode 8] situation; neither gets my vote.

Click to expand...

Seriously, I hate having to choose between a **** sandwich and a giant...women's toiletry.

The Boston Massacre wasn't a massacre and was cops acting in their duty against an attack by locals.

To focus this on we are on Brown's side or Wilson's side is to not be focusing on the true problem.

A people who are fed up with the egregious actions of the state and its enforcers who tend to have immunity.

sudden valley gunner said:

The Boston Massacre wasn't a massacre and was cops acting in their duty against an attack by locals.

To focus this on we are on Brown's side or Wilson's side is to not be focusing on the true problem.

A people who are fed up with the egregious actions of the state and its enforcers who tend to have immunity.

Click to expand...

I don't think that people are fed up enough yet .... been this was for over twenty years ...

davidmcbeth said:

I don't think that people are fed up enough yet .... been this was for over twenty years ...

Click to expand...

They are, they are not educated enough to know who the real enemy is.

DW quit and will not receive severance or benefits.

SVG: A people who are fed up with the egregious actions of the state and its enforcers who tend to have immunity.

Click to expand...

This. While DW [strike]may have[/strike] has acted "within" the letter of the RSMo, the mindset behind his act is the foundation of this "fed upedness." The STL County PD top cop stated that a cop does not have a duty to retreat...true, yet the law does not compel him to engage in all situations either.

The STL County PD top cop typifies the mindset...cops will not retreat.

OC for ME said:

DW quit and will not receive severance or benefits.

This. While DW [strike]may have[/strike] has acted "within" the letter of the RSMo, the mindset behind his act is the foundation of this "fed upedness." The STL County PD top cop stated that a cop does not have a duty to retreat...true, yet the law does not compel him to engage in all situations either.

The STL County PD top cop typifies the mindset...cops will not retreat.

Click to expand...

I don't know if he was entitled to any benefits without time in service being met. But if it was met then they realize what a moron DW is. The top cop is refusing to step down, but when elections come around the city council will have no choice. His time in office is limited, he is as big a screw up as Darren Wilson.

While DW did not have duty to retreat he did not have a duty to be an idiot and entice an incident by disregarding proper handling of a dangerous wanted felon. Honestly I think DW wanted to get another hero award and took the risks intentionally. He had to hurry before backup got there else he not be the hero that single handed arrested the cigarillo bandit.

OC for ME said:

This. While DW [strike]may have[/strike] has acted "within" the letter of the RSMo, the mindset behind his act is the foundation of this "fed upedness." The STL County PD top cop stated that a cop does not have a duty to retreat...true, yet the law does not compel him to engage in all situations either.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Nobody thinks that cops should be required to take a beating. Most of us simply tend to feel that we shouldn't hire cops who use their qualified immunity as an excuse to provoke situations with the full expectation of having to resolve at least some of them using lethal force.

Just the other day we had a thread about those chair-wielding women in McDonald's, wherein not a few members were smugly championing an excessive interpretation of the "duty of non-provocation" whereby a citizen should lose his right to self-defense for any provocation whatever, no matter how minor or unintended. Of course, most of these same posters have no problem with cops provoking situations and following up with lethal force in furtherance of their "duty" to enforce laws, the majority of which are unconstitutional and immoral.

Talk about indefensible double standards. If we're gonna have a double standard, the police should be held to a higher standard of conduct. Hell, with this in mind and since police are professional "provokers", it's actually arguable that they shouldn't even be armed when engaging in proactive enforcement.

marshaul said:

Exactly. Nobody thinks that cops should be required to take a beating. Most of us simply tend to feel that we shouldn't hire cops who use their qualified immunity as an excuse to provoke situations with the full expectation of having to resolve at least some of them using lethal force.

Just the other day we had a thread about those chair-wielding women in McDonald's, wherein not a few members were smugly championing an excessive interpretation of the "duty of non-provocation" whereby a citizen should lose his right to self-defense for any provocation whatever, no matter how minor or unintended. Of course, most of these same posters have no problem with cops provoking situations and following up with lethal force in furtherance of their "duty" to enforce laws, the majority of which are unconstitutional and immoral.

Talk about indefensible double standards. If we're gonna have a double standard, the police should be held to a higher standard of conduct. Hell, with this in mind and since police are professional "provokers", it's actually arguable that they shouldn't even be armed when engaging in proactive enforcement.

Click to expand...

Agreed, except me thinks QI was the last thing on DW's mind at that fateful moment in time. But, after the sound of the shots faded and his coworkers began arriving QI crept back into his thoughts...maybe with some help from his comrades.

I would rather, as a nod to the spirit of compromise, that I (we the citizenry) get a say in what standard the cops have to abide by in the first instance. As it stands today I am nothing but a passive reader of the standards after the fact, if they are even promulgated. Other than the "power of our vote" we have little impact on any standard of police conduct...we are just not qualified to know what standards cops should be held to ask any cop, especially a union cop.

marshaul said:

Exactly. Nobody thinks that cops should be required to take a beating. Most of us simply tend to feel that we shouldn't hire cops who use their qualified immunity as an excuse to provoke situations with the full expectation of having to resolve at least some of them using lethal force.

Just the other day we had a thread about those chair-wielding women in McDonald's, wherein not a few members were smugly championing an excessive interpretation of the "duty of non-provocation" whereby a citizen should lose his right to self-defense for any provocation whatever, no matter how minor or unintended. Of course, most of these same posters have no problem with cops provoking situations and following up with lethal force in furtherance of their "duty" to enforce laws, the majority of which are unconstitutional and immoral.

Talk about indefensible double standards. If we're gonna have a double standard, the police should be held to a higher standard of conduct. Hell, with this in mind and since police are professional "provokers", it's actually arguable that they shouldn't even be armed when engaging in proactive enforcement.

Click to expand...

+1

We should at least expect police depts to not hire idiots, and then keep them on after they realize they are dumber than a bag of hammers.

WalkingWolf said:

We should at least expect police depts to not hire idiots, and then keep them on after they realize they are dumber than a bag of hammers.

Click to expand...

Paging Primus...paging Primus...

Well put Wolf! +1

WalkingWolf said:

We should at least expect police depts to not hire idiots, and then keep them on after they realize they are dumber than a bag of hammers.

Click to expand...

I suppose we can also wish upon a falling star and achieve the same results, right?

WalkingWolf said:

We should at least expect police depts to not hire idiots, and then keep them on after they realize they are dumber than a bag of hammers.

Click to expand...

How would they follow orders if they actually think about stuff?

Has anyone ever asked his parents what they thought of that black kid doing a strong-arm robbery like he did?

All of a sudden, just because it's a black kid shot by a white cop, it's holocaust, time to crucify the cop. But, has anypone ever sought the parents views on the video or not?


here I am taking a cop's side, and I hate cops, of all things. Most importantly I hate injustice.
Look at the Dorner incident in LA. When the cops riddled a Hispanic women's truck full of holes, and the Hispanics look nothing like Dorner (in fact their truck was nothing like his, either), I think those cops should have been drawn and quartered.

But in this case we have a black kid acting like a bully. ASK HIS PARENTS ABOUT THAT.
Or is it true that just because he's a black kid, he's exempt from the law? I certainly hope not.

Now let's talk about the little 7 year old girl that was murdered in Philly a few days ago. Where the hells the protest for her? And she's black! Does she have to steal cigarettes as well? Strong arm a businessman? What the hells wrong here? :cuss:

Logan 5 said:

Now let's talk about the little 7 year old girl that was murdered in Philly a few days ago. Where the hells the protest for her? And she's black! Does she have to steal cigarettes as well? Strong arm a businessman? What the hells wrong here? :cuss:

Click to expand...

I really hate to say this kind of thing, but it doesn't fit the narrative. According to the narrative, government and law enforcement can be good, but ours are bad because/to the extent that they are racist.

It seems to never have occurred to many folks that police excess and lack of accountability is a problem of inherency, and this is what allows individual cops the latitude to abuse their power according to their own prejudices, such as (but not limited to) racism against blacks or other ethnic/minority groups.

Of course, it may be that there are more individual cops with prejudice towards blacks than towards whites. But that doesn't mean that individuals (say, long-haired male youths) of every race aren't routinely and unjustly subject to similar prejudice on different grounds. And it doesn't mean that these other cases of prejudice are any less wrong or (individually) damaging for their being less common.

Now, I'm not trying to cry "reverse racism!", because that's not it. Their perspective is skewed not because of a racial bias, but because of a statist bias. Admitting that the problem is deeper than racism is tantamount to conceding that there is an inherent problem with overbearing government, proactive law enforcement, etc. Of course, many of those who benefit the most, politically, from this sort of unrest are not interested in limiting government, but rather are under the delusion that big government might somehow be harnessed to serve their ends.

marshaul said:

I really hate to say this kind of thing, but it doesn't fit the narrative. According to the narrative, government and law enforcement can be good, but ours are bad because/to the extent that they are racist.

Click to expand...

It fits everything- where are the protesters when an innocent child dies? WHERE? No where, that's where. hey aren't truly protesting police abuse, they are looking for anywhere they can act like the vile disgusting savages they truly are (regardless of their color). An innocent child dying because of a remorseless murderous ******* is a far more justified protest than some jack*** that didn't like getting busted for stealing cigarettes.

Though I suppose one of the effects of this incident justifies calling cigarettes "coffin nails".

marshaul said:

Now, I'm not trying to cry "reverse racism!", because that's not it. Their perspective is skewed not because of a racial bias, but because of a statist bias. Admitting that the problem is deeper than racism is tantamount to conceding that there is an inherent problem with overbearing government, proactive law enforcement, etc. Of course, many of those who benefit the most, politically, from this sort of unrest are not interested in limiting government, but rather are under the delusion that big government might somehow be harnessed to serve their ends.

Click to expand...

There is nothing reverse about racism. White against black= racism. Black against white=racism. Nothing reversed about it. It's wrong no matter which way you cut the pie.