The Ferguson, MO Police Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Give it a little time, the 'militarization of the police' agenda will fail, there is no way to go back in time.

However, we can expect a lot of rhetoric about 'weapons of war' and 'militarization of the populace', instead, as part of the general anti-gun diatribe. They may get some traction with that, given the recent inculcation of the concept with the general public, just a way to turn things towards a softer target.
 
"I guess I don't see what's intimidating about black uniforms"
Oh, just that pretty much every abusive enforcement authority in history has eventually adopted black. It's a very psychological decision rooted in making yourself indiscernible by letting your features blend together; makes you a tougher opponent or individual to size up and categorize mentally. Solid contrasting colors also appear larger against a lighter background; the exact opposite of zebra stripes. Combine it with matching eye and headgear, and you are basically facing a pudgy-looking version of The Black Knight :D

Do a Google search on various nations' Secret Police and you'll find something in common...

TCB
 
It would not be the place to argue about free speech or the right to assemble. You can argue that later with an attorney in a court room.
Click to expand...

It’s the mind set of the above quote that is the problem, in my opinion. I see that statement, all too often on this forum. Why is it that when someone exercises their constitutional rights, they should have to “lawyer up” and go bankrupt in the process? Some of us live paycheck to paycheck, through no fault of our own. We can’t afford to “lawyer up” each and every time our constitutional rights get trampled upon, nor should we have to. Our rights should come naturally. I should be able to argue my rights of free speech and assembly any time and any where. I should be able to argue the entire constitution any time and any where, right? I have the right to peaceably protest last time I checked.

But we tuck tail and do what ever our masters in the government tell us to do. Even if we are clearly in the right. So the government sees us tuck tail, and knows they got away with something. So the next time, the government gets a bit bolder. We gave them that first inch years ago, and now they are up to taking miles.
 
Mike38 said:
It would not be the place to argue about free speech or the right to assemble. You can argue that later with an attorney in a court room.
Click to expand...

It’s the mind set of the above quote that is the problem, in my opinion. I see that statement, all too often on this forum. Why is it that when someone exercises their constitutional rights, they should have to “lawyer up” and go bankrupt in the process? Some of us live paycheck to paycheck, through no fault of our own. We can’t afford to “lawyer up” each and every time our constitutional rights get trampled upon, nor should we have to. Our rights should come naturally....
Click to expand...
Except the Constitution (in fact no law) is self-executing.

What the Constitution, our laws, and our system give us are resource and remedies. We can associated with others who think as we do and exercise what political power that association gives us to influence legislation. We have the opportunity to try to join with enough other people we can elect legislators and other public officials who we consider more attuned to our interests. And we can seek redress in court.

We live in a pluralistic, political society, and not everyone thinks as you do. People have varying beliefs, values, needs, wants and fears. People have differing views on the proper role government.

So while you may be pursue the tools the Constitution, our laws and our system give you to promote your vision of how things should be, others will be using those same tools to promote their visions. Their can be no guarantee that your particular vision will prevail.
 
Firemen show up in a red vehicle and in red and or yellow uniforms as a means of being easier to see in traffic and project a sense of urgency.
Click to expand...

And the military doesn't ride around hanging onto the OUTSIDE of armored vehicles with plastic fireman's helmet visors. They also don't spend a lot of time on rubber bullets, flexi-cuffs or tasers.
 
barnbwt said:
Oh, just that pretty much every abusive enforcement authority in history has eventually adopted black. It's a very psychological decision rooted in making yourself indiscernible by letting your features blend together; makes you a tougher opponent or individual to size up and categorize mentally. Solid contrasting colors also appear larger against a lighter background; the exact opposite of zebra stripes. Combine it with matching eye and headgear, and you are basically facing a pudgy-looking version of The Black Knight

Do a Google search on various nations' Secret Police and you'll find something in common...
Click to expand...

I think that's quite a stretch. What color, exactly, would you find unintimidating?

Regardless, there is an actual need for uniforms to be sharp and exhibit command presence. Hard to do that in pink fairy wings.
 
I should be able to argue the entire constitution any time and any where, right?
Click to expand...

If you are arguing with people like us, then sure you can. However if a police officer tells you to disperse or just even move to a different location. You are required by law to do so. Any arguing will more then likely land you in jail. Of course you can argue with your cell mates or the officer at the jail house all you want too. You might even find a lawyer or two in the cell with you to argue with.


I have the right to peaceably protest last time I checked.
Click to expand...

Yes you do, as long as you are not imposing your will on someone else. Or breaking the law in some manner while you do so. Why don't you ask that store owner how he feels about the crowd that broke into his store and looted it. My guess is he would not feel they had a constitutional right to do so. Of course in their minds they did it peacefully which made it alright.
 
Watching from the UK, I am surprised at the use of tear gas its a indiscriminate weapon. They have had riots here that make the disorder in Ferguson, look like a stroll in the park. But I can't remember tear gas being used.
 
I agree Gyvel. Give it time though, I am sure they will eventually spin it in their direction. The times are a changing. :)
 
Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t assaulting a police officer and going for his gun both felonies?
Click to expand...

1) Yes.
2) Even so, that's one person's story. The investigation isn't completed.
3) Even so, once you put your hands up and surrender, it ends. Even in war, shooting surrendering troops is generally a war crime.
3a) Yes, that's another story. The investigation isn't completed.

It's still FAR too early for anybody to draw any conclusions about justified vs. murder.

Whether civilian, police, or military, once the threat is over due to surrender, the shooting should stop... any one of us would be thrown in jail if we kept shooting at that point. I'm eager to see what the conclusion of the investigation is regarding that.
 
Let me ask another question. Assuming Brown did not put his hands up and was fleeing the LEO after he attacked him is that justification for shooting the suspect?
 
"Watching from the UK, I am surprised at the use of tear gas its a indiscriminate weapon. They have had riots here that make the disorder in Ferguson, look like a stroll in the park. But I can't remember tear gas being used."
We don't get riots very often, here, and have had none in St. Louis, historically (I think that's right). So the local authorities are both unused to dealing with this new type of problem, and are overreacting because they assume such drastic unrest is due to some sort of new and uncontrollable animosity. I doubt the latter is the case, but it'd be hard to convince anyone involved of that.

TCB
 
Who says he was surrendering? The accomplice to the robbery and friend of the dead guy? Other people? In a community with an obvious police bias? The officer was beaten. A shot was fired inside the car so the perp was in it. At BEST we have a cop suffering from head trauma and with his ears ringing off the hook from that enclosed shot, stumbling out disoriented. The felon who assaulted him is still there. Even IF he was surrendering ( and I don't believe he was) the officer had 2 seconds to determine that. All he knew was the guy who just tried to kill him is 30 feet from him. If the cop was such an executioner, why didn't he shoot the friend too?

As for the militarization, I'm fine with it. These rioters are shooting and throwing Molotov cocktails. Should we go back to 6 rounds in a revolver and 12 more in belt loops. And as for the reporters working this riot who are arrested or otherwise mistreated by police, I say tough. I've worked more the a few riots. Reporters get right into the thick of it. Have to to get the best story. Riots are confusing places. And they love it anyway. Makes for a better story. One reporter who I have never seen or read anything from had a story in today's Daily News. Had her picture in it and everything. Told a fabulous story of being stopped at gunpoint AFTER curfew. Cop pointed a rifle at her and put her on the pavement and cuffed her. She told him she was with the press and he asked for her press pass, which by her own admission was UNDER her poncho as opposed to outside it where it was supposed to be. He released her. What a story, huh?
 
Most cops I know have no problem with body cams. In small departments I see them being standard. But big city? Amount of cash would be huge. And even if the patrol car had a camera they only run when the lights come on and I doubt this cop would put the lights on to tell 2 people to get out of the street.

And since these two were felons I would bet this cop knew them which is why he probably wouldn't tell 2 kids on their way to the library to move out of the middle of the street. Or do we not want cops to pay more attention to two known felons?

And even if the cop had a body cam that showed he acted right, the rabble rousers and those looting wouldn't care.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top