|Tigers Johnson| Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 No of course not, I'm talking about on it's head by itself, as the starting point. That's the discussion here because nobody knows what happened outside of eye witnesses people are already assigning higher value to a life irregardless of any facts in the case. Without knowing for sure, I have a feeling police officers are trained that if someone attacks them to assume they are going for their gun.... If I am a cop and I am attacked I can guarantee you I will do what is necessary to make sure I am going home to my children.... I don't know the facts of this case... I wasn't there in the moment... "Eyewitness" accounts have been contradictory at best and some even go completely against the little hard evidence found. The only people reporting things are the media that most already didn't trust anyways... If this is the match that lights the powder keg the media is one of the biggest culprits... When do they get held responsibile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 I already denounced the looting from the onset, but what's wrong with protesting? That is very much within people's rights. At this point it serves no purpose other than to fan the flames. Let the justice system play out. What will be accomplished by more protesting? Do they want the cop handed over to the crowd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 At this point it serves no purpose other than to fan the flames. Let the justice system play out. What will be accomplished by more protesting? Do they want the cop handed over to the crowd? You can't tell people they no longer have a constitutional right because it's inconvenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|SF2| Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Without knowing for sure, I have a feeling police officers are trained that if someone attacks them to assume they are going for their gun.... If I am a cop and I am attacked I can guarantee you I will do what is necessary to make sure I am going home to my children.... I don't know the facts of this case... I wasn't there in the moment... "Eyewitness" accounts have been contradictory at best and some even go completely against the little hard evidence found. The only people reporting things are the media that most already didn't trust anyways... If this is the match that lights the powder keg the media is one of the biggest culprits... When do they get held responsibile? Right now most of the media is praying that the officer involved is cleared of any charges. They couldn't care less whether or not this is the right thing, rather they are hoping for a full blown meltdown much like the Rodney King situation. Based on the actions of the Attorney General of the US and White House, they desperately need the cop to be indicted. The last thing they want is widespread civil disobedience and chaos like what happened in 1968 after MLK was assassinated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 You can't tell people they no longer have a constitutional right because it's inconvenient. This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Right now most of the media is praying that the officer involved is cleared of any charges. They couldn't care less whether or not this is the right thing, rather they are hoping for a full blown meltdown much like the Rodney King situation. Based on the actions of the Attorney General of the US and White House, they desperately need the cop to be indicted. The last thing they want is widespread civil disobedience and chaos like what happened in 1968 after MLK was assassinated. This problem is caused more by income inequality and marginalization of the poor more than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 You can't tell people they no longer have a constitutional right because it's inconvenient. Didn't say they don't have the constitutional right, and I don't know where you get inconvenient from. I said at this point it serves no purpose other than to fan the flames. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Without knowing for sure, I have a feeling police officers are trained that if someone attacks them to assume they are going for their gun.... If I am a cop and I am attacked I can guarantee you I will do what is necessary to make sure I am going home to my children.... I don't know the facts of this case... I wasn't there in the moment... "Eyewitness" accounts have been contradictory at best and some even go completely against the little hard evidence found. The only people reporting things are the media that most already didn't trust anyways... If this is the match that lights the powder keg the media is one of the biggest culprits... When do they get held responsibile? I agree that the witness accounts have been all over the place, thats why I cant say one way or the other if the cop was justified or not. Nobody can. I only have two points here 1. In a town that has shown a statistically abnormal targeting of African Americans, when an unarmed kid is shot people naturally are going to question it, perhaps even protest in asking for answers. 2. There have been reports that he stole cigs, there have been reports that he didnt. None of that matters when discussing whether or not the shooting was justified. So when we start assigning value to anyone's life without knowing the whole story that disturbs me. There have been people in here saying "those kinds" of people deserve to be killed. Nobody deserves to be killed, someone might get killed in a situation like this in response to what may have or may not have happened, but my problem is the ideal that people deserve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 http://www.fox19.com/story/25373338/new-video-gives-insight-into-death-of-samantha-ramsey Anybody familiar with the Samantha Ramsey shooting? Happened in April and still no resolution Where is the outrage? Right next to this country's long & violent history of systematic oppression of the White male majority. It's on the shelf with the widespread discrimination & police brutality against white women. As if the larger issue of militant policing hasn't been front & center through this entire episode, up to & including a statement from the President. Would you like to know why there's no "white history month"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Didn't say they don't have the constitutional right, and I don't know where you get inconvenient from. I said at this point it serves no purpose other than to fan the flames. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. I think often times "fanning the flames" is exactly what protesting is supposed to do.. It's the only legal recourse for redressing grievances with your government that is really available to "the common man".. If you tell people not to protest when they feel the government has massively over stepped it's bounds or behaved inappropriately then when can they protest? Should gun advocacy groups not protest when lawmakers are attempting to pass gun control laws because of a school shooting? After all, it's just getting those "gun nuts" all worked over stuff and "fanning the flames". Should they sit down and just be quiet while "the system works itself out"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 I think often times "fanning the flames" is exactly what protesting is supposed to do.. It's the only legal recourse for redressing grievances with your government that is really available to "the common man".. If you tell people not to protest when they feel the government has massively over stepped it's bounds or behaved inappropriately then when can they protest? Should gun advocacy groups not protest when lawmakers are attempting to pass gun control laws because of a school shooting? After all, it's just getting those "gun nuts" all worked over stuff and "fanning the flames". Should they sit down and just be quiet while "the system works itself out"? Not only that if the local authorities are in question with regard to how they treat the minorities in that town protesting has to happen if only to draw attention to a higher authority to come and investigate the local authorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PatternMaster Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincyInDC Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 he spelled regardless wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 No I didnt shoot a cop at age 18 :ninja: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincyInDC Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 1. you could never be that good of a beardsman. 2. you'd never wear a [spit] cards hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Skins Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/271882111.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand Two St. Louis city police officers shot and killed a 23-year-old man who came within several feet of them brandishing a knife several miles from where unarmed black teen Michael Brown was killed last week in Ferguson, authorities said. Police Chief Sam Dotson told reporters the man responded to officers who told him to drop the knife by saying, "shoot me now. Kill me now." The man had earlier taken energy drinks and a package of pastries from a nearby convenience store and was acting "erratically," Dotson said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 1. you could never be that good of a beardsman. 2. you'd never wear a [spit] cards hat. HA! True on both accounts. (My beard when I grow it is patchy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|SF2| Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 Whatever. Do you really think if this guy had starting rushing toward a cop with BB gun and the cop had his weapon drawn this guy would still be alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 I think often times "fanning the flames" is exactly what protesting is supposed to do.. It's the only legal recourse for redressing grievances with your government that is really available to "the common man".. If you tell people not to protest when they feel the government has massively over stepped it's bounds or behaved inappropriately then when can they protest? Should gun advocacy groups not protest when lawmakers are attempting to pass gun control laws because of a school shooting? After all, it's just getting those "gun nuts" all worked over stuff and "fanning the flames". Should they sit down and just be quiet while "the system works itself out"? There are two problems here. 1. We don't know what happened here so protesting and acting like he was saying hands up don't shoot is the equivalent of writing a false narrative. 2. There isn't anything inherently wrong with protesting, rioting and looting yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 What I am most afraid of is that if cops leave and then leave again my house would be reguardless from individuals trying to hurt me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The PatternMaster Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/joseph-houseman-open-carry_n_5501883.html An armed Michigan man who got into a tense standoff with police last month had his rifle taken away, but authorities gave it back to him the very next day. Joseph Houseman, a 63-year-old "Open Carry" advocate, prompted multiple calls to 911 when he stood in front of a Kalamazoo Dairy Queen with a rifle and shouted at traffic and passersby. At least one 911 caller was concerned that Houseman may have been intoxicated. When police responded to the scene, they found Houseman wearing what appeared to be pajama pants and carrying a rifle. When they tried to talk to him, Houseman gave the middle finger to the officers, grabbed his crotch and shouted about revolution, according to video of the incident obtained by the Kalamazoo Gazette and placed online at MLive.com. A police officer repeatedly asked Houseman to put down his gun so they could talk, but he refused and accused the cop of "acting like a prick" and being in a gang. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQwlfXdDDYA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 I think a huge issue here, if we can set race aside for a moment, is that for whatever reason, the police seem to be literally jumping the gun and shooting people for no damn good reason lately. These cops are also equipped with batons, pepper spray, cuffs, tasers...why are we skipping escalation steps from zero to lethal force? Surely their training dictates some level of using non-lethal force as opposed to shooting at everyone. It's like shooting their pistols at people has become more of a first option instead of a last one. THAT is SCARY to me. It doesn't matter to some people Bung. The guy's size and skin color was reason to skip all that and just do everyone a favor by shooting him 6 times. I mean the cop had his gun drawn, not a taser, so he is justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelWeston Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/joseph-houseman-open-carry_n_5501883.html An armed Michigan man who got into a tense standoff with police last month had his rifle taken away, but authorities gave it back to him the very next day. Joseph Houseman, a 63-year-old "Open Carry" advocate, prompted multiple calls to 911 when he stood in front of a Kalamazoo Dairy Queen with a rifle and shouted at traffic and passersby. At least one 911 caller was concerned that Houseman may have been intoxicated. When police responded to the scene, they found Houseman wearing what appeared to be pajama pants and carrying a rifle. When they tried to talk to him, Houseman gave the middle finger to the officers, grabbed his crotch and shouted about revolution, according to video of the incident obtained by the Kalamazoo Gazette and placed online at MLive.com. A police officer repeatedly asked Houseman to put down his gun so they could talk, but he refused and accused the cop of "acting like a prick" and being in a gang. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQwlfXdDDYA Had he been aggressive toward the cop he would have been shot. It doesn't matter to some people Bung. The guy's size and skin color was reason to skip all that and just do everyone a favor by shooting him 6 times. I mean the cop had his gun drawn, not a taser, so he is justified. It matters that he ran at him. If he ran at him. If he didn't than that matters too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooler Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 It matters that he ran at him. If he ran at him. If he didn't than that matters too. He was unarmed. No weapons at all. No knife. No bat. No gun, nothing. He was stopped for jay walking. He was shot at least 6 times. Unjustifiable. They give cops non lethal weapons for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big_dish Posted August 19, 2014 Report Share Posted August 19, 2014 I dont think it's biased at all, the fact of the matter is that there are multiple stories going on about the incident and none of them are really relevant to whether or not lethal force was necessary. and I disagree. The type of man Brown was or was not, because again there is other evidence showing something entirely different here as to whether or not he stole the cigs, is still entirely irrelevant. The shooting and whether or not it was even necessary is at question the type of person Brown may or may not have been is entirely irrelevant, IF he stole the cigs it doesnt matter, stealing cigs is not a case for the death penalty at all. Further it is not a case for the the response to the protests being overbearing. (A discussion in and of itself). If we want to discuss whether or not Brown ran at the officer, something which is still hearsay, and whether or not the officer had time to make a decision about the need for lethal response, that's a fair discussion, what type of man Brown was is entirely irrelevant. In fact John Oliver says it best here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdHIatS36A and Hearsay But further even if true, we still can discuss whether or not it was necessary, if you dont think a taser can bring down a 250lb man I would beg to differ. You are just so illogically dillusional on the way that things happen in the real world in real time. I literally sometimes wonder if you live in an ecstacy fueled wonderland. Isnt that the question though? Whether or not the cop had time to make that decision. EVERYTHING else is irrelevant. Do you have any idea how fast it takes a normal person to cover 10 yards at full charge? Seconds. Fucking seconds. 10 yards is no distance at at all. You expect this cop to holster his gun, unholster his tazer, aim and deploy? Are you nuts? That sounds like a logical thing to happen to you? Not to mention, this is an enormous man who has already proven to be physically violent. Tazers are not 100% effective, in fact, when drug users are hopped up, they are very unreliable. When a good cops life is at stake, and it is his choice to either live or let some scumbag violent criminal murder him- you think he should let the scumbag murder him. Its unbelievable to me, and likely any rational person, that you accept these things as reality and ideal. Crazy shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.