Ferguson unrest

[Mighty AC]

This officer in Ferguson approaches protesters with rifle shouldered and pointed, plus threatens to kill participants. WTF? I thought these guys would have faced threats from superiors to ensure they were on their best behaviour.

You Tube video comment: "I served in Iraq in '04 and again in '06. We were not allowed to point weapons at people as we walked down the street." Edited August 22, 2014 by Mighty AC

[jacee]

That reminds me, there was a time when 2 cars ran a partially red light, I was one of them. A cop was stopped at the intersection and turned to pursue us. He pulled me over and told me to sit tight, went back to his car and chased the other car. Now how many of you would have taken off, thinking he had no right to tell you what to do, what a dick, etc.

That'd be dumb.

He's got your plate #, knows your address.

I don't get the hatred of cops, I really don't.

Ya well you're not dead like the kid in Ferguson.

Not hatred ... disappointment and disgust.

WE PAY COPS to protect our rights.

When they mess up, they do it on our dime, our time ... to our kids!!

Hands up?

Don't shoot!!

Simple.

Cop had a hissy fit, shot the kid dead.

That's not what we pay cops to do.

.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Cop had a hissy fit, shot the kid dead.

That's not what we pay cops to do.

Yes "we" do....the cop is hired, trained, and sanctioned by government to enforce the law. Real or perceived threats to officers or other citizens can be legally met with both lethal and non-lethal force. Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

[jacee]

Yes "we" do....the cop is hired, trained, and sanctioned by government to enforce the law. Real or perceived threats to officers or other citizens can be legally met with both lethal and non-lethal force. Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Don't they train them not to shoot people with their hands up?

.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes "we" do....the cop is hired, trained, and sanctioned by government to enforce the law. Real or perceived threats to officers or other citizens can be legally met with both lethal and non-lethal force. Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

That's a cute little phrase. Make it up all by yourself? What's it got to do with this case in light of current reports?

[bush_cheney2004]

Don't they train them not to shoot people with their hands up?

.

They are trained to do lots of things, including firearms safety, marksmanship, and force escalation. I can think of several post assault scenarios that would still be met with lethal force even with hands raised up, if only because the perp was not complying with instructions and could readily assault an officer or others again. We don't know exactly what happened between Wilson and Brown...not even those who pretend they do.

[Black Dog]

It has been interesting to see how the argument on this issue has split almost completely along political lines.

Democrat: "bad cops".

Republican: "bad urban youths".

-k

At least liberals are consistent. Republican types claim to distrust government and state interference in individual's affairs....except when it comes to police or national security. Then it's "yes-sir-no-sir-can-I-have-another-sir".

Edited August 22, 2014 by Black Dog

[Boges]

At least liberals are consistent. Republican types claim to distrust government and state interference in individual's affairs....except when it comes to police or national security. Then it's "yes-sir-no-sir-can-I-have-another-sir".

I don't know why stereotypical conservatives are so Pro Cop. They are just civil servants like anyone else. Just look at the goings on in Montreal.

[eyeball]

I don't know why stereotypical conservatives are so Pro Cop.

Ever wonder about the motivations of the kids who gather round and cheer on the bully when they're beating on someone weaker? I think fewer right-wingers grow out of that than left-wingers.

It's probably a heart vs brain thing.

That probably goes for the guvmint pushing it's weight around the global cat-walk too. It's all good.

Edited August 22, 2014 by eyeball

[Black Dog]

I don't know why stereotypical conservatives are so Pro Cop. They are just civil servants like anyone else. Just look at the goings on in Montreal.

I think it appeals to people with a manichean view of the world where the good guys all wear white hats and the the baddies all are black guys wear black.

A lot of the best work on exposing the militarization of police and the abuses of power that result have been done by libertarians, so there are plenty on the right who don't fit the mold.

[sharkman]

Yes "we" do....the cop is hired, trained, and sanctioned by government to enforce the law. Real or perceived threats to officers or other citizens can be legally met with both lethal and non-lethal force. Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

It's funny how the media has driven the Ferguson story. You can tell what agenda they generally have and push whenever something like this comes up. Anyway, apparently many of the protesters were from out of town. One Texan got himself arrested and released 3 times.

[sharkman]

I don't know why stereotypical conservatives are so Pro Cop. They are just civil servants like anyone else. Just look at the goings on in Montreal.

I don't think conservatives are pro cop so much as pro law and order, which is what our societies are based on. The idea behind a police force and justice system is training up citizens to keep the laws so that people's rights and freedoms are maintained. Sure there are bad cops, but some on the left think this means that the policing system is broken. A few youtube videos showing bad cops doesn't prove anything except that we the people are capable of breaking down in ANY vocation we choose.

Speaking of videos, it appears that BC's attempt at showing a Chris Rock video earlier didn't work? Here is the link to a video that if done by a white man, would have probably ended his career.

Edited August 22, 2014 by sharkman

[PIK]

Sometimes you surprise PIK, maybe you're not just one of the many geeks the CPC pays to comment on social media. I've actually met one of the CPC social media geek brigade. Can you imagine getting paid, full time, to comment on news stories and boards like this? What a dream job.

That would be a dream job, but I am far from a geek. lol

[guyser]

That reminds me, there was a time when 2 cars ran a partially red light, I was one of them.

Whats a partial red light? Is only the bottom red and the rest green?

To be honest? The moment the cop drove away one can leave unless he has your DL insurance and ownership. I would have. He likely wouldnt be able to make anything stick if he cam back later and gave a ticket.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's funny how the media has driven the Ferguson story. You can tell what agenda they generally have and push whenever something like this comes up. Anyway, apparently many of the protesters were from out of town. One Texan got himself arrested and released 3 times.

Yes...this narrative is repeated over and over. The "guest" protesters and anarchists would prefer a larger setting than Ferguson, as this makes for greater media coverage of the unrest/riots(s). Ferguson is a second tier suburb of St.Louis, not far from the northern beltway that rings a lot of larger Midwest cities. The non-story that is not getting a lot of attention is the relative calm in nearby St.Louis and East St.Louis, with far greater "urban" populations and potential for wider unrest.

On balance, what happened in Ferguson is only about a 3.7 on the riot Richter scale. Let the process play out and see where it ends.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't think conservatives are pro cop so much as pro law and order, which is what our societies are based on. The idea behind a police force and justice system is training up citizens to keep the laws so that people's rights and freedoms are maintained.....

Agreed....I have little confidence in what extremist liberals and anarchists propose as an alternative to a local, state, and federal police force. The majority of citizens support law enforcement, even when it has bad actors or outcomes.

[Shady]

Apparently not being for guilty until proven innocent is now classified as "pro-cop".

Absurd.

[Black Dog]

I don't think conservatives are pro cop so much as pro law and order, which is what our societies are based on. The idea behind a police force and justice system is training up citizens to keep the laws so that people's rights and freedoms are maintained. Sure there are bad cops, but some on the left think this means that the policing system is broken. A few youtube videos showing bad cops doesn't prove anything except that we the people are capable of breaking down in ANY vocation we choose.

Bad cops happen anywhere, but there's ample evidence the policing and justice system in the U.S. in particular is broken. No YouTube required. So focusing on bad cops and shrugging off the rest is either simple ignorance or willful blindness to the shortcomings of the system

[BubberMiley]

Apparently not being for guilty until proven innocent is now classified as "pro-cop".

Absurd.

Not being for guilty until proven innocent? But yesterday all you needed was fake x-rays of the cop's eye to convict Brown and lol at his death.

[Shady]

Not being for guilty until proven innocent? But yesterday all you needed was fake x-rays of the cop's eye to convict Brown and lol at his death.

I didn't convict Brown of anything, aside from robbery in which his friend admitted to.

[Hal 9000]

Not being for guilty until proven innocent? But yesterday all you needed was fake x-rays of the cop's eye to convict Brown and lol at his death.

But, you guys will convict this cop based on the ever changing story of a petty criminal. Just because somebody unconnected to the case posted fake X-rays, doesn't mean the cop is guilty.

I'm waiting for the facts; the ballistics, the forensics and the witnesses. And, I'm pretty sure that will prove Wilson's side of the story.

[Black Dog]

Apparently not being for guilty until proven innocent is now classified as "pro-cop".

Absurd.

But, you guys will convict this cop based on the ever changing story of a petty criminal. Just because somebody unconnected to the case posted fake X-rays, doesn't mean the cop is guilty.

Such a massive amount of bullshit here. It is not within our power to convict or acquit Wilson. We are just internet posters after all. We are entitled to speculate and form opinions based on what we do know, as you have.

I'm waiting for the facts; the ballistics, the forensics and the witnesses. And, I'm pretty sure that will prove Wilson's side of the story.

You've already formed an opinion about the events and expect the evidence to prove you right, which is no different than what anyone else here as done. Get off the high horse.

[Hal 9000]

Such a massive amount of bullshit here. It is not within our power to convict or acquit Wilson. We are just internet posters after all. We are entitled to speculate and form opinions based on what we do know, as you have.

You've already formed an opinion about the events and expect the evidence to prove you right, which is no different than what anyone else here as done. Get off the high horse.

I'm forming an opinion (an opinion that actually, has changed), which is a lot less than the knee-jerk reaction of the "hands up" crowd. Most of the anti-cop/anti-Wilson group made the mistake of jumping in with both feet and are now tied to their position.

[Black Dog]

I'm forming an opinion (an opinion that actually, has changed), which is a lot less than the knee-jerk reaction of the "hands up" crowd.

Regardless, holding a (possibly) incorrect opinion is not the same as convicting someone. It's called being wrong.

Most of the anti-cop/anti-Wilson group made the mistake of jumping in with both feet and are now tied to their position.

Most, eh? Who, exactly?

[Gumby]

Quick hijack here, as the issue largely pertains to reasonable expectation of harm - i.e. self defense or defense of others perceived to be under mortal threat......

Say I was one of the people in Ferguson who'd had the weapon pointed at us by a man stating that he would kill us. Do we give up the right of self-defense in that case simply because the shooter is a cop??

If the reasonable expectation of threat does not also apply to threat from a civil servant, specifically a police officer, then by definition we have become a police state. How about if you point a shotgun in my face and state that "you're going to fucking kill me" and I shoot you dead, white or black, cop or thug?

It would seem that we have elevated the police over the rights of other citizens, no? I hear no outrage and also silent are those who would argue for absolute right of self-defense from mortal threat. While it may be argued that this is necessary to maintain control in a civil society, I could argue that historical increases in crime coupled with rising police presence would prove this to be patently and provably false.

Following this logic, why is there no discussion about the perceived threat on Mr. Brown's life? Does he forfeit rights of self-preservation simply because his assailant is a government gunman as opposed to a private gunman? I would ask if Mr. Brown had a real reason to act in self-defense, and given the principle of perceived threat I would feel him justified for opening fire on the officer in self defense.

It appears that the officer fired first, so any logical person would perceive this as a mortal threat on Mr. Brown's life. I for one do not abandon my right of self-preservation simply because my assailant is a civil servant, especially in a climate where murder by gov't employee is a known occasional occurrence.

Edited August 22, 2014 by Gumby