Michael Brown Shooting

17778798082

Comments

  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 5,514
    rgambs said:

    rr165892 said:

    rgambs said:

    There are 81 pages in this thread. Not a chance I flip through them to show that. But at one point or another over the past year, I have read every post in this thread. So I am 100% positive I could find posts defending Brown and his actions. And for the record, I consider someone saying he didn't deserve to be shot defending his actions. He assaulted a cop. If you think he doesn't deserve to be shot, you're defending his actions.

    That sounds batshit crazy.
    Of course assaulting a cop is about the dumbest thing you can do, and is likely to lead to getting shot, but you think assaulting a cop makes someone deserve to be shot? That's nuts.
    Yes
    Opinions like that are the hallmark of places like North Korea, USSR, Maoist China, Nazi Germany.
    This is America and we have a Constitution, it's supposed to protect us against unreasonable search and seizure, state supression of free speech, and cruel and unusual punishment, all of which are being advocated by those defending police actions.
    You seem to be advocating for lawlessness and rule of will. Very odd. The Constitution you referenced created a framework for laws. We have laws in place for a reason. If one chooses to break those laws there are consequences. If one chooses to assault anyone who has a weapon, they should, just out of common sense, expect to feel the impact of that weapon. If one chooses to assault a law enforcement officer, feeling the sting of a bullet doesn't seem an unreasonable or unexpected outcome. I really can't understand what you're advocating, other than neutering laws, and absolving bad behavior. And throwing out Nazi references is a sure sign that this thread may have reached an impasse. Nobody is advocating for the cops to violate illegal search and seizure. Brown was at the very least jaywalking and creating a nuisance in the street. Nobody is advocating for the supression of free speech - I don't even know what you're referencing here. Nobody is advocating for cruel and unusual punishment. Brown taking the bullet had nothing to do with administered punishment. Brown caused Wilson to fear for his safety, which led to the initial struggle in the car, and Brown was clearly a threat to public safety after he resisted arrest and started fleeing. You are way off base in your analysis. I usually see your points even when I sometimes disagree with them, but this post of yours seems to be way out in left field.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,250
    edited August 2015
    jeffbr said:

    rgambs said:

    rr165892 said:

    rgambs said:

    There are 81 pages in this thread. Not a chance I flip through them to show that. But at one point or another over the past year, I have read every post in this thread. So I am 100% positive I could find posts defending Brown and his actions. And for the record, I consider someone saying he didn't deserve to be shot defending his actions. He assaulted a cop. If you think he doesn't deserve to be shot, you're defending his actions.

    That sounds batshit crazy.
    Of course assaulting a cop is about the dumbest thing you can do, and is likely to lead to getting shot, but you think assaulting a cop makes someone deserve to be shot? That's nuts.
    Yes
    Opinions like that are the hallmark of places like North Korea, USSR, Maoist China, Nazi Germany.
    This is America and we have a Constitution, it's supposed to protect us against unreasonable search and seizure, state supression of free speech, and cruel and unusual punishment, all of which are being advocated by those defending police actions.
    You seem to be advocating for lawlessness and rule of will. Very odd. The Constitution you referenced created a framework for laws. We have laws in place for a reason. If one chooses to break those laws there are consequences. If one chooses to assault anyone who has a weapon, they should, just out of common sense, expect to feel the impact of that weapon. If one chooses to assault a law enforcement officer, feeling the sting of a bullet doesn't seem an unreasonable or unexpected outcome. I really can't understand what you're advocating, other than neutering laws, and absolving bad behavior. And throwing out Nazi references is a sure sign that this thread may have reached an impasse. Nobody is advocating for the cops to violate illegal search and seizure. Brown was at the very least jaywalking and creating a nuisance in the street. Nobody is advocating for the supression of free speech - I don't even know what you're referencing here. Nobody is advocating for cruel and unusual punishment. Brown taking the bullet had nothing to do with administered punishment. Brown caused Wilson to fear for his safety, which led to the initial struggle in the car, and Brown was clearly a threat to public safety after he resisted arrest and started fleeing. You are way off base in your analysis. I usually see your points even when I sometimes disagree with them, but this post of yours seems to be way out in left field.
    This post is in the broader context of the policing discussions that have been occuring on these boards; in which people have absolutely advocated and defended unreasonable search and seizure by saying police shouldn't need a reason to search and seize, regardless of the legality of their motives; suppression and punishment of free speech in defiance of police authority; and are now advocating for cruel and unusual punishment and due process by stating that those who assault police deserve to be killed.

    I don't know where you see me advocating lawlessness, people who break the law MUST face consequences, but it should be under the due process of llaw.. I understand that safety of the officer and the public is the number one priority. I have stated plenty of times that assaulting an officer is stupid and getting shot is the likely outcome. Many of the arguments have been disargreements on what is the appropriate use of discretion in use of force, and that is fine, but many of the arguments have also features opinions not on the discretion of force, but on the very need of discretion in use of force in the first place! That is troubling and is absolutely reminiscent of the societies that have tolerated authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.

    Post edited by rgambs on
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SCPosts: 8,661
    edited August 2015
    rgambs said:

    rgambs said:

    rr165892 said:

    rgambs said:

    There are 81 pages in this thread. Not a chance I flip through them to show that. But at one point or another over the past year, I have read every post in this thread. So I am 100% positive I could find posts defending Brown and his actions. And for the record, I consider someone saying he didn't deserve to be shot defending his actions. He assaulted a cop. If you think he doesn't deserve to be shot, you're defending his actions.

    That sounds batshit crazy.
    Of course assaulting a cop is about the dumbest thing you can do, and is likely to lead to getting shot, but you think assaulting a cop makes someone deserve to be shot? That's nuts.
    Yes
    Opinions like that are the hallmark of places like North Korea, USSR, Maoist China, Nazi Germany.
    This is America and we have a Constitution, it's supposed to protect us against unreasonable search and seizure, state supression of free speech, and cruel and unusual punishment, all of which are being advocated by those defending police actions.
    we also have laws and law enforcement to protect us from those of us will inflect harm on us
    so if a person choses to live aginst the law then they have to accept what comes with it and he knew the laws well enough to know what he was doing was wrong and you can't tell me he was not aware of the possible outcome, I'm sure he thought he could bully his way out of anything but he was wrong and paid the ultamate price.... that's very blunt but very true.

    Godfather.

    He knew it was wrong, and it's one of the most idiotic things a person can do, but that isn't the same thing as deserving of being killed.
    You cant give Police the authority to shoot people and expect them not to shoot someone when their life is in danger. What's idiotic is thinking someone can reach into a police car and start punching a cop and think your not going to get shot. What the hell are we still debating this for? There is a reason darren wilson isn't facing criminal charges. He didn't break any laws. Unlike brown. Who broke several in the moments leading up to him getting shot.
    Post edited by Last-12-Exit on
    Jealousy is ugly.
    Elistist Fucking Asshole.

    Mine is mine and yours won't take its place.

    Noblesville 8-17-98
    Jacksonville 11-25-12 EV
    Charlotte 10-30-13
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 5,514
    rgambs said:

    jeffbr said:

    rgambs said:

    rr165892 said:

    rgambs said:

    There are 81 pages in this thread. Not a chance I flip through them to show that. But at one point or another over the past year, I have read every post in this thread. So I am 100% positive I could find posts defending Brown and his actions. And for the record, I consider someone saying he didn't deserve to be shot defending his actions. He assaulted a cop. If you think he doesn't deserve to be shot, you're defending his actions.

    That sounds batshit crazy.
    Of course assaulting a cop is about the dumbest thing you can do, and is likely to lead to getting shot, but you think assaulting a cop makes someone deserve to be shot? That's nuts.
    Yes
    Opinions like that are the hallmark of places like North Korea, USSR, Maoist China, Nazi Germany.
    This is America and we have a Constitution, it's supposed to protect us against unreasonable search and seizure, state supression of free speech, and cruel and unusual punishment, all of which are being advocated by those defending police actions.
    You seem to be advocating for lawlessness and rule of will. Very odd. The Constitution you referenced created a framework for laws. We have laws in place for a reason. If one chooses to break those laws there are consequences. If one chooses to assault anyone who has a weapon, they should, just out of common sense, expect to feel the impact of that weapon. If one chooses to assault a law enforcement officer, feeling the sting of a bullet doesn't seem an unreasonable or unexpected outcome. I really can't understand what you're advocating, other than neutering laws, and absolving bad behavior. And throwing out Nazi references is a sure sign that this thread may have reached an impasse. Nobody is advocating for the cops to violate illegal search and seizure. Brown was at the very least jaywalking and creating a nuisance in the street. Nobody is advocating for the supression of free speech - I don't even know what you're referencing here. Nobody is advocating for cruel and unusual punishment. Brown taking the bullet had nothing to do with administered punishment. Brown caused Wilson to fear for his safety, which led to the initial struggle in the car, and Brown was clearly a threat to public safety after he resisted arrest and started fleeing. You are way off base in your analysis. I usually see your points even when I sometimes disagree with them, but this post of yours seems to be way out in left field.
    This post is in the broader context of the policing discussions that have been occuring on these boards; in which people have absolutely advocated and defended unreasonable search and seizure by saying police shouldn't need a reason to search and seize, regardless of the legality of their motives; suppression and punishment of free speech in defiance of police authority; and are now advocating for cruel and unusual punishment and due process by stating that those who assault police deserve to be killed.

    I don't know where you see me advocating lawlessness, people who break the law MUST face consequences, but it should be under the due process of llaw.. I understand that safety of the officer and the public is the number one priority. I have stated plenty of times that assaulting an officer is stupid and getting shot is the likely outcome. Many of the arguments have been disargreements on what is the appropriate use of discretion in use of force, and that is fine, but many of the arguments have also features opinions not on the discretion of force, but on the very need of discretion in use of force in the first place! That is troubling and is absolutely reminiscent of the societies that have tolerated authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.

    Thanks for the clarification. I was assuming a narrower context as it related to the Michael Brown thread, which is where I had a disconnect with what you were saying. I am a big proponent of fighting for our 4th amendment freedoms, and am with you on most of that. I am opposed to cops stopping and searching without cause, and am opposed to our current, and the past administrations' use of the patriot act to circumvent our Constitutional rights. So we're not far off. We disagree about what it means when some of us say Michael Brown got what he deserved. I do not see any violation of his due process (that is something he forfeited when he attacked a police officer), or see cruel and unusual punishment in his shooting. Again, that shooting was not punishment, it was consequence of the attack. It was the culmination of a highly charged chain of events, and Brown himself had a large role in the course that chain of events took. I see the shooting as a consequence of Brown's actions, and you see it as cruel and unusual punishment, somehow absolving Brown of his role. At any time he had the choice to comply, which would/should have secured his right to due process, and kept him free from cruel and unusual punishment. He determined, by his willingness to break our social contract, that he had no use for those things, and thought he was above them.

    But my thoughts here are specifically about Michael Brown. In general, as I said, I am very much a proponent of liberty and constitutional protections. I am a proponent of rule of law. I am a proponent of people being able to do whatever they like as long as they don't stomp on the rights of others. I am neither pro- nor anti-police. They serve a function, and if they do it properly, society benefits from their service. If they don't, we all lose. In this specific case, since it is the Michael Brown thread, I was responding to the narrow context of this thread and place the preponderance of the responsibility for the outcome on Brown himself.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SCPosts: 8,661
    jeffbr said:

    rgambs said:

    jeffbr said:

    rgambs said:

    rr165892 said:

    rgambs said:

    There are 81 pages in this thread. Not a chance I flip through them to show that. But at one point or another over the past year, I have read every post in this thread. So I am 100% positive I could find posts defending Brown and his actions. And for the record, I consider someone saying he didn't deserve to be shot defending his actions. He assaulted a cop. If you think he doesn't deserve to be shot, you're defending his actions.

    That sounds batshit crazy.
    Of course assaulting a cop is about the dumbest thing you can do, and is likely to lead to getting shot, but you think assaulting a cop makes someone deserve to be shot? That's nuts.
    Yes
    Opinions like that are the hallmark of places like North Korea, USSR, Maoist China, Nazi Germany.
    This is America and we have a Constitution, it's supposed to protect us against unreasonable search and seizure, state supression of free speech, and cruel and unusual punishment, all of which are being advocated by those defending police actions.
    You seem to be advocating for lawlessness and rule of will. Very odd. The Constitution you referenced created a framework for laws. We have laws in place for a reason. If one chooses to break those laws there are consequences. If one chooses to assault anyone who has a weapon, they should, just out of common sense, expect to feel the impact of that weapon. If one chooses to assault a law enforcement officer, feeling the sting of a bullet doesn't seem an unreasonable or unexpected outcome. I really can't understand what you're advocating, other than neutering laws, and absolving bad behavior. And throwing out Nazi references is a sure sign that this thread may have reached an impasse. Nobody is advocating for the cops to violate illegal search and seizure. Brown was at the very least jaywalking and creating a nuisance in the street. Nobody is advocating for the supression of free speech - I don't even know what you're referencing here. Nobody is advocating for cruel and unusual punishment. Brown taking the bullet had nothing to do with administered punishment. Brown caused Wilson to fear for his safety, which led to the initial struggle in the car, and Brown was clearly a threat to public safety after he resisted arrest and started fleeing. You are way off base in your analysis. I usually see your points even when I sometimes disagree with them, but this post of yours seems to be way out in left field.
    This post is in the broader context of the policing discussions that have been occuring on these boards; in which people have absolutely advocated and defended unreasonable search and seizure by saying police shouldn't need a reason to search and seize, regardless of the legality of their motives; suppression and punishment of free speech in defiance of police authority; and are now advocating for cruel and unusual punishment and due process by stating that those who assault police deserve to be killed.

    I don't know where you see me advocating lawlessness, people who break the law MUST face consequences, but it should be under the due process of llaw.. I understand that safety of the officer and the public is the number one priority. I have stated plenty of times that assaulting an officer is stupid and getting shot is the likely outcome. Many of the arguments have been disargreements on what is the appropriate use of discretion in use of force, and that is fine, but many of the arguments have also features opinions not on the discretion of force, but on the very need of discretion in use of force in the first place! That is troubling and is absolutely reminiscent of the societies that have tolerated authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.

    Thanks for the clarification. I was assuming a narrower context as it related to the Michael Brown thread, which is where I had a disconnect with what you were saying. I am a big proponent of fighting for our 4th amendment freedoms, and am with you on most of that. I am opposed to cops stopping and searching without cause, and am opposed to our current, and the past administrations' use of the patriot act to circumvent our Constitutional rights. So we're not far off. We disagree about what it means when some of us say Michael Brown got what he deserved. I do not see any violation of his due process (that is something he forfeited when he attacked a police officer), or see cruel and unusual punishment in his shooting. Again, that shooting was not punishment, it was consequence of the attack. It was the culmination of a highly charged chain of events, and Brown himself had a large role in the course that chain of events took. I see the shooting as a consequence of Brown's actions, and you see it as cruel and unusual punishment, somehow absolving Brown of his role. At any time he had the choice to comply, which would/should have secured his right to due process, and kept him free from cruel and unusual punishment. He determined, by his willingness to break our social contract, that he had no use for those things, and thought he was above them.

    But my thoughts here are specifically about Michael Brown. In general, as I said, I am very much a proponent of liberty and constitutional protections. I am a proponent of rule of law. I am a proponent of people being able to do whatever they like as long as they don't stomp on the rights of others. I am neither pro- nor anti-police. They serve a function, and if they do it properly, society benefits from their service. If they don't, we all lose. In this specific case, since it is the Michael Brown thread, I was responding to the narrow context of this thread and place the preponderance of the responsibility for the outcome on Brown himself.
    Spot on accurate. This is where the Michael Brown debate ends.
    Jealousy is ugly.
    Elistist Fucking Asshole.

    Mine is mine and yours won't take its place.

    Noblesville 8-17-98
    Jacksonville 11-25-12 EV
    Charlotte 10-30-13
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504

    jeffbr said:

    rgambs said:

    jeffbr said:

    rgambs said:

    rr165892 said:

    rgambs said:

    There are 81 pages in this thread. Not a chance I flip through them to show that. But at one point or another over the past year, I have read every post in this thread. So I am 100% positive I could find posts defending Brown and his actions. And for the record, I consider someone saying he didn't deserve to be shot defending his actions. He assaulted a cop. If you think he doesn't deserve to be shot, you're defending his actions.

    That sounds batshit crazy.
    Of course assaulting a cop is about the dumbest thing you can do, and is likely to lead to getting shot, but you think assaulting a cop makes someone deserve to be shot? That's nuts.
    Yes
    Opinions like that are the hallmark of places like North Korea, USSR, Maoist China, Nazi Germany.
    This is America and we have a Constitution, it's supposed to protect us against unreasonable search and seizure, state supression of free speech, and cruel and unusual punishment, all of which are being advocated by those defending police actions.
    You seem to be advocating for lawlessness and rule of will. Very odd. The Constitution you referenced created a framework for laws. We have laws in place for a reason. If one chooses to break those laws there are consequences. If one chooses to assault anyone who has a weapon, they should, just out of common sense, expect to feel the impact of that weapon. If one chooses to assault a law enforcement officer, feeling the sting of a bullet doesn't seem an unreasonable or unexpected outcome. I really can't understand what you're advocating, other than neutering laws, and absolving bad behavior. And throwing out Nazi references is a sure sign that this thread may have reached an impasse. Nobody is advocating for the cops to violate illegal search and seizure. Brown was at the very least jaywalking and creating a nuisance in the street. Nobody is advocating for the supression of free speech - I don't even know what you're referencing here. Nobody is advocating for cruel and unusual punishment. Brown taking the bullet had nothing to do with administered punishment. Brown caused Wilson to fear for his safety, which led to the initial struggle in the car, and Brown was clearly a threat to public safety after he resisted arrest and started fleeing. You are way off base in your analysis. I usually see your points even when I sometimes disagree with them, but this post of yours seems to be way out in left field.
    This post is in the broader context of the policing discussions that have been occuring on these boards; in which people have absolutely advocated and defended unreasonable search and seizure by saying police shouldn't need a reason to search and seize, regardless of the legality of their motives; suppression and punishment of free speech in defiance of police authority; and are now advocating for cruel and unusual punishment and due process by stating that those who assault police deserve to be killed.

    I don't know where you see me advocating lawlessness, people who break the law MUST face consequences, but it should be under the due process of llaw.. I understand that safety of the officer and the public is the number one priority. I have stated plenty of times that assaulting an officer is stupid and getting shot is the likely outcome. Many of the arguments have been disargreements on what is the appropriate use of discretion in use of force, and that is fine, but many of the arguments have also features opinions not on the discretion of force, but on the very need of discretion in use of force in the first place! That is troubling and is absolutely reminiscent of the societies that have tolerated authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.

    Thanks for the clarification. I was assuming a narrower context as it related to the Michael Brown thread, which is where I had a disconnect with what you were saying. I am a big proponent of fighting for our 4th amendment freedoms, and am with you on most of that. I am opposed to cops stopping and searching without cause, and am opposed to our current, and the past administrations' use of the patriot act to circumvent our Constitutional rights. So we're not far off. We disagree about what it means when some of us say Michael Brown got what he deserved. I do not see any violation of his due process (that is something he forfeited when he attacked a police officer), or see cruel and unusual punishment in his shooting. Again, that shooting was not punishment, it was consequence of the attack. It was the culmination of a highly charged chain of events, and Brown himself had a large role in the course that chain of events took. I see the shooting as a consequence of Brown's actions, and you see it as cruel and unusual punishment, somehow absolving Brown of his role. At any time he had the choice to comply, which would/should have secured his right to due process, and kept him free from cruel and unusual punishment. He determined, by his willingness to break our social contract, that he had no use for those things, and thought he was above them.

    But my thoughts here are specifically about Michael Brown. In general, as I said, I am very much a proponent of liberty and constitutional protections. I am a proponent of rule of law. I am a proponent of people being able to do whatever they like as long as they don't stomp on the rights of others. I am neither pro- nor anti-police. They serve a function, and if they do it properly, society benefits from their service. If they don't, we all lose. In this specific case, since it is the Michael Brown thread, I was responding to the narrow context of this thread and place the preponderance of the responsibility for the outcome on Brown himself.
    Spot on accurate. This is where the Michael Brown debate ends.
    in a big way...awesome post.

    Godfather.

    it dosen't matter to me what a man dose for a living you understand..
    as long as his interest's don't conflict with mine.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,250

    rgambs said:

    rgambs said:

    rr165892 said:

    rgambs said:

    There are 81 pages in this thread. Not a chance I flip through them to show that. But at one point or another over the past year, I have read every post in this thread. So I am 100% positive I could find posts defending Brown and his actions. And for the record, I consider someone saying he didn't deserve to be shot defending his actions. He assaulted a cop. If you think he doesn't deserve to be shot, you're defending his actions.

    That sounds batshit crazy.
    Of course assaulting a cop is about the dumbest thing you can do, and is likely to lead to getting shot, but you think assaulting a cop makes someone deserve to be shot? That's nuts.
    Yes
    Opinions like that are the hallmark of places like North Korea, USSR, Maoist China, Nazi Germany.
    This is America and we have a Constitution, it's supposed to protect us against unreasonable search and seizure, state supression of free speech, and cruel and unusual punishment, all of which are being advocated by those defending police actions.
    we also have laws and law enforcement to protect us from those of us will inflect harm on us
    so if a person choses to live aginst the law then they have to accept what comes with it and he knew the laws well enough to know what he was doing was wrong and you can't tell me he was not aware of the possible outcome, I'm sure he thought he could bully his way out of anything but he was wrong and paid the ultamate price.... that's very blunt but very true.

    Godfather.

    He knew it was wrong, and it's one of the most idiotic things a person can do, but that isn't the same thing as deserving of being killed.
    You cant give Police the authority to shoot people and expect them not to shoot someone when their life is in danger. What's idiotic is thinking someone can reach into a police car and start punching a cop and think your not going to get shot. What the hell are we still debating this for? There is a reason darren wilson isn't facing criminal charges. He didn't break any laws. Unlike brown. Who broke several in the moments leading up to him getting shot.
    I'm not disputing the MB case, I think Wilson used an excessive amount of force, but I think MB pushed it to the point where Wilson's discretion became beyond reproach, at least legally.

    I took issue with the notion that assaulting an officer means you deserve to be shot.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • jeffbr said:

    rgambs said:

    jeffbr said:

    rgambs said:

    rr165892 said:

    rgambs said:

    There are 81 pages in this thread. Not a chance I flip through them to show that. But at one point or another over the past year, I have read every post in this thread. So I am 100% positive I could find posts defending Brown and his actions. And for the record, I consider someone saying he didn't deserve to be shot defending his actions. He assaulted a cop. If you think he doesn't deserve to be shot, you're defending his actions.

    That sounds batshit crazy.
    Of course assaulting a cop is about the dumbest thing you can do, and is likely to lead to getting shot, but you think assaulting a cop makes someone deserve to be shot? That's nuts.
    Yes
    Opinions like that are the hallmark of places like North Korea, USSR, Maoist China, Nazi Germany.
    This is America and we have a Constitution, it's supposed to protect us against unreasonable search and seizure, state supression of free speech, and cruel and unusual punishment, all of which are being advocated by those defending police actions.
    You seem to be advocating for lawlessness and rule of will. Very odd. The Constitution you referenced created a framework for laws. We have laws in place for a reason. If one chooses to break those laws there are consequences. If one chooses to assault anyone who has a weapon, they should, just out of common sense, expect to feel the impact of that weapon. If one chooses to assault a law enforcement officer, feeling the sting of a bullet doesn't seem an unreasonable or unexpected outcome. I really can't understand what you're advocating, other than neutering laws, and absolving bad behavior. And throwing out Nazi references is a sure sign that this thread may have reached an impasse. Nobody is advocating for the cops to violate illegal search and seizure. Brown was at the very least jaywalking and creating a nuisance in the street. Nobody is advocating for the supression of free speech - I don't even know what you're referencing here. Nobody is advocating for cruel and unusual punishment. Brown taking the bullet had nothing to do with administered punishment. Brown caused Wilson to fear for his safety, which led to the initial struggle in the car, and Brown was clearly a threat to public safety after he resisted arrest and started fleeing. You are way off base in your analysis. I usually see your points even when I sometimes disagree with them, but this post of yours seems to be way out in left field.
    This post is in the broader context of the policing discussions that have been occuring on these boards; in which people have absolutely advocated and defended unreasonable search and seizure by saying police shouldn't need a reason to search and seize, regardless of the legality of their motives; suppression and punishment of free speech in defiance of police authority; and are now advocating for cruel and unusual punishment and due process by stating that those who assault police deserve to be killed.

    I don't know where you see me advocating lawlessness, people who break the law MUST face consequences, but it should be under the due process of llaw.. I understand that safety of the officer and the public is the number one priority. I have stated plenty of times that assaulting an officer is stupid and getting shot is the likely outcome. Many of the arguments have been disargreements on what is the appropriate use of discretion in use of force, and that is fine, but many of the arguments have also features opinions not on the discretion of force, but on the very need of discretion in use of force in the first place! That is troubling and is absolutely reminiscent of the societies that have tolerated authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.

    Thanks for the clarification. I was assuming a narrower context as it related to the Michael Brown thread, which is where I had a disconnect with what you were saying. I am a big proponent of fighting for our 4th amendment freedoms, and am with you on most of that. I am opposed to cops stopping and searching without cause, and am opposed to our current, and the past administrations' use of the patriot act to circumvent our Constitutional rights. So we're not far off. We disagree about what it means when some of us say Michael Brown got what he deserved. I do not see any violation of his due process (that is something he forfeited when he attacked a police officer), or see cruel and unusual punishment in his shooting. Again, that shooting was not punishment, it was consequence of the attack. It was the culmination of a highly charged chain of events, and Brown himself had a large role in the course that chain of events took. I see the shooting as a consequence of Brown's actions, and you see it as cruel and unusual punishment, somehow absolving Brown of his role. At any time he had the choice to comply, which would/should have secured his right to due process, and kept him free from cruel and unusual punishment. He determined, by his willingness to break our social contract, that he had no use for those things, and thought he was above them.

    But my thoughts here are specifically about Michael Brown. In general, as I said, I am very much a proponent of liberty and constitutional protections. I am a proponent of rule of law. I am a proponent of people being able to do whatever they like as long as they don't stomp on the rights of others. I am neither pro- nor anti-police. They serve a function, and if they do it properly, society benefits from their service. If they don't, we all lose. In this specific case, since it is the Michael Brown thread, I was responding to the narrow context of this thread and place the preponderance of the responsibility for the outcome on Brown himself.
    Solid. The passage that 12 highlighted sums things up nicely.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • rr165892rr165892 Posts: 5,697

    jeffbr said:

    rgambs said:

    jeffbr said:

    rgambs said:

    rr165892 said:

    rgambs said:

    There are 81 pages in this thread. Not a chance I flip through them to show that. But at one point or another over the past year, I have read every post in this thread. So I am 100% positive I could find posts defending Brown and his actions. And for the record, I consider someone saying he didn't deserve to be shot defending his actions. He assaulted a cop. If you think he doesn't deserve to be shot, you're defending his actions.

    That sounds batshit crazy.
    Of course assaulting a cop is about the dumbest thing you can do, and is likely to lead to getting shot, but you think assaulting a cop makes someone deserve to be shot? That's nuts.
    Yes
    Opinions like that are the hallmark of places like North Korea, USSR, Maoist China, Nazi Germany.
    This is America and we have a Constitution, it's supposed to protect us against unreasonable search and seizure, state supression of free speech, and cruel and unusual punishment, all of which are being advocated by those defending police actions.
    You seem to be advocating for lawlessness and rule of will. Very odd. The Constitution you referenced created a framework for laws. We have laws in place for a reason. If one chooses to break those laws there are consequences. If one chooses to assault anyone who has a weapon, they should, just out of common sense, expect to feel the impact of that weapon. If one chooses to assault a law enforcement officer, feeling the sting of a bullet doesn't seem an unreasonable or unexpected outcome. I really can't understand what you're advocating, other than neutering laws, and absolving bad behavior. And throwing out Nazi references is a sure sign that this thread may have reached an impasse. Nobody is advocating for the cops to violate illegal search and seizure. Brown was at the very least jaywalking and creating a nuisance in the street. Nobody is advocating for the supression of free speech - I don't even know what you're referencing here. Nobody is advocating for cruel and unusual punishment. Brown taking the bullet had nothing to do with administered punishment. Brown caused Wilson to fear for his safety, which led to the initial struggle in the car, and Brown was clearly a threat to public safety after he resisted arrest and started fleeing. You are way off base in your analysis. I usually see your points even when I sometimes disagree with them, but this post of yours seems to be way out in left field.
    This post is in the broader context of the policing discussions that have been occuring on these boards; in which people have absolutely advocated and defended unreasonable search and seizure by saying police shouldn't need a reason to search and seize, regardless of the legality of their motives; suppression and punishment of free speech in defiance of police authority; and are now advocating for cruel and unusual punishment and due process by stating that those who assault police deserve to be killed.

    I don't know where you see me advocating lawlessness, people who break the law MUST face consequences, but it should be under the due process of llaw.. I understand that safety of the officer and the public is the number one priority. I have stated plenty of times that assaulting an officer is stupid and getting shot is the likely outcome. Many of the arguments have been disargreements on what is the appropriate use of discretion in use of force, and that is fine, but many of the arguments have also features opinions not on the discretion of force, but on the very need of discretion in use of force in the first place! That is troubling and is absolutely reminiscent of the societies that have tolerated authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.

    Thanks for the clarification. I was assuming a narrower context as it related to the Michael Brown thread, which is where I had a disconnect with what you were saying. I am a big proponent of fighting for our 4th amendment freedoms, and am with you on most of that. I am opposed to cops stopping and searching without cause, and am opposed to our current, and the past administrations' use of the patriot act to circumvent our Constitutional rights. So we're not far off. We disagree about what it means when some of us say Michael Brown got what he deserved. I do not see any violation of his due process (that is something he forfeited when he attacked a police officer), or see cruel and unusual punishment in his shooting. Again, that shooting was not punishment, it was consequence of the attack. It was the culmination of a highly charged chain of events, and Brown himself had a large role in the course that chain of events took. I see the shooting as a consequence of Brown's actions, and you see it as cruel and unusual punishment, somehow absolving Brown of his role. At any time he had the choice to comply, which would/should have secured his right to due process, and kept him free from cruel and unusual punishment. He determined, by his willingness to break our social contract, that he had no use for those things, and thought he was above them.

    But my thoughts here are specifically about Michael Brown. In general, as I said, I am very much a proponent of liberty and constitutional protections. I am a proponent of rule of law. I am a proponent of people being able to do whatever they like as long as they don't stomp on the rights of others. I am neither pro- nor anti-police. They serve a function, and if they do it properly, society benefits from their service. If they don't, we all lose. In this specific case, since it is the Michael Brown thread, I was responding to the narrow context of this thread and place the preponderance of the responsibility for the outcome on Brown himself.
    Spot on accurate. This is where the Michael Brown debate ends.
    Yes,very well done Jeff.The sun must be out in Seattle today! Spot on.

    Gambsy,we all are kinda in the boat here with our thinking with the exception of when the force should be administered,right?
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,250
    rr165892 said:

    jeffbr said:

    rgambs said:

    jeffbr said:

    rgambs said:

    rr165892 said:

    rgambs said:

    There are 81 pages in this thread. Not a chance I flip through them to show that. But at one point or another over the past year, I have read every post in this thread. So I am 100% positive I could find posts defending Brown and his actions. And for the record, I consider someone saying he didn't deserve to be shot defending his actions. He assaulted a cop. If you think he doesn't deserve to be shot, you're defending his actions.

    That sounds batshit crazy.
    Of course assaulting a cop is about the dumbest thing you can do, and is likely to lead to getting shot, but you think assaulting a cop makes someone deserve to be shot? That's nuts.
    Yes
    Opinions like that are the hallmark of places like North Korea, USSR, Maoist China, Nazi Germany.
    This is America and we have a Constitution, it's supposed to protect us against unreasonable search and seizure, state supression of free speech, and cruel and unusual punishment, all of which are being advocated by those defending police actions.
    You seem to be advocating for lawlessness and rule of will. Very odd. The Constitution you referenced created a framework for laws. We have laws in place for a reason. If one chooses to break those laws there are consequences. If one chooses to assault anyone who has a weapon, they should, just out of common sense, expect to feel the impact of that weapon. If one chooses to assault a law enforcement officer, feeling the sting of a bullet doesn't seem an unreasonable or unexpected outcome. I really can't understand what you're advocating, other than neutering laws, and absolving bad behavior. And throwing out Nazi references is a sure sign that this thread may have reached an impasse. Nobody is advocating for the cops to violate illegal search and seizure. Brown was at the very least jaywalking and creating a nuisance in the street. Nobody is advocating for the supression of free speech - I don't even know what you're referencing here. Nobody is advocating for cruel and unusual punishment. Brown taking the bullet had nothing to do with administered punishment. Brown caused Wilson to fear for his safety, which led to the initial struggle in the car, and Brown was clearly a threat to public safety after he resisted arrest and started fleeing. You are way off base in your analysis. I usually see your points even when I sometimes disagree with them, but this post of yours seems to be way out in left field.
    This post is in the broader context of the policing discussions that have been occuring on these boards; in which people have absolutely advocated and defended unreasonable search and seizure by saying police shouldn't need a reason to search and seize, regardless of the legality of their motives; suppression and punishment of free speech in defiance of police authority; and are now advocating for cruel and unusual punishment and due process by stating that those who assault police deserve to be killed.

    I don't know where you see me advocating lawlessness, people who break the law MUST face consequences, but it should be under the due process of llaw.. I understand that safety of the officer and the public is the number one priority. I have stated plenty of times that assaulting an officer is stupid and getting shot is the likely outcome. Many of the arguments have been disargreements on what is the appropriate use of discretion in use of force, and that is fine, but many of the arguments have also features opinions not on the discretion of force, but on the very need of discretion in use of force in the first place! That is troubling and is absolutely reminiscent of the societies that have tolerated authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.

    Thanks for the clarification. I was assuming a narrower context as it related to the Michael Brown thread, which is where I had a disconnect with what you were saying. I am a big proponent of fighting for our 4th amendment freedoms, and am with you on most of that. I am opposed to cops stopping and searching without cause, and am opposed to our current, and the past administrations' use of the patriot act to circumvent our Constitutional rights. So we're not far off. We disagree about what it means when some of us say Michael Brown got what he deserved. I do not see any violation of his due process (that is something he forfeited when he attacked a police officer), or see cruel and unusual punishment in his shooting. Again, that shooting was not punishment, it was consequence of the attack. It was the culmination of a highly charged chain of events, and Brown himself had a large role in the course that chain of events took. I see the shooting as a consequence of Brown's actions, and you see it as cruel and unusual punishment, somehow absolving Brown of his role. At any time he had the choice to comply, which would/should have secured his right to due process, and kept him free from cruel and unusual punishment. He determined, by his willingness to break our social contract, that he had no use for those things, and thought he was above them.

    But my thoughts here are specifically about Michael Brown. In general, as I said, I am very much a proponent of liberty and constitutional protections. I am a proponent of rule of law. I am a proponent of people being able to do whatever they like as long as they don't stomp on the rights of others. I am neither pro- nor anti-police. They serve a function, and if they do it properly, society benefits from their service. If they don't, we all lose. In this specific case, since it is the Michael Brown thread, I was responding to the narrow context of this thread and place the preponderance of the responsibility for the outcome on Brown himself.
    Spot on accurate. This is where the Michael Brown debate ends.
    Yes,very well done Jeff.The sun must be out in Seattle today! Spot on.

    Gambsy,we all are kinda in the boat here with our thinking with the exception of when the force should be administered,right?
    The disconnect is in intention, as I see it. It doesn't seem to me like you, thirty, or Last care much about the motives and intent of an officer, only his legal authority.
    That's where I get stuck, on the idea that personal responsibility is more incumbent on the civilian than the officer.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SCPosts: 8,661
    Police are legally allowed to shoot you under certain circumstances. I think that is what you don't like gambs. The fact the wilson was within his right to shoot brown.
    Jealousy is ugly.
    Elistist Fucking Asshole.

    Mine is mine and yours won't take its place.

    Noblesville 8-17-98
    Jacksonville 11-25-12 EV
    Charlotte 10-30-13
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,250

    Police are legally allowed to shoot you under certain circumstances. I think that is what you don't like gambs. The fact the wilson was within his right to shoot brown.

    Not at all, what I don't like is the idea that the legality is above question.
    The idea that all shootings are justified if they are deemed technically legal.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SCPosts: 8,661
    rgambs said:

    Police are legally allowed to shoot you under certain circumstances. I think that is what you don't like gambs. The fact the wilson was within his right to shoot brown.

    Not at all, what I don't like is the idea that the legality is above question.
    The idea that all shootings are justified if they are deemed technically legal.
    Doesn't justification and legality go hand in hand when it comes to all shootings? Why does one cop get arrested and another cop walk? Or a guy murdering out of cold blood or a woman who kills her abusive spouse?
    Jealousy is ugly.
    Elistist Fucking Asshole.

    Mine is mine and yours won't take its place.

    Noblesville 8-17-98
    Jacksonville 11-25-12 EV
    Charlotte 10-30-13
  • rr165892rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    Gambs,If you get liquored up on that whiskey you drink and take a stroll on some train tracks and play chicken with a locomotive and end up as chopped meat,is it the train conductors responsibility to not hit you?of course not because you were dumb ass.The guy who had his noggin smashed yesterday up your way by the coaster.Is it the kid running the roller coasters fault this idiot went were he shouldn't to get his shit.No.I know my stove is hot,if I stick my hand on the burner I know the outcome,same applies with brown.Fuck with a cop and you may end up dead.pretty simple.Maybe his folks should have reinforced right from wrong and he would still be alive.

    The cop didn't leave the station and say lets go shoot a black kid.Browns action led up to his demise.
  • Thirty Bills UnpaidThirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 11,937
    edited August 2015
    rgambs said:

    rr165892 said:

    jeffbr said:

    rgambs said:

    jeffbr said:

    rgambs said:

    rr165892 said:

    rgambs said:

    There are 81 pages in this thread. Not a chance I flip through them to show that. But at one point or another over the past year, I have read every post in this thread. So I am 100% positive I could find posts defending Brown and his actions. And for the record, I consider someone saying he didn't deserve to be shot defending his actions. He assaulted a cop. If you think he doesn't deserve to be shot, you're defending his actions.

    That sounds batshit crazy.
    Of course assaulting a cop is about the dumbest thing you can do, and is likely to lead to getting shot, but you think assaulting a cop makes someone deserve to be shot? That's nuts.
    Yes
    Opinions like that are the hallmark of places like North Korea, USSR, Maoist China, Nazi Germany.
    This is America and we have a Constitution, it's supposed to protect us against unreasonable search and seizure, state supression of free speech, and cruel and unusual punishment, all of which are being advocated by those defending police actions.
    You seem to be advocating for lawlessness and rule of will. Very odd. The Constitution you referenced created a framework for laws. We have laws in place for a reason. If one chooses to break those laws there are consequences. If one chooses to assault anyone who has a weapon, they should, just out of common sense, expect to feel the impact of that weapon. If one chooses to assault a law enforcement officer, feeling the sting of a bullet doesn't seem an unreasonable or unexpected outcome. I really can't understand what you're advocating, other than neutering laws, and absolving bad behavior. And throwing out Nazi references is a sure sign that this thread may have reached an impasse. Nobody is advocating for the cops to violate illegal search and seizure. Brown was at the very least jaywalking and creating a nuisance in the street. Nobody is advocating for the supression of free speech - I don't even know what you're referencing here. Nobody is advocating for cruel and unusual punishment. Brown taking the bullet had nothing to do with administered punishment. Brown caused Wilson to fear for his safety, which led to the initial struggle in the car, and Brown was clearly a threat to public safety after he resisted arrest and started fleeing. You are way off base in your analysis. I usually see your points even when I sometimes disagree with them, but this post of yours seems to be way out in left field.
    This post is in the broader context of the policing discussions that have been occuring on these boards; in which people have absolutely advocated and defended unreasonable search and seizure by saying police shouldn't need a reason to search and seize, regardless of the legality of their motives; suppression and punishment of free speech in defiance of police authority; and are now advocating for cruel and unusual punishment and due process by stating that those who assault police deserve to be killed.

    I don't know where you see me advocating lawlessness, people who break the law MUST face consequences, but it should be under the due process of llaw.. I understand that safety of the officer and the public is the number one priority. I have stated plenty of times that assaulting an officer is stupid and getting shot is the likely outcome. Many of the arguments have been disargreements on what is the appropriate use of discretion in use of force, and that is fine, but many of the arguments have also features opinions not on the discretion of force, but on the very need of discretion in use of force in the first place! That is troubling and is absolutely reminiscent of the societies that have tolerated authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.

    Thanks for the clarification. I was assuming a narrower context as it related to the Michael Brown thread, which is where I had a disconnect with what you were saying. I am a big proponent of fighting for our 4th amendment freedoms, and am with you on most of that. I am opposed to cops stopping and searching without cause, and am opposed to our current, and the past administrations' use of the patriot act to circumvent our Constitutional rights. So we're not far off. We disagree about what it means when some of us say Michael Brown got what he deserved. I do not see any violation of his due process (that is something he forfeited when he attacked a police officer), or see cruel and unusual punishment in his shooting. Again, that shooting was not punishment, it was consequence of the attack. It was the culmination of a highly charged chain of events, and Brown himself had a large role in the course that chain of events took. I see the shooting as a consequence of Brown's actions, and you see it as cruel and unusual punishment, somehow absolving Brown of his role. At any time he had the choice to comply, which would/should have secured his right to due process, and kept him free from cruel and unusual punishment. He determined, by his willingness to break our social contract, that he had no use for those things, and thought he was above them.

    But my thoughts here are specifically about Michael Brown. In general, as I said, I am very much a proponent of liberty and constitutional protections. I am a proponent of rule of law. I am a proponent of people being able to do whatever they like as long as they don't stomp on the rights of others. I am neither pro- nor anti-police. They serve a function, and if they do it properly, society benefits from their service. If they don't, we all lose. In this specific case, since it is the Michael Brown thread, I was responding to the narrow context of this thread and place the preponderance of the responsibility for the outcome on Brown himself.
    Spot on accurate. This is where the Michael Brown debate ends.
    Yes,very well done Jeff.The sun must be out in Seattle today! Spot on.

    Gambsy,we all are kinda in the boat here with our thinking with the exception of when the force should be administered,right?
    The disconnect is in intention, as I see it. It doesn't seem to me like you, thirty, or Last care much about the motives and intent of an officer, only his legal authority.
    That's where I get stuck, on the idea that personal responsibility is more incumbent on the civilian than the officer.
    It is interesting you speak of personal responsibility and the disproportionate burden you feel that rests on the civilian.

    I tend to think you have perpetually lowered the bar for Brown with various statements speaking to his motivation for refuting and disrespecting authority.. yet elevated it to a very high standard for Wilson- dismissing any of the events that led to the application of lethal force as insignificant.
    Post edited by Thirty Bills Unpaid on
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,250
    rr165892 said:

    Gambs,If you get liquored up on that whiskey you drink and take a stroll on some train tracks and play chicken with a locomotive and end up as chopped meat,is it the train conductors responsibility to not hit you?of course not because you were dumb ass.The guy who had his noggin smashed yesterday up your way by the coaster.Is it the kid running the roller coasters fault this idiot went were he shouldn't to get his shit.No.I know my stove is hot,if I stick my hand on the burner I know the outcome,same applies with brown.Fuck with a cop and you may end up dead.pretty simple.Maybe his folks should have reinforced right from wrong and he would still be alive.

    The cop didn't leave the station and say lets go shoot a black kid.Browns action led up to his demise.

    None of those analogies are even remotely relevant to a person who is paid to serve and protect.
    The attitude that "fuck with the cops and you will end up dead" is a fine idea to instill in a child so that they don't do something stupid, but upholding it as such an absolute value is the exact precursor to the deaths and subsequent acquittals of cops who have clearly murdered. Tamir Rice, John Crawford, Eric Garner, Kelly Thomas were all non-violent citizens who died because of the attitude of total lattitude in police use of force.
    The SC guy who was shot in the back, Freddy Gray, Rekia Boyd, all victims of the police having the authority to use whatever level of force they choose, and I won't be convinced that the complicity of citizens who fail to hold police to account aren't a direct cause of the culture that allows it.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rr165892rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    Some of the above the cops are clearly wrong.No question.But take Garner,he wasn't shot he died while resisting arrest.If he didn't resist maybe his pre existing medical condition wouldn't have acted up and helped lead to his death.And as minor as it was,he was breaking the law and had been arrested multiple times.we all saw how it went down.Sad yes,out of line not really,he was a big guy resisting.
  • rr165892rr165892 Posts: 5,697
    Some of the above the cops are clearly wrong.No question.But take Garner,he wasn't shot he died while resisting arrest.If he didn't resist maybe his pre existing medical condition wouldn't have acted up and helped lead to his death.And as minor as it was,he was breaking the law and had been arrested multiple times.we all saw how it went down.Sad yes,out of line not really,he was a big guy resisting.
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SCPosts: 8,661
    There are threads for almost all of those cases here. That's what almost all of my posts pertain to here. If you'd like to dig up the other threads, you are free to do so. But it is pointless to compare this case with any of the other incidents you cited. When you say cops that clearly murdered, are saying that because you think wilson clearly murdered? That he isn't facing charges because of the good ole boy system?
    Jealousy is ugly.
    Elistist Fucking Asshole.

    Mine is mine and yours won't take its place.

    Noblesville 8-17-98
    Jacksonville 11-25-12 EV
    Charlotte 10-30-13
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,250

    There are threads for almost all of those cases here. That's what almost all of my posts pertain to here. If you'd like to dig up the other threads, you are free to do so. But it is pointless to compare this case with any of the other incidents you cited. When you say cops that clearly murdered, are saying that because you think wilson clearly murdered? That he isn't facing charges because of the good ole boy system?

    No, my opinion of this case was stated clearly just a few posts ago. I understand there are threads for many cases, and one for all cases, but there are also broader conversations about use of force within this thread and the others as well.
    Opinions on this particular case are not formed in isolation, and the comments made here are not made in isolation either. Some of the comments here are justified, but those same comments applied to other cases present a view that is shockingly tolerant of police abuse.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,250
    rr165892 said:

    Some of the above the cops are clearly wrong.No question.But take Garner,he wasn't shot he died while resisting arrest.If he didn't resist maybe his pre existing medical condition wouldn't have acted up and helped lead to his death.And as minor as it was,he was breaking the law and had been arrested multiple times.we all saw how it went down.Sad yes,out of line not really,he was a big guy resisting.

    Debating the finer points of cases like Garner's is productive IMO, but broad statements about deserving to be killed for assaulting police (without taking any account of the level of assault) are not just counter-productive, but destructive to the process of holding the government accountable to the laws which protect us from it.

    It seems like people forget that police are the frontline of government use of authority.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SCPosts: 8,661
    Michael Brown got what he deserved. Shot. A direct result of his actions. I have not said every person that has been shot or killed by a cop deserved it. But in this case, he did.
    Jealousy is ugly.
    Elistist Fucking Asshole.

    Mine is mine and yours won't take its place.

    Noblesville 8-17-98
    Jacksonville 11-25-12 EV
    Charlotte 10-30-13
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SCPosts: 8,661
    rgambs said:

    rr165892 said:

    Some of the above the cops are clearly wrong.No question.But take Garner,he wasn't shot he died while resisting arrest.If he didn't resist maybe his pre existing medical condition wouldn't have acted up and helped lead to his death.And as minor as it was,he was breaking the law and had been arrested multiple times.we all saw how it went down.Sad yes,out of line not really,he was a big guy resisting.

    Debating the finer points of cases like Garner's is productive IMO, but broad statements about deserving to be killed for assaulting police (without taking any account of the level of assault) are not just counter-productive, but destructive to the process of holding the government accountable to the laws which protect us from it.

    It seems like people forget that police are the frontline of government use of authority.
    That last sentence really sounds like the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist.
    Jealousy is ugly.
    Elistist Fucking Asshole.

    Mine is mine and yours won't take its place.

    Noblesville 8-17-98
    Jacksonville 11-25-12 EV
    Charlotte 10-30-13
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,250
    edited August 2015

    rgambs said:

    rr165892 said:

    Some of the above the cops are clearly wrong.No question.But take Garner,he wasn't shot he died while resisting arrest.If he didn't resist maybe his pre existing medical condition wouldn't have acted up and helped lead to his death.And as minor as it was,he was breaking the law and had been arrested multiple times.we all saw how it went down.Sad yes,out of line not really,he was a big guy resisting.

    Debating the finer points of cases like Garner's is productive IMO, but broad statements about deserving to be killed for assaulting police (without taking any account of the level of assault) are not just counter-productive, but destructive to the process of holding the government accountable to the laws which protect us from it.

    It seems like people forget that police are the frontline of government use of authority.
    That last sentence really sounds like the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist.
    I can see why you see it in that light, but I don't mean it in a "they are coming to take your guns and put you in a FEMA camp" way.
    I mean it in a very factual way, because it is fact.
    Like all of government, it is a system which we the people uphold for our own good, it is not imposed upon us, even if it feels that way sometimes.
    Governments, ours in particular, are meant to be held accountable to the people they serve. Government holds power over the people, by consent, with the rule of law, and police are the enforcers of that rule...again by consent..
    We have to pay close attention that our consent is not abused or misused, and demand accountability.
    I remind that the police are agents of the government often here because we have a very active dialogue of criticizing the actions of the government, and some who rail against use of authority by chosen officials in the realms of taxation and spending discretion give complete and total authority by appointed officials in the apical extent of power; the use of bodily force.
    Post edited by rgambs on
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,250

    Michael Brown got what he deserved. Shot. A direct result of his actions. I have not said every person that has been shot or killed by a cop deserved it. But in this case, he did.

    I think "deserve" is a terrible word for it that reeks of vengeance, (a state of deserving is usually reserved for punishment and reward, which are not the purview of police) but I can accept that his shooting was a direct result of his actions, and he left Wilson little choice.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Last-12-ExitLast-12-Exit Charleston, SCPosts: 8,661
    rgambs said:

    rgambs said:

    rr165892 said:

    Some of the above the cops are clearly wrong.No question.But take Garner,he wasn't shot he died while resisting arrest.If he didn't resist maybe his pre existing medical condition wouldn't have acted up and helped lead to his death.And as minor as it was,he was breaking the law and had been arrested multiple times.we all saw how it went down.Sad yes,out of line not really,he was a big guy resisting.

    Debating the finer points of cases like Garner's is productive IMO, but broad statements about deserving to be killed for assaulting police (without taking any account of the level of assault) are not just counter-productive, but destructive to the process of holding the government accountable to the laws which protect us from it.

    It seems like people forget that police are the frontline of government use of authority.
    That last sentence really sounds like the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist.
    I can see why you see it in that light, but I don't mean it in a "they are coming to take your guns and put you in a FEMA camp" way.
    I mean it in a very factual way, because it is fact.
    Like all of government, it is a system which we the people uphold for our own good, it is not imposed upon us, even if it feels that way sometimes.
    Governments, ours in particular, are meant to be held accountable to the people they serve. Government holds power over the people, by consent, with the rule of law, and police are the enforcers of that rule...again by consent..
    We have to pay close attention that our consent is not abused or misused, and demand accountability.
    I remind that the police are agents of the government often here because we have a very active dialogue of criticizing the actions of the government, and some who rail against use of authority by chosen officials in the realms of taxation and spending discretion give complete and total authority by appointed officials in the apical extent of power; the use of bodily force.
    I know how you meant it. I was going to say it sounds like it was in a manifesto. Ted Kascinski style.
    Jealousy is ugly.
    Elistist Fucking Asshole.

    Mine is mine and yours won't take its place.

    Noblesville 8-17-98
    Jacksonville 11-25-12 EV
    Charlotte 10-30-13
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    I think rgambs is just pissed that the police have that authory and I understand that, I also believe every person has the right to protect them selfs and thier family......even if they are police officers, at the end of the day a cop is just a guy with family and bills just like the rest of us.. but have the balls to do a job that is dangerous,a danger to them selfs and thier families, not everybody can be a cop and not just anybody should be a cop, he did what he had to do.

    Godfather.
    it dosen't matter to me what a man dose for a living you understand..
    as long as his interest's don't conflict with mine.
  • muskydanmuskydan Posts: 1,013

    I think rgambs is just pissed that the police have that authory and I understand that, I also believe every person has the right to protect them selfs and thier family......even if they are police officers, at the end of the day a cop is just a guy with family and bills just like the rest of us.. but have the balls to do a job that is dangerous,a danger to them selfs and thier families, not everybody can be a cop and not just anybody should be a cop, he did what he had to do.

    Godfather.

    Fuckin A Godfather!!!

    Hey Rgambs, serious question...ever consider joining a militia? Lots of like minded people I have come across over the years in them that share many of your thoughts ...
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,250
    muskydan said:

    I think rgambs is just pissed that the police have that authory and I understand that, I also believe every person has the right to protect them selfs and thier family......even if they are police officers, at the end of the day a cop is just a guy with family and bills just like the rest of us.. but have the balls to do a job that is dangerous,a danger to them selfs and thier families, not everybody can be a cop and not just anybody should be a cop, he did what he had to do.

    Godfather.

    Fuckin A Godfather!!!

    Hey Rgambs, serious question...ever consider joining a militia? Lots of like minded people I have come across over the years in them that share many of your thoughts ...
    Hahaha a pacifist militia man, that's a funny thought.

    What thoughts are those? The ones pertaining to the constitution?

    Have you ever considered moving to China? Lots of like minded people over there in charge of things that share your ideas.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 37,148
    edited August 2015
    I understand where you're coming from rgambs. Talking about you joining militias I find dismissive of the point you're actually trying to make. I haven't felt myself being worked up over Michael Brown in particular because of some of the points that the others are making about his specific actions (though I do still think it was an unjustified shooting... I just think it wasn't AS unjustified as a lot of the other police killings that have made the news, and especially the ones that have NOT made the major news.... there are so many that don't hit CNN or Fox that are WAY worse than the big stories we've been seeing). For the record, I am not anti-cop at all. I very much respect and appreciate good cops. I'm just anti-agro-cop and anti-killer-cop and anti-abuse-of-power-cop.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Sign In or Register to comment.