Michael Brown Shooting

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit 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

did someone actually compare policing in Alaska to the inner cities of America? wow.

Godfather. said:

rgambs said:

rr165892 said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit 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.

jeffbr said:

rgambs said:

rr165892 said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit 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.

rgambs said:

jeffbr said:

rgambs said:

rr165892 said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit 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.

jeffbr said:

rgambs said:

jeffbr said:

rgambs said:

rr165892 said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit 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.

rr165892 said:

Last-12-Exit said:

jeffbr said:

rgambs said:

jeffbr said:

rgambs said:

rr165892 said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit 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.