|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 14 2014 00:12 TheFish7 wrote:So the talking heads in New York have been pushing to have the 2016 DNC in Brooklyn of all places. I keep seeing it pop up on the news. In my opinion Brooklyn would be an awful place to hold the convention. For one, there aren't enough hotels in the area and the traffic would be an absolute nightmare. Secondly, and more importantly, everyone in Brooklyn was already going to vote democrat. I thought the idea was to hold the conventions in states where you have the potential to sway a few voters. Show nested quote +Speaking to reporters ahead of the DNC meeting, Schumer dismissed concerns that Brooklyn wouldn’t be a good choice because New York isn’t a swing state. “You win elections these day by appealing to the future,” said Schumer. “No place, no competitor represents the future like Brooklyn.”
He also said that he was confident former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is widely believed to be weighing a presidential run, would be happy the convention is in Brooklyn. “She walked the streets of Brooklyn with me when she first campaigned, and I think she would be so so happy if we have the convention in Brooklyn,” he said. The delegates will spend time at Barclays touring the center, and checking its suitability for the nationally televised convention. “This DNC is very serious about this. We know in 2016 we will be nominating the 45th president,” said DNC CEO Amy Dacey. As early afternoon approached, DNC members were served their lunch right on the Barclays basketball court, which had been covered in a blue carpeting. Servers dressed in black and sporting white gloves tended to tables set with white plates with dark red borders and gold rims. White glove service in Brooklyn, ridiculous. Source
The "area" is NYC. A city with more than enough hotel and traffic capacity to host any event. Anyways I'm skeptical to the claim that hosting a convention has any significant power to swing votes. What's important is that the venue looks good on TV and that the host city can handle the logistics of the event.
|
There’s been quite the buzz in the chattering classes this week over Robert Draper’s suggestion in the New York Times Magazine that the Republican Party, and perhaps even the nation, may finally prepared for a “libertarian moment,” likely through the agency of the shrewd and flexible politician Rand Paul. It’s obvious, in fact, that some of the aging hipsters Draper talks to who have been laboring in the libertarian fields for decades glimpse over the horizon a reconstructed GOP that can reverse the instinctive loathing of millennials for the Old Folks’ Party.
Unfortunately, to the extent there is something that can be called a “libertarian moment” in the Republican Party and the conservative movement, it owes less to the work of the Cato Institute than to a force genuine libertarians clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged are typically horrified by: the Christian Right. In the emerging ideological enterprise of “constitutional conservatism,” theocrats are the senior partners, just as they have largely been in the Tea Party Movement, even though libertarians often get more attention.
There’s no universal definition of “constitutional conservatism.” The apparent coiner of the term, the Hoover Institution’s Peter Berkowitz, used it to argue for a temperate approach to political controversy that’s largely alien to those who have embraced the “brand.” Indeed, it’s most often become a sort of dog whistle scattered through speeches, slogans and bios on various campaign trails to signify that the bearer is hostile to compromise and faithful to fixed conservative principles, unlike the Republicans who have been so prone to trim and prevaricate since Barry Goldwater proudly went down in flames. The most active early Con-Con was Michele Bachmann, who rarely went more than a few minutes during her 2012 presidential campaign without uttering it. It’s now very prominently associated with Ted Cruz, who, according to Glenn Beck’s The Blaze has emerged as “the new standard-bearer for constitutional conservatism.” And it’s the preferred self-identification for Rand Paul as well.
What Con-Con most often seems to connote beyond an uncompromising attitude on specific issues is the belief that strict limitations on the size, scope and cost of government are eternally correct for this country, regardless of public opinion or circumstances. Thus violations of this “constitutional” order are eternally illegitimate, no matter what the Supreme Court says or who has won the last election.
More commonly, Con-Cons reinforce this idea of a semi-divine constitutional order by endowing it with — quite literally — divine origins. This is why David Barton’s largely discredited “Christian Nation” revisionist histories of the Founders remain so highly influential in conservative circles, and why Barton himself is welcome company in the camps of Con-Con pols ranging from Cruz and Bachmann to Rick Perry and Mike Huckabee. This is why virtually all Con-Cons conflate the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, which enabled them to sneak both Natural and Divine Law (including most conspicuously a pre-natal Right to Life) into the nation’s organic governing structure.
Source
|
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — U.S. wildlife officials are withdrawing proposed protections for the snow-loving wolverine in a course reversal announced Tuesday that highlights lingering uncertainties over what a warming climate means for some temperature-sensitive species.
Wolverines, or "mountain devils," are rarely seen members of the weasel family that need deep, late-season snow to den.
But while there is broad consensus climate change will make the world warmer, drilling down to determine what that means for individual species remains difficult. That's stoking sharp disagreement over the fate of wolverines, with one researcher calling Tuesday's withdrawal a travesty of science.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe said in an interview with The Associated Press that predictions about climate change's localized impacts remain ambiguous.
Rejecting the conclusions of most outside experts and some of the agency's own scientists, Ashe said the uncertainty made it impossible to determine whether less snow cover would put wolverines in danger of extinction in coming decades.
The decision carries potential ramifications for other species affected by climate change — including Alaska's bearded seals, the Pacific walrus and dozens of species of corals — as scientists and regulators grapple with limits on computer climate models.
"Climate change is a reality," Ashe said. "What we don't know with reliability is what does climate change mean for denning habitat that wolverines prefer."
He added that evidence of an expanding population means "it's possible wolverines are adapting and continuing to adapt."
Source
|
On August 14 2014 02:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +There’s been quite the buzz in the chattering classes this week over Robert Draper’s suggestion in the New York Times Magazine that the Republican Party, and perhaps even the nation, may finally prepared for a “libertarian moment,” likely through the agency of the shrewd and flexible politician Rand Paul. It’s obvious, in fact, that some of the aging hipsters Draper talks to who have been laboring in the libertarian fields for decades glimpse over the horizon a reconstructed GOP that can reverse the instinctive loathing of millennials for the Old Folks’ Party.
Unfortunately, to the extent there is something that can be called a “libertarian moment” in the Republican Party and the conservative movement, it owes less to the work of the Cato Institute than to a force genuine libertarians clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged are typically horrified by: the Christian Right. In the emerging ideological enterprise of “constitutional conservatism,” theocrats are the senior partners, just as they have largely been in the Tea Party Movement, even though libertarians often get more attention.
There’s no universal definition of “constitutional conservatism.” The apparent coiner of the term, the Hoover Institution’s Peter Berkowitz, used it to argue for a temperate approach to political controversy that’s largely alien to those who have embraced the “brand.” Indeed, it’s most often become a sort of dog whistle scattered through speeches, slogans and bios on various campaign trails to signify that the bearer is hostile to compromise and faithful to fixed conservative principles, unlike the Republicans who have been so prone to trim and prevaricate since Barry Goldwater proudly went down in flames. The most active early Con-Con was Michele Bachmann, who rarely went more than a few minutes during her 2012 presidential campaign without uttering it. It’s now very prominently associated with Ted Cruz, who, according to Glenn Beck’s The Blaze has emerged as “the new standard-bearer for constitutional conservatism.” And it’s the preferred self-identification for Rand Paul as well.
What Con-Con most often seems to connote beyond an uncompromising attitude on specific issues is the belief that strict limitations on the size, scope and cost of government are eternally correct for this country, regardless of public opinion or circumstances. Thus violations of this “constitutional” order are eternally illegitimate, no matter what the Supreme Court says or who has won the last election.
More commonly, Con-Cons reinforce this idea of a semi-divine constitutional order by endowing it with — quite literally — divine origins. This is why David Barton’s largely discredited “Christian Nation” revisionist histories of the Founders remain so highly influential in conservative circles, and why Barton himself is welcome company in the camps of Con-Con pols ranging from Cruz and Bachmann to Rick Perry and Mike Huckabee. This is why virtually all Con-Cons conflate the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, which enabled them to sneak both Natural and Divine Law (including most conspicuously a pre-natal Right to Life) into the nation’s organic governing structure. Source
The Republicans are turning "libertarian" as much as the Democrats have been anti-war - which is to say, they follow the principles so long as it is politically convenient. To be sure, libertarians certainly don't want to vote for nanny state Democrats just like anti-war activists have no use voting for hawkish Republicans.
The GOP doesn't have the stomach, the capability, or the desire to make the government weaker or less intrusive. They may chop down some of the extensions of executive power seized by Bush and Obama, but even that is kind of a stretch and the best hope of that is Clinton winning in 2016 (where it appears the leftists in this thread would also support limits to her executive privileges).
|
LOS ANGELES -- An eyewitness to the killing of Ezell Ford told The Huffington Post on Wednesday that he heard an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department shout "shoot him" before three bullets were unloaded into the unarmed, 25-year-old black man, who was on the ground.
"It is unknown if the suspect has any gang affiliations," the LAPD said in a statement after the killing.
But people in Ford's neighborhood said the young man was not remotely involved in gang activity. Leroy Hill said he was an eyewitness to the shooting Monday night, and confirmed that he heard three shots.
"He wasn't a gang banger at all," Hill said to HuffPost. "I was sitting across the street when it happened. So as he was walking down the street, the police approached him, whatever was said I couldn't hear it, but the cops jumped out of the car and rushed him over here into this corner. They had him in the corner and were beating him, busted him up, for what reason I don't know he didn't do nothing. The next thing I know I hear a 'pow!' while he's on the ground. They got the knee on him. And then I hear another 'pow!' No hesitation. And then I hear another 'pow!' Three times."
At one point while the police had Ford on the ground, but before the shooting took place, Hill said, he heard an officer yell, "Shoot him."
Source
|
On August 14 2014 02:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +There’s been quite the buzz in the chattering classes this week over Robert Draper’s suggestion in the New York Times Magazine that the Republican Party, and perhaps even the nation, may finally prepared for a “libertarian moment,” likely through the agency of the shrewd and flexible politician Rand Paul. It’s obvious, in fact, that some of the aging hipsters Draper talks to who have been laboring in the libertarian fields for decades glimpse over the horizon a reconstructed GOP that can reverse the instinctive loathing of millennials for the Old Folks’ Party.
Unfortunately, to the extent there is something that can be called a “libertarian moment” in the Republican Party and the conservative movement, it owes less to the work of the Cato Institute than to a force genuine libertarians clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged are typically horrified by: the Christian Right. In the emerging ideological enterprise of “constitutional conservatism,” theocrats are the senior partners, just as they have largely been in the Tea Party Movement, even though libertarians often get more attention.
There’s no universal definition of “constitutional conservatism.” The apparent coiner of the term, the Hoover Institution’s Peter Berkowitz, used it to argue for a temperate approach to political controversy that’s largely alien to those who have embraced the “brand.” Indeed, it’s most often become a sort of dog whistle scattered through speeches, slogans and bios on various campaign trails to signify that the bearer is hostile to compromise and faithful to fixed conservative principles, unlike the Republicans who have been so prone to trim and prevaricate since Barry Goldwater proudly went down in flames. The most active early Con-Con was Michele Bachmann, who rarely went more than a few minutes during her 2012 presidential campaign without uttering it. It’s now very prominently associated with Ted Cruz, who, according to Glenn Beck’s The Blaze has emerged as “the new standard-bearer for constitutional conservatism.” And it’s the preferred self-identification for Rand Paul as well.
What Con-Con most often seems to connote beyond an uncompromising attitude on specific issues is the belief that strict limitations on the size, scope and cost of government are eternally correct for this country, regardless of public opinion or circumstances. Thus violations of this “constitutional” order are eternally illegitimate, no matter what the Supreme Court says or who has won the last election.
More commonly, Con-Cons reinforce this idea of a semi-divine constitutional order by endowing it with — quite literally — divine origins. This is why David Barton’s largely discredited “Christian Nation” revisionist histories of the Founders remain so highly influential in conservative circles, and why Barton himself is welcome company in the camps of Con-Con pols ranging from Cruz and Bachmann to Rick Perry and Mike Huckabee. This is why virtually all Con-Cons conflate the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, which enabled them to sneak both Natural and Divine Law (including most conspicuously a pre-natal Right to Life) into the nation’s organic governing structure. Source Draper's article itself is worth the read for anybody interested. The secondary reporting doesn't really do it justice.
I don't think libertarians will capture a Republican presidential primary for the following reasons:
Marijuana decriminalization isn't a uniting issue (with an eye to changing demographics, I'll add "yet").
Paul might gain some support opposing nation-building (from article) as a stance, but the trendy isolationist libertarian bent as a whole isn't a big seller. Scrap the "Democracy Project," sure, but be prepared to strike state-sponsored terrorists that are plotting the next 9/11.
Libertarians still struggle with their same-sex marriage views. I've heard many talk about the withdrawing of government involvement in marriage at all as a cure-all. When asked about topics like gay adoption, divorce in both the financial and child custody impact, DNR orders, currently existing benefits programs for spouses & inheritance, there isn't a unifying plan.
Social issues in general, family values and policies seen as helping or hurting family units, might go either way. I don't see too many looking to government policies to reverse a culture trending away from the family unit. For the new progressive social causes, a libertarian candidate might be trusted to fight them.
In my opinion, it's not their moment, and if they have a moment ever, it won't be for another 20 years. The movement's strengths within the Republican party are monetary policy, fiscal policy, and a change towards free market capitalism. It's the rest that'll keep them from more of a base (and of course I'm not even mentioning the entrenched Republican establishment opposition, which is considerable).
|
The new "libertarian movement," discussion, espeically in the GOP, is nothing but click-bait. Just because young people are for gay marriage and legal pot doesn't make them libertarians. In fact, when you poll them, they still like all their government services, even if they have this vague notion that government is too big- they still prefer Uncle Sam be "helpful" in terms of assistance.
There is not, and will not be, a "libertarian moment" in either party.
|
On August 14 2014 08:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2014 02:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:There’s been quite the buzz in the chattering classes this week over Robert Draper’s suggestion in the New York Times Magazine that the Republican Party, and perhaps even the nation, may finally prepared for a “libertarian moment,” likely through the agency of the shrewd and flexible politician Rand Paul. It’s obvious, in fact, that some of the aging hipsters Draper talks to who have been laboring in the libertarian fields for decades glimpse over the horizon a reconstructed GOP that can reverse the instinctive loathing of millennials for the Old Folks’ Party.
Unfortunately, to the extent there is something that can be called a “libertarian moment” in the Republican Party and the conservative movement, it owes less to the work of the Cato Institute than to a force genuine libertarians clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged are typically horrified by: the Christian Right. In the emerging ideological enterprise of “constitutional conservatism,” theocrats are the senior partners, just as they have largely been in the Tea Party Movement, even though libertarians often get more attention.
There’s no universal definition of “constitutional conservatism.” The apparent coiner of the term, the Hoover Institution’s Peter Berkowitz, used it to argue for a temperate approach to political controversy that’s largely alien to those who have embraced the “brand.” Indeed, it’s most often become a sort of dog whistle scattered through speeches, slogans and bios on various campaign trails to signify that the bearer is hostile to compromise and faithful to fixed conservative principles, unlike the Republicans who have been so prone to trim and prevaricate since Barry Goldwater proudly went down in flames. The most active early Con-Con was Michele Bachmann, who rarely went more than a few minutes during her 2012 presidential campaign without uttering it. It’s now very prominently associated with Ted Cruz, who, according to Glenn Beck’s The Blaze has emerged as “the new standard-bearer for constitutional conservatism.” And it’s the preferred self-identification for Rand Paul as well.
What Con-Con most often seems to connote beyond an uncompromising attitude on specific issues is the belief that strict limitations on the size, scope and cost of government are eternally correct for this country, regardless of public opinion or circumstances. Thus violations of this “constitutional” order are eternally illegitimate, no matter what the Supreme Court says or who has won the last election.
More commonly, Con-Cons reinforce this idea of a semi-divine constitutional order by endowing it with — quite literally — divine origins. This is why David Barton’s largely discredited “Christian Nation” revisionist histories of the Founders remain so highly influential in conservative circles, and why Barton himself is welcome company in the camps of Con-Con pols ranging from Cruz and Bachmann to Rick Perry and Mike Huckabee. This is why virtually all Con-Cons conflate the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, which enabled them to sneak both Natural and Divine Law (including most conspicuously a pre-natal Right to Life) into the nation’s organic governing structure. Source Draper's article itself is worth the read for anybody interested. The secondary reporting doesn't really do it justice. I don't think libertarians will capture a Republican presidential primary for the following reasons: Marijuana decriminalization isn't a uniting issue (with an eye to changing demographics, I'll add "yet"). Paul might gain some support opposing nation-building (from article) as a stance, but the trendy isolationist libertarian bent as a whole isn't a big seller. Scrap the "Democracy Project," sure, but be prepared to strike state-sponsored terrorists that are plotting the next 9/11. Libertarians still struggle with their same-sex marriage views. I've heard many talk about the withdrawing of government involvement in marriage at all as a cure-all. When asked about topics like gay adoption, divorce in both the financial and child custody impact, DNR orders, currently existing benefits programs for spouses & inheritance, there isn't a unifying plan. Social issues in general, family values and policies seen as helping or hurting family units, might go either way. I don't see too many looking to government policies to reverse a culture trending away from the family unit. For the new progressive social causes, a libertarian candidate might be trusted to fight them. In my opinion, it's not their moment, and if they have a moment ever, it won't be for another 20 years. The movement's strengths within the Republican party are monetary policy, fiscal policy, and a change towards free market capitalism. It's the rest that'll keep them from more of a base (and of course I'm not even mentioning the entrenched Republican establishment opposition, which is considerable).
I don't even think that the young people will adopt libertarian views enough to ever be considered libertarian. I don't think the right will ever take a truly libertarian stance on the fiscal /economic, even if the social issues are dragged to the left.
The moment people start feeling more positive about their government, their libertarian tendencies will decrease (that's just a guess on my part.)
Though maybe I was harsh calling it click-bait. How about "guessing on something that won't happen for the foreseeable future."
|
Scores of SWAT officers swarmed Ferguson, Missouri, where unrest has broken out this week in the wake of a teenager's death.
Michael Brown, a black teenager, was unarmed when he was shot and killed by a police officer. The DOJ announced that it would look into allegations of racism and police brutality. The police officer's identity has not been released.
HuffPost's Ryan Reilly reported that a SWAT team of at least 70 people showed up the apparently peaceful demonstration. According to Reilly, cops told protesters to leave the area.
"This is not open for discussion," one officer said.
Police tactics during the unrest following the shooting have been criticized as over-aggressive. Earlier this week, cops used rubber bullets and tear gas against demonstrators, some of whom have been accused of looting.
Source
|
On August 04 2014 12:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
"Stop cussin' in the street or your going too"
There's no law that says simply "cussin' in the street" is illegal...(there's kind of an important one that says otherwise actually)
Compare that to the Bundy protesters screaming at, cursing at, and even striking an officer, and how the police handled that....
If you don't see the problem, you are part of it.
There are some public decency laws that make cursing in public illegal. I remember back in Atlanta there was a city law the banned cursing. I only ever saw black people being arrested for it on the MARTA though.
|
On August 14 2014 10:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Scores of SWAT officers swarmed Ferguson, Missouri, where unrest has broken out this week in the wake of a teenager's death.
Michael Brown, a black teenager, was unarmed when he was shot and killed by a police officer. The DOJ announced that it would look into allegations of racism and police brutality. The police officer's identity has not been released.
HuffPost's Ryan Reilly reported that a SWAT team of at least 70 people showed up the apparently peaceful demonstration. According to Reilly, cops told protesters to leave the area.
"This is not open for discussion," one officer said.
Police tactics during the unrest following the shooting have been criticized as over-aggressive. Earlier this week, cops used rubber bullets and tear gas against demonstrators, some of whom have been accused of looting. Source
Earlier in the week the protests turned violent with looting, arson, etc. Ofc cops will be on high alert during subsequent demonstrations.
|
On August 14 2014 06:58 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2014 02:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:There’s been quite the buzz in the chattering classes this week over Robert Draper’s suggestion in the New York Times Magazine that the Republican Party, and perhaps even the nation, may finally prepared for a “libertarian moment,” likely through the agency of the shrewd and flexible politician Rand Paul. It’s obvious, in fact, that some of the aging hipsters Draper talks to who have been laboring in the libertarian fields for decades glimpse over the horizon a reconstructed GOP that can reverse the instinctive loathing of millennials for the Old Folks’ Party.
Unfortunately, to the extent there is something that can be called a “libertarian moment” in the Republican Party and the conservative movement, it owes less to the work of the Cato Institute than to a force genuine libertarians clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged are typically horrified by: the Christian Right. In the emerging ideological enterprise of “constitutional conservatism,” theocrats are the senior partners, just as they have largely been in the Tea Party Movement, even though libertarians often get more attention.
There’s no universal definition of “constitutional conservatism.” The apparent coiner of the term, the Hoover Institution’s Peter Berkowitz, used it to argue for a temperate approach to political controversy that’s largely alien to those who have embraced the “brand.” Indeed, it’s most often become a sort of dog whistle scattered through speeches, slogans and bios on various campaign trails to signify that the bearer is hostile to compromise and faithful to fixed conservative principles, unlike the Republicans who have been so prone to trim and prevaricate since Barry Goldwater proudly went down in flames. The most active early Con-Con was Michele Bachmann, who rarely went more than a few minutes during her 2012 presidential campaign without uttering it. It’s now very prominently associated with Ted Cruz, who, according to Glenn Beck’s The Blaze has emerged as “the new standard-bearer for constitutional conservatism.” And it’s the preferred self-identification for Rand Paul as well.
What Con-Con most often seems to connote beyond an uncompromising attitude on specific issues is the belief that strict limitations on the size, scope and cost of government are eternally correct for this country, regardless of public opinion or circumstances. Thus violations of this “constitutional” order are eternally illegitimate, no matter what the Supreme Court says or who has won the last election.
More commonly, Con-Cons reinforce this idea of a semi-divine constitutional order by endowing it with — quite literally — divine origins. This is why David Barton’s largely discredited “Christian Nation” revisionist histories of the Founders remain so highly influential in conservative circles, and why Barton himself is welcome company in the camps of Con-Con pols ranging from Cruz and Bachmann to Rick Perry and Mike Huckabee. This is why virtually all Con-Cons conflate the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, which enabled them to sneak both Natural and Divine Law (including most conspicuously a pre-natal Right to Life) into the nation’s organic governing structure. Source The Republicans are turning "libertarian" as much as the Democrats have been anti-war - which is to say, they follow the principles so long as it is politically convenient. To be sure, libertarians certainly don't want to vote for nanny state Democrats just like anti-war activists have no use voting for hawkish Republicans. The GOP doesn't have the stomach, the capability, or the desire to make the government weaker or less intrusive. They may chop down some of the extensions of executive power seized by Bush and Obama, but even that is kind of a stretch and the best hope of that is Clinton winning in 2016 (where it appears the leftists in this thread would also support limits to her executive privileges).
you are deluded if you think hillary is going to roll back any of the executive "perks" extended by bush and obama
|
On August 14 2014 10:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2014 10:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Scores of SWAT officers swarmed Ferguson, Missouri, where unrest has broken out this week in the wake of a teenager's death.
Michael Brown, a black teenager, was unarmed when he was shot and killed by a police officer. The DOJ announced that it would look into allegations of racism and police brutality. The police officer's identity has not been released.
HuffPost's Ryan Reilly reported that a SWAT team of at least 70 people showed up the apparently peaceful demonstration. According to Reilly, cops told protesters to leave the area.
"This is not open for discussion," one officer said.
Police tactics during the unrest following the shooting have been criticized as over-aggressive. Earlier this week, cops used rubber bullets and tear gas against demonstrators, some of whom have been accused of looting. Source Earlier in the week the protests turned violent with looting, arson, etc. Ofc cops will be on high alert during subsequent demonstrations.
Well they would have a lot less to worry about if they had even a reasonably good explanation for the event. As of now they don't really have anything. Just a dead 18 yo and a mystery slayer. Oh and several witnesses that all say the event transpired differently than the officer claimed to the police.
Or had they just been using the cameras they own specifically for this type of purpose. How about they get them installed and working?!
I wish there had been no rioting so that they couldn't have diverted coverage from the incident onto the riots. Would probably also help if Ferguson wasn't a racist as all hell type town. The population vs representation is obviously ridiculous too.
It's nice they are trying to protect the cop who shot this unarmed 18 y.o. (allegedly 8 times) but what about all the kids walking their neighborhoods unsure if some cop is going to gun them down? What new is being done to address their safety?
This halfwit PD couldn't even install the cameras they already own to catch stuff like this... I hope the recent rush of abusive cops get the book thrown at them.
Sell some pot brownies, look at 20 years, abuse your power as a cop (killing someone), you might have to plea to some probation.
Our legal outcomes are indefensible in any semblance of a fair system.
|
On August 14 2014 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2014 10:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2014 10:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Scores of SWAT officers swarmed Ferguson, Missouri, where unrest has broken out this week in the wake of a teenager's death.
Michael Brown, a black teenager, was unarmed when he was shot and killed by a police officer. The DOJ announced that it would look into allegations of racism and police brutality. The police officer's identity has not been released.
HuffPost's Ryan Reilly reported that a SWAT team of at least 70 people showed up the apparently peaceful demonstration. According to Reilly, cops told protesters to leave the area.
"This is not open for discussion," one officer said.
Police tactics during the unrest following the shooting have been criticized as over-aggressive. Earlier this week, cops used rubber bullets and tear gas against demonstrators, some of whom have been accused of looting. Source Earlier in the week the protests turned violent with looting, arson, etc. Ofc cops will be on high alert during subsequent demonstrations. Well they would have a lot less to worry about if they had even a reasonably good explanation for the event. As of now they don't really have anything. Just a dead 18 yo and a mystery slayer. Oh and several witnesses that all say the event transpired differently than the officer claimed to the police. Or had they just been using the cameras they own specifically for this type of purpose. How about they get them installed and working?! I wish there had been no rioting so that they couldn't have diverted coverage from the incident onto the riots. Would probably also help if Ferguson wasn't a racist as all hell type town. The population vs representation is obviously ridiculous too. It's nice they are trying to protect the cop who shot this unarmed 18 y.o. (allegedly 8 times) but what about all the kids walking their neighborhoods unsure if some cop is going to gun them down? What new is being done to address their safety? This halfwit PD couldn't even install the cameras they already own to catch stuff like this... I hope the recent rush of abusive cops get the book thrown at them. Sell some pot brownies, look at 20 years, abuse your power as a cop (killing someone), you might have to plea to some probation. Our legal outcomes are indefensible in any semblance of a fair system.
From what I've read, the witnesses aren't 100% different from the police officer's statement. Regardless, it's under investigation. Everyone needs to wait for that to play out and not jump to whatever pre-conceived conclusions they have.
|
On August 14 2014 11:15 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2014 06:58 coverpunch wrote:On August 14 2014 02:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:There’s been quite the buzz in the chattering classes this week over Robert Draper’s suggestion in the New York Times Magazine that the Republican Party, and perhaps even the nation, may finally prepared for a “libertarian moment,” likely through the agency of the shrewd and flexible politician Rand Paul. It’s obvious, in fact, that some of the aging hipsters Draper talks to who have been laboring in the libertarian fields for decades glimpse over the horizon a reconstructed GOP that can reverse the instinctive loathing of millennials for the Old Folks’ Party.
Unfortunately, to the extent there is something that can be called a “libertarian moment” in the Republican Party and the conservative movement, it owes less to the work of the Cato Institute than to a force genuine libertarians clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged are typically horrified by: the Christian Right. In the emerging ideological enterprise of “constitutional conservatism,” theocrats are the senior partners, just as they have largely been in the Tea Party Movement, even though libertarians often get more attention.
There’s no universal definition of “constitutional conservatism.” The apparent coiner of the term, the Hoover Institution’s Peter Berkowitz, used it to argue for a temperate approach to political controversy that’s largely alien to those who have embraced the “brand.” Indeed, it’s most often become a sort of dog whistle scattered through speeches, slogans and bios on various campaign trails to signify that the bearer is hostile to compromise and faithful to fixed conservative principles, unlike the Republicans who have been so prone to trim and prevaricate since Barry Goldwater proudly went down in flames. The most active early Con-Con was Michele Bachmann, who rarely went more than a few minutes during her 2012 presidential campaign without uttering it. It’s now very prominently associated with Ted Cruz, who, according to Glenn Beck’s The Blaze has emerged as “the new standard-bearer for constitutional conservatism.” And it’s the preferred self-identification for Rand Paul as well.
What Con-Con most often seems to connote beyond an uncompromising attitude on specific issues is the belief that strict limitations on the size, scope and cost of government are eternally correct for this country, regardless of public opinion or circumstances. Thus violations of this “constitutional” order are eternally illegitimate, no matter what the Supreme Court says or who has won the last election.
More commonly, Con-Cons reinforce this idea of a semi-divine constitutional order by endowing it with — quite literally — divine origins. This is why David Barton’s largely discredited “Christian Nation” revisionist histories of the Founders remain so highly influential in conservative circles, and why Barton himself is welcome company in the camps of Con-Con pols ranging from Cruz and Bachmann to Rick Perry and Mike Huckabee. This is why virtually all Con-Cons conflate the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, which enabled them to sneak both Natural and Divine Law (including most conspicuously a pre-natal Right to Life) into the nation’s organic governing structure. Source The Republicans are turning "libertarian" as much as the Democrats have been anti-war - which is to say, they follow the principles so long as it is politically convenient. To be sure, libertarians certainly don't want to vote for nanny state Democrats just like anti-war activists have no use voting for hawkish Republicans. The GOP doesn't have the stomach, the capability, or the desire to make the government weaker or less intrusive. They may chop down some of the extensions of executive power seized by Bush and Obama, but even that is kind of a stretch and the best hope of that is Clinton winning in 2016 (where it appears the leftists in this thread would also support limits to her executive privileges). you are deluded if you think hillary is going to roll back any of the executive "perks" extended by bush and obama
I didn't mean she would do it voluntarily. I meant there would be enough political motivation to get the votes to strip the executive branch of certain powers it has seized and limit the very wide latitude Bush and Obama have enjoyed in prosecuting the War on Terror.
|
On August 14 2014 12:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2014 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 14 2014 10:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2014 10:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Scores of SWAT officers swarmed Ferguson, Missouri, where unrest has broken out this week in the wake of a teenager's death.
Michael Brown, a black teenager, was unarmed when he was shot and killed by a police officer. The DOJ announced that it would look into allegations of racism and police brutality. The police officer's identity has not been released.
HuffPost's Ryan Reilly reported that a SWAT team of at least 70 people showed up the apparently peaceful demonstration. According to Reilly, cops told protesters to leave the area.
"This is not open for discussion," one officer said.
Police tactics during the unrest following the shooting have been criticized as over-aggressive. Earlier this week, cops used rubber bullets and tear gas against demonstrators, some of whom have been accused of looting. Source Earlier in the week the protests turned violent with looting, arson, etc. Ofc cops will be on high alert during subsequent demonstrations. Well they would have a lot less to worry about if they had even a reasonably good explanation for the event. As of now they don't really have anything. Just a dead 18 yo and a mystery slayer. Oh and several witnesses that all say the event transpired differently than the officer claimed to the police. Or had they just been using the cameras they own specifically for this type of purpose. How about they get them installed and working?! I wish there had been no rioting so that they couldn't have diverted coverage from the incident onto the riots. Would probably also help if Ferguson wasn't a racist as all hell type town. The population vs representation is obviously ridiculous too. It's nice they are trying to protect the cop who shot this unarmed 18 y.o. (allegedly 8 times) but what about all the kids walking their neighborhoods unsure if some cop is going to gun them down? What new is being done to address their safety? This halfwit PD couldn't even install the cameras they already own to catch stuff like this... I hope the recent rush of abusive cops get the book thrown at them. Sell some pot brownies, look at 20 years, abuse your power as a cop (killing someone), you might have to plea to some probation. Our legal outcomes are indefensible in any semblance of a fair system. From what I've read, the witnesses aren't 100% different from the police officer's statement. Regardless, it's under investigation. Everyone needs to wait for that to play out and not jump to whatever pre-conceived conclusions they have.
Obviously it's not 100% different... Why even say that? Establishing they both said it was day or night would make that statement true... It couldn't be a more pointless thing to say?
I don't think anyone here has jumped to any conclusions. I suppose if we are to presume both parties are innocent one side has a lot of explaining to do. There will of course be legitimate skepticism of the truthfulness and thoroughness of the departments own efforts and forthrightness regarding the initial reports.
The fact that they won't even say how many times the cop fired his weapon or what happened after the first shot at all makes them look guilty as all hell.
How many days/weeks/months seems appropriate before the officer is placed under arrest when there are multiple witnesses that say he essentially murdered an 18 y.o. in the street?
If it were the other way around and the 18 y.o. shot the officer in 'claimed self defense' and killed him, how long would you think he should/would go without being arrested (even if the charges were eventually dropped)? Letting a possible cop killer roam the streets without even posting bail would be absurd, but letting a suspected murderer of a 18 y.o. get a paid vacation and go wherever he pleases and keep a gun, well that's just responsibly 'waiting for it to play out'... Pathetic...
People leap to the defense of the cops presumed innocence but have nothing to say about the presumably innocent 18 y.o. who's life was taken over where he was walking...
|
On August 14 2014 13:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2014 12:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2014 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 14 2014 10:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2014 10:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Scores of SWAT officers swarmed Ferguson, Missouri, where unrest has broken out this week in the wake of a teenager's death.
Michael Brown, a black teenager, was unarmed when he was shot and killed by a police officer. The DOJ announced that it would look into allegations of racism and police brutality. The police officer's identity has not been released.
HuffPost's Ryan Reilly reported that a SWAT team of at least 70 people showed up the apparently peaceful demonstration. According to Reilly, cops told protesters to leave the area.
"This is not open for discussion," one officer said.
Police tactics during the unrest following the shooting have been criticized as over-aggressive. Earlier this week, cops used rubber bullets and tear gas against demonstrators, some of whom have been accused of looting. Source Earlier in the week the protests turned violent with looting, arson, etc. Ofc cops will be on high alert during subsequent demonstrations. Well they would have a lot less to worry about if they had even a reasonably good explanation for the event. As of now they don't really have anything. Just a dead 18 yo and a mystery slayer. Oh and several witnesses that all say the event transpired differently than the officer claimed to the police. Or had they just been using the cameras they own specifically for this type of purpose. How about they get them installed and working?! I wish there had been no rioting so that they couldn't have diverted coverage from the incident onto the riots. Would probably also help if Ferguson wasn't a racist as all hell type town. The population vs representation is obviously ridiculous too. It's nice they are trying to protect the cop who shot this unarmed 18 y.o. (allegedly 8 times) but what about all the kids walking their neighborhoods unsure if some cop is going to gun them down? What new is being done to address their safety? This halfwit PD couldn't even install the cameras they already own to catch stuff like this... I hope the recent rush of abusive cops get the book thrown at them. Sell some pot brownies, look at 20 years, abuse your power as a cop (killing someone), you might have to plea to some probation. Our legal outcomes are indefensible in any semblance of a fair system. From what I've read, the witnesses aren't 100% different from the police officer's statement. Regardless, it's under investigation. Everyone needs to wait for that to play out and not jump to whatever pre-conceived conclusions they have. Obviously it's not 100% different... Why even say that? Establishing they both said it was day or night would make that statement true... It couldn't be a more pointless thing to say? I don't think anyone here has jumped to any conclusions. I suppose if we are to presume both parties are innocent one side has a lot of explaining to do. There will of course be legitimate skepticism of the truthfulness and thoroughness of the departments own efforts and forthrightness regarding the initial reports. The fact that they won't even say how many times the cop fired his weapon or what happened after the first shot at all makes them look guilty as all hell. How many days/weeks/months seems appropriate before the officer is placed under arrest when there are multiple witnesses that say he essentially murdered an 18 y.o. in the street? If it were the other way around and the 18 y.o. shot the officer in 'claimed self defense' and killed him, how long would you think he should/would go without being arrested (even if the charges were eventually dropped)? Letting a possible cop killer roam the streets without even posting bail would be absurd, but letting a suspected murderer of a 18 y.o. get a paid vacation and go wherever he pleases and keep a gun, well that's just responsibly 'waiting for it to play out'... Pathetic... People leap to the defense of the cops presumed innocence but have nothing to say about the presumably innocent 18 y.o. who's life was taken over where he was walking...
Wanting to hear from the investigation isn't leaping to the defense of the cop. There IS reason to believe that the cop was defending himself, and nothing I've heard suggests that the investigation isn't legitimate. Not disclosing information before the investigation is complete is standard.
|
On August 14 2014 14:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2014 13:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 14 2014 12:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2014 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 14 2014 10:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2014 10:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Scores of SWAT officers swarmed Ferguson, Missouri, where unrest has broken out this week in the wake of a teenager's death.
Michael Brown, a black teenager, was unarmed when he was shot and killed by a police officer. The DOJ announced that it would look into allegations of racism and police brutality. The police officer's identity has not been released.
HuffPost's Ryan Reilly reported that a SWAT team of at least 70 people showed up the apparently peaceful demonstration. According to Reilly, cops told protesters to leave the area.
"This is not open for discussion," one officer said.
Police tactics during the unrest following the shooting have been criticized as over-aggressive. Earlier this week, cops used rubber bullets and tear gas against demonstrators, some of whom have been accused of looting. Source Earlier in the week the protests turned violent with looting, arson, etc. Ofc cops will be on high alert during subsequent demonstrations. Well they would have a lot less to worry about if they had even a reasonably good explanation for the event. As of now they don't really have anything. Just a dead 18 yo and a mystery slayer. Oh and several witnesses that all say the event transpired differently than the officer claimed to the police. Or had they just been using the cameras they own specifically for this type of purpose. How about they get them installed and working?! I wish there had been no rioting so that they couldn't have diverted coverage from the incident onto the riots. Would probably also help if Ferguson wasn't a racist as all hell type town. The population vs representation is obviously ridiculous too. It's nice they are trying to protect the cop who shot this unarmed 18 y.o. (allegedly 8 times) but what about all the kids walking their neighborhoods unsure if some cop is going to gun them down? What new is being done to address their safety? This halfwit PD couldn't even install the cameras they already own to catch stuff like this... I hope the recent rush of abusive cops get the book thrown at them. Sell some pot brownies, look at 20 years, abuse your power as a cop (killing someone), you might have to plea to some probation. Our legal outcomes are indefensible in any semblance of a fair system. From what I've read, the witnesses aren't 100% different from the police officer's statement. Regardless, it's under investigation. Everyone needs to wait for that to play out and not jump to whatever pre-conceived conclusions they have. Obviously it's not 100% different... Why even say that? Establishing they both said it was day or night would make that statement true... It couldn't be a more pointless thing to say? I don't think anyone here has jumped to any conclusions. I suppose if we are to presume both parties are innocent one side has a lot of explaining to do. There will of course be legitimate skepticism of the truthfulness and thoroughness of the departments own efforts and forthrightness regarding the initial reports. The fact that they won't even say how many times the cop fired his weapon or what happened after the first shot at all makes them look guilty as all hell. How many days/weeks/months seems appropriate before the officer is placed under arrest when there are multiple witnesses that say he essentially murdered an 18 y.o. in the street? If it were the other way around and the 18 y.o. shot the officer in 'claimed self defense' and killed him, how long would you think he should/would go without being arrested (even if the charges were eventually dropped)? Letting a possible cop killer roam the streets without even posting bail would be absurd, but letting a suspected murderer of a 18 y.o. get a paid vacation and go wherever he pleases and keep a gun, well that's just responsibly 'waiting for it to play out'... Pathetic... People leap to the defense of the cops presumed innocence but have nothing to say about the presumably innocent 18 y.o. who's life was taken over where he was walking... Wanting to hear from the investigation isn't leaping to the defense of the cop. There IS reason to believe that the cop was defending himself, and nothing I've heard suggests that the investigation isn't legitimate. Not disclosing information before the investigation is complete is standard.
You managed to pick the only line from my post that was not directed at you, respond to it, and ignored the rest. Your answers to the questions I posed (or lack thereof) suggests that the statement may have inadvertently captured you within it.
They went into quite a bit of detail about how it started, they just didn't say anything about how he ended up dead ~30 ft from where he was allegedly trying to grab the officers gun. The witnesses saying he was running for his life seem to have a pretty reasonable explanation... Why do you suppose the police don't have anything STILL days afterwords? I mean not even something they would disclaim with something about 'this is what we think at this time'. Giving any semblance of even a conflicting (let alone believable) account to counter him running for his life would do more than all the riot gear in the world to settle down those people.
The fact that mobilizing dozens of officers with riot gear and armored vehicles seems more reasonable than giving a remotely believable description of the events, says everything...
|
On August 14 2014 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2014 14:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2014 13:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 14 2014 12:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2014 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 14 2014 10:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2014 10:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Scores of SWAT officers swarmed Ferguson, Missouri, where unrest has broken out this week in the wake of a teenager's death.
Michael Brown, a black teenager, was unarmed when he was shot and killed by a police officer. The DOJ announced that it would look into allegations of racism and police brutality. The police officer's identity has not been released.
HuffPost's Ryan Reilly reported that a SWAT team of at least 70 people showed up the apparently peaceful demonstration. According to Reilly, cops told protesters to leave the area.
"This is not open for discussion," one officer said.
Police tactics during the unrest following the shooting have been criticized as over-aggressive. Earlier this week, cops used rubber bullets and tear gas against demonstrators, some of whom have been accused of looting. Source Earlier in the week the protests turned violent with looting, arson, etc. Ofc cops will be on high alert during subsequent demonstrations. Well they would have a lot less to worry about if they had even a reasonably good explanation for the event. As of now they don't really have anything. Just a dead 18 yo and a mystery slayer. Oh and several witnesses that all say the event transpired differently than the officer claimed to the police. Or had they just been using the cameras they own specifically for this type of purpose. How about they get them installed and working?! I wish there had been no rioting so that they couldn't have diverted coverage from the incident onto the riots. Would probably also help if Ferguson wasn't a racist as all hell type town. The population vs representation is obviously ridiculous too. It's nice they are trying to protect the cop who shot this unarmed 18 y.o. (allegedly 8 times) but what about all the kids walking their neighborhoods unsure if some cop is going to gun them down? What new is being done to address their safety? This halfwit PD couldn't even install the cameras they already own to catch stuff like this... I hope the recent rush of abusive cops get the book thrown at them. Sell some pot brownies, look at 20 years, abuse your power as a cop (killing someone), you might have to plea to some probation. Our legal outcomes are indefensible in any semblance of a fair system. From what I've read, the witnesses aren't 100% different from the police officer's statement. Regardless, it's under investigation. Everyone needs to wait for that to play out and not jump to whatever pre-conceived conclusions they have. Obviously it's not 100% different... Why even say that? Establishing they both said it was day or night would make that statement true... It couldn't be a more pointless thing to say? I don't think anyone here has jumped to any conclusions. I suppose if we are to presume both parties are innocent one side has a lot of explaining to do. There will of course be legitimate skepticism of the truthfulness and thoroughness of the departments own efforts and forthrightness regarding the initial reports. The fact that they won't even say how many times the cop fired his weapon or what happened after the first shot at all makes them look guilty as all hell. How many days/weeks/months seems appropriate before the officer is placed under arrest when there are multiple witnesses that say he essentially murdered an 18 y.o. in the street? If it were the other way around and the 18 y.o. shot the officer in 'claimed self defense' and killed him, how long would you think he should/would go without being arrested (even if the charges were eventually dropped)? Letting a possible cop killer roam the streets without even posting bail would be absurd, but letting a suspected murderer of a 18 y.o. get a paid vacation and go wherever he pleases and keep a gun, well that's just responsibly 'waiting for it to play out'... Pathetic... People leap to the defense of the cops presumed innocence but have nothing to say about the presumably innocent 18 y.o. who's life was taken over where he was walking... Wanting to hear from the investigation isn't leaping to the defense of the cop. There IS reason to believe that the cop was defending himself, and nothing I've heard suggests that the investigation isn't legitimate. Not disclosing information before the investigation is complete is standard. You managed to pick the only line from my post that was not directed at you, respond to it, and ignored the rest. Your answers to the questions I posed (or lack thereof) suggests that the statement may have inadvertently captured you within it. They went into quite a bit of detail about how it started, they just didn't say anything about how he ended up dead ~30 ft from where he was allegedly trying to grab the officers gun. The witnesses saying he was running for his life seem to have a pretty reasonable explanation... Why do you suppose the police don't have anything STILL days afterwords? I mean not even something they would disclaim with something about 'this is what we think at this time'. Giving any semblance of even a conflicting (let alone believable) account to counter him running for his life would do more than all the riot gear in the world to settle down those people. The fact that mobilizing dozens of officers with riot gear and armored vehicles seems more reasonable than giving a remotely believable description of the events, says everything...
There's nothing to respond to. They're doing an investigation and they're not going to release details as they find them publicly until it's over. BTW, that's completely normal. Their job is to find out what happened, not update their twitter feed with every revelation.
|
On August 14 2014 16:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2014 15:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 14 2014 14:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2014 13:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 14 2014 12:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2014 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 14 2014 10:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 14 2014 10:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Scores of SWAT officers swarmed Ferguson, Missouri, where unrest has broken out this week in the wake of a teenager's death.
Michael Brown, a black teenager, was unarmed when he was shot and killed by a police officer. The DOJ announced that it would look into allegations of racism and police brutality. The police officer's identity has not been released.
HuffPost's Ryan Reilly reported that a SWAT team of at least 70 people showed up the apparently peaceful demonstration. According to Reilly, cops told protesters to leave the area.
"This is not open for discussion," one officer said.
Police tactics during the unrest following the shooting have been criticized as over-aggressive. Earlier this week, cops used rubber bullets and tear gas against demonstrators, some of whom have been accused of looting. Source Earlier in the week the protests turned violent with looting, arson, etc. Ofc cops will be on high alert during subsequent demonstrations. Well they would have a lot less to worry about if they had even a reasonably good explanation for the event. As of now they don't really have anything. Just a dead 18 yo and a mystery slayer. Oh and several witnesses that all say the event transpired differently than the officer claimed to the police. Or had they just been using the cameras they own specifically for this type of purpose. How about they get them installed and working?! I wish there had been no rioting so that they couldn't have diverted coverage from the incident onto the riots. Would probably also help if Ferguson wasn't a racist as all hell type town. The population vs representation is obviously ridiculous too. It's nice they are trying to protect the cop who shot this unarmed 18 y.o. (allegedly 8 times) but what about all the kids walking their neighborhoods unsure if some cop is going to gun them down? What new is being done to address their safety? This halfwit PD couldn't even install the cameras they already own to catch stuff like this... I hope the recent rush of abusive cops get the book thrown at them. Sell some pot brownies, look at 20 years, abuse your power as a cop (killing someone), you might have to plea to some probation. Our legal outcomes are indefensible in any semblance of a fair system. From what I've read, the witnesses aren't 100% different from the police officer's statement. Regardless, it's under investigation. Everyone needs to wait for that to play out and not jump to whatever pre-conceived conclusions they have. Obviously it's not 100% different... Why even say that? Establishing they both said it was day or night would make that statement true... It couldn't be a more pointless thing to say? I don't think anyone here has jumped to any conclusions. I suppose if we are to presume both parties are innocent one side has a lot of explaining to do. There will of course be legitimate skepticism of the truthfulness and thoroughness of the departments own efforts and forthrightness regarding the initial reports. The fact that they won't even say how many times the cop fired his weapon or what happened after the first shot at all makes them look guilty as all hell. How many days/weeks/months seems appropriate before the officer is placed under arrest when there are multiple witnesses that say he essentially murdered an 18 y.o. in the street? If it were the other way around and the 18 y.o. shot the officer in 'claimed self defense' and killed him, how long would you think he should/would go without being arrested (even if the charges were eventually dropped)? Letting a possible cop killer roam the streets without even posting bail would be absurd, but letting a suspected murderer of a 18 y.o. get a paid vacation and go wherever he pleases and keep a gun, well that's just responsibly 'waiting for it to play out'... Pathetic... People leap to the defense of the cops presumed innocence but have nothing to say about the presumably innocent 18 y.o. who's life was taken over where he was walking... Wanting to hear from the investigation isn't leaping to the defense of the cop. There IS reason to believe that the cop was defending himself, and nothing I've heard suggests that the investigation isn't legitimate. Not disclosing information before the investigation is complete is standard. You managed to pick the only line from my post that was not directed at you, respond to it, and ignored the rest. Your answers to the questions I posed (or lack thereof) suggests that the statement may have inadvertently captured you within it. They went into quite a bit of detail about how it started, they just didn't say anything about how he ended up dead ~30 ft from where he was allegedly trying to grab the officers gun. The witnesses saying he was running for his life seem to have a pretty reasonable explanation... Why do you suppose the police don't have anything STILL days afterwords? I mean not even something they would disclaim with something about 'this is what we think at this time'. Giving any semblance of even a conflicting (let alone believable) account to counter him running for his life would do more than all the riot gear in the world to settle down those people. The fact that mobilizing dozens of officers with riot gear and armored vehicles seems more reasonable than giving a remotely believable description of the events, says everything... There's nothing to respond to. They're doing an investigation and they're not going to release details as they find them publicly until it's over. BTW, that's completely normal. Their job is to find out what happened, not update their twitter feed with every revelation.
Well on that note, I will agree to disagree with your interpretation. We'll see how the investigations go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
