|
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 18 2014 12:51 IgnE wrote:
"Lawful is an adjective and "justice" is a noun. Surely you aren't suggesting that Roswell doesn't know the difference?
Haha, I wondered if someone was going to pick up on that. I thought about using "just" instead of "justice," but figured that I'd just confuse people.
|
On August 18 2014 12:51 IgnE wrote:
"Lawful is an adjective and "justice" is a noun. Surely you aren't suggesting that Roswell doesn't know the difference?
I clearly meant "justice" as in the old days. But thanks for degrading me. Ud probably one of the looters and rioters there blindly following some crusade.
|
On August 18 2014 12:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 12:41 Jormundr wrote:On August 18 2014 12:18 xDaunt wrote:
I just wish people would stfu and let the criminal process run its course. The facts will eventually come to light. Way too many judgments are being rendered on speculation. One would think that people would have learned their lesson after the Zimmerman trial. This is not an isolated incident. People are pissed because this incident is an iconic example of several deep problems with the american justice system; 1. The disproportionate amount of "policing" we do to keep our minorities 'in line'. 2. The amount of insulation our officers have from the legal system itself. 3. The extent to which officers are encouraged to use disproportionate force. | 4. The way the legal system has been designed to affect minorities more than white people. I don't know why you brought up the Trayvon case. We never learned the facts because the nobody was watching the wannabe cop. It doesn't mean he was innocent or guitly. It just means that you can get away with anything if nobody else is alive to tell a different version of the story, which is why people are calling for greater police surveillance. What the fuck are you talking about? There was an eyewitness in that case that saw Trayvon beating up Zimmerman. That was a case that should never have been brought to trial. Still, there were all sorts of loudmouths that had no trouble calling for Zimmerman's head both before and after the trial. This present case is on the exact same trajectory. It just remains to be seen what he actual facts are.
It was never revealed who started the fight... which is kind of crucial for determining who is at fault. It is also highly unlikely that Trayvon would have gotten off scot-free if Zimmerman had been the one who died. Again, the case was merely the catalyst for a far bigger problem.
|
On August 18 2014 13:07 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2014 12:41 Jormundr wrote:On August 18 2014 12:18 xDaunt wrote:
I just wish people would stfu and let the criminal process run its course. The facts will eventually come to light. Way too many judgments are being rendered on speculation. One would think that people would have learned their lesson after the Zimmerman trial. This is not an isolated incident. People are pissed because this incident is an iconic example of several deep problems with the american justice system; 1. The disproportionate amount of "policing" we do to keep our minorities 'in line'. 2. The amount of insulation our officers have from the legal system itself. 3. The extent to which officers are encouraged to use disproportionate force. | 4. The way the legal system has been designed to affect minorities more than white people. I don't know why you brought up the Trayvon case. We never learned the facts because the nobody was watching the wannabe cop. It doesn't mean he was innocent or guitly. It just means that you can get away with anything if nobody else is alive to tell a different version of the story, which is why people are calling for greater police surveillance. What the fuck are you talking about? There was an eyewitness in that case that saw Trayvon beating up Zimmerman. That was a case that should never have been brought to trial. Still, there were all sorts of loudmouths that had no trouble calling for Zimmerman's head both before and after the trial. This present case is on the exact same trajectory. It just remains to be seen what he actual facts are. It was never revealed who started the fight... which is kind of crucial for determining who is at fault. It is also highly unlikely that Trayvon would have gotten off scot-free if Zimmerman had been the one who died. Again, the case was merely the catalyst for a far bigger problem.
The only time race should ever play a role is with intent, and with the accused being a known racist or somehing of the sort. The far bigger problem is how 10k homicides happen every year, and the it seems the entire world stops for 4 cases because a white fucker shot a black fucker.
|
On August 18 2014 12:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 12:41 Jormundr wrote:On August 18 2014 12:18 xDaunt wrote:
I just wish people would stfu and let the criminal process run its course. The facts will eventually come to light. Way too many judgments are being rendered on speculation. One would think that people would have learned their lesson after the Zimmerman trial. This is not an isolated incident. People are pissed because this incident is an iconic example of several deep problems with the american justice system; 1. The disproportionate amount of "policing" we do to keep our minorities 'in line'. 2. The amount of insulation our officers have from the legal system itself. 3. The extent to which officers are encouraged to use disproportionate force. | 4. The way the legal system has been designed to affect minorities more than white people. I don't know why you brought up the Trayvon case. We never learned the facts because the nobody was watching the wannabe cop. It doesn't mean he was innocent or guitly. It just means that you can get away with anything if nobody else is alive to tell a different version of the story, which is why people are calling for greater police surveillance. What the fuck are you talking about? There was an eyewitness in that case that saw Trayvon beating up Zimmerman. That was a case that should never have been brought to trial. Still, there were all sorts of loudmouths that had no trouble calling for Zimmerman's head both before and after the trial. This present case is on the exact same trajectory. It just remains to be seen what he actual facts are.
You couldn't be more oblivious to the reason people are angry. I just wonder how much longer they are going to go before they release how a struggle in a car ended with brown dead ~30 ft away. Or how many shots the officer fired. I mean we already have one version from multiple witnesses that fits the information we have so far, and absolutely nothing from the police.
Regardless of what happened the police have screwed the pooch hard on this one.
|
The account from the witnesses says he was shot in the back, the autopsy shows otherwise.
|
On August 18 2014 12:58 Roswell wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 12:51 IgnE wrote:
"Lawful is an adjective and "justice" is a noun. Surely you aren't suggesting that Roswell doesn't know the difference? I clearly meant "justice" as in the old days. But thanks for degrading me. Ud probably one of the looters and rioters there blindly following some crusade.
I hope I would be one of the looters and rioters, but it wouldn't be blind looting or rioting.
|
Its a larger matter of the failure of proper modern equipment getting out to the police in poorer neighborhoods. I don't know about other states but in Minnnesota its becoming almost mandatory for police to have a tazer strapped to the other side of their belt as their gun to be used in almost all cases instead of a gun. The police officer could have had his dashboard camera but the department didn't have the money to install them or have more then 2 for the entire force of 11. If they're having the funding problems like that they might not have defibs on every squad car or drugs to treat overdoses.
I'm usually in the police's side on these things but kwark really makes the point that the last thing that should be happening is the unarmed suspect getting shot. Police are suppose to be trained and equipped to deal with suspect non lethally as they are in every other country on the globe. The problem is that these same areas that needs good police forces to clean up the area simply can't afford the police department that the citizens deserve.
The federal government should be subsidizing the pay of cops in poorer areas and the non lethal equipment that they need more then machine guns and sniper rifles. This is something Obama could have a real lasting impact on our nation with and something I hope he doesn't just let pass up again.
|
On August 18 2014 13:25 Sermokala wrote:
The police officer could have had his dashboard camera but the department didn't have the money to install them or have more then 2 for the entire force of 11.
This is such bullshit.
You're telling me that the Ferguson Police department can afford Tear Gas, Sound Cannons, Armored Vehicles and automatic weapons but can't afford to install dash cams in every squad car?
That's bullshit. The funding excuse is a fucking cop out. They could if they were required to appropriate funds for cameras. Hell I'd go a step further, I think if it was just funding that was the problem why wouldn't they just hold a fundraiser. I'd gladly donate money to the LAPD to get every single one of them to wear cameras while on duty, and I know that there's literally hundreds of thousands of Los Angelenos that would do the same.
The funding excuse is bullshit.
|
On August 18 2014 13:20 RockIronrod wrote:
The account from the witnesses says he was shot in the back, the autopsy shows otherwise.
It also shows the officer shot him at least 6 times and indicates (at the moment) that he wasn't shot at close range. The cop shouldn't of shot him so many times period.
|
On August 18 2014 13:28 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 13:25 Sermokala wrote:
The police officer could have had his dashboard camera but the department didn't have the money to install them or have more then 2 for the entire force of 11. This is such bullshit. You're telling me that the Ferguson Police department can afford Tear Gas, Sound Cannons, Armored Vehicles and automatic weapons but can't afford to install dash cams in every squad car? That's bullshit. The funding excuse is a fucking cop out. They could if they were required to appropriate funds for cameras. Hell I'd go a step further, I think if it was just funding that was the problem why wouldn't they just hold a fundraiser. I'd gladly donate money to the LAPD to get every single one of them to wear cameras while on duty, and I know that there's literally hundreds of thousands of Los Angelenos that would do the same. The funding excuse is bullshit.
The Federal government pays for the military surplus equipment and the state pays for the riot gear, not the local country police department.
Its still bullshit that funding priorities are like this. I'm with you and I'd pay more in taxes to pay for cameras on every cop car and persons. Everyone deserves police they can trust no matter where they live.
On August 18 2014 13:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 13:20 RockIronrod wrote:
The account from the witnesses says he was shot in the back, the autopsy shows otherwise. It also shows the officer shot him at least 6 times and indicates (at the moment) that he wasn't shot at close range. The cop shouldn't of shot him so many times period.
Police training is to shoot to kill. It has nothing to do with the situation and is the same as everywhere else in the country for good reason.
The gunpowder residue could have been on the police's clothing but that wasn't provided to the first autopsy. It doesn't mean anything either way but to clarify the situation for everyone.
|
On August 18 2014 13:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 13:20 RockIronrod wrote:
The account from the witnesses says he was shot in the back, the autopsy shows otherwise. It also shows the officer shot him at least 6 times and indicates (at the moment) that he wasn't shot at close range. The cop shouldn't of shot him so many times period.
Which was explained in the officer testimony and possibly corroborated in a statement made by a bystander in this video.
|
On August 18 2014 13:37 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 13:28 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 18 2014 13:25 Sermokala wrote:
The police officer could have had his dashboard camera but the department didn't have the money to install them or have more then 2 for the entire force of 11. This is such bullshit. You're telling me that the Ferguson Police department can afford Tear Gas, Sound Cannons, Armored Vehicles and automatic weapons but can't afford to install dash cams in every squad car? That's bullshit. The funding excuse is a fucking cop out. They could if they were required to appropriate funds for cameras. Hell I'd go a step further, I think if it was just funding that was the problem why wouldn't they just hold a fundraiser. I'd gladly donate money to the LAPD to get every single one of them to wear cameras while on duty, and I know that there's literally hundreds of thousands of Los Angelenos that would do the same. The funding excuse is bullshit. The Federal government pays for the military surplus equipment and the state pays for the riot gear, not the local country police department. Its still bullshit that funding priorities are like this. I'm with you and I'd pay more in taxes to pay for cameras on every cop car and persons. Everyone deserves police they can trust no matter where they live.
If the federal government can pay to arm police with military weapons they can pay for cameras for them to be held accountable for what they do with those weapons. Period.
You don't need to raise taxes for something like this, the police could literally hold a bake sale and people would flock to it to give them their money.
|
On August 18 2014 13:47 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 13:37 Sermokala wrote:On August 18 2014 13:28 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 18 2014 13:25 Sermokala wrote:
The police officer could have had his dashboard camera but the department didn't have the money to install them or have more then 2 for the entire force of 11. This is such bullshit. You're telling me that the Ferguson Police department can afford Tear Gas, Sound Cannons, Armored Vehicles and automatic weapons but can't afford to install dash cams in every squad car? That's bullshit. The funding excuse is a fucking cop out. They could if they were required to appropriate funds for cameras. Hell I'd go a step further, I think if it was just funding that was the problem why wouldn't they just hold a fundraiser. I'd gladly donate money to the LAPD to get every single one of them to wear cameras while on duty, and I know that there's literally hundreds of thousands of Los Angelenos that would do the same. The funding excuse is bullshit. The Federal government pays for the military surplus equipment and the state pays for the riot gear, not the local country police department. Its still bullshit that funding priorities are like this. I'm with you and I'd pay more in taxes to pay for cameras on every cop car and persons. Everyone deserves police they can trust no matter where they live. If the federal government can pay to arm police with military weapons they can pay for cameras for them to be held accountable for what they do with those weapons. Period. You don't need to raise taxes for something like this, the police could literally hold a bake sale and people would flock to it to give them their money.
Just give them google glass and everyone will be happy
|
On August 18 2014 13:47 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 13:37 Sermokala wrote:On August 18 2014 13:28 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 18 2014 13:25 Sermokala wrote:
The police officer could have had his dashboard camera but the department didn't have the money to install them or have more then 2 for the entire force of 11. This is such bullshit. You're telling me that the Ferguson Police department can afford Tear Gas, Sound Cannons, Armored Vehicles and automatic weapons but can't afford to install dash cams in every squad car? That's bullshit. The funding excuse is a fucking cop out. They could if they were required to appropriate funds for cameras. Hell I'd go a step further, I think if it was just funding that was the problem why wouldn't they just hold a fundraiser. I'd gladly donate money to the LAPD to get every single one of them to wear cameras while on duty, and I know that there's literally hundreds of thousands of Los Angelenos that would do the same. The funding excuse is bullshit. The Federal government pays for the military surplus equipment and the state pays for the riot gear, not the local country police department. Its still bullshit that funding priorities are like this. I'm with you and I'd pay more in taxes to pay for cameras on every cop car and persons. Everyone deserves police they can trust no matter where they live. If the federal government can pay to arm police with military weapons they can pay for cameras for them to be held accountable for what they do with those weapons. Period. You don't need to raise taxes for something like this, the police could literally hold a bake sale and people would flock to it to give them their money.
They've tried issuing cameras to police. The few places its been fairly tried, use of force drops by 60%.
http://benswann.com/police-use-of-force-drops-60-when-officers-required-to-wear-video-cameras/
Of course, this is a rare example. Most other times its even brought up, police unions fight tooth and nail to kill it.
|
On August 18 2014 14:11 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 13:47 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 18 2014 13:37 Sermokala wrote:On August 18 2014 13:28 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 18 2014 13:25 Sermokala wrote:
The police officer could have had his dashboard camera but the department didn't have the money to install them or have more then 2 for the entire force of 11. This is such bullshit. You're telling me that the Ferguson Police department can afford Tear Gas, Sound Cannons, Armored Vehicles and automatic weapons but can't afford to install dash cams in every squad car? That's bullshit. The funding excuse is a fucking cop out. They could if they were required to appropriate funds for cameras. Hell I'd go a step further, I think if it was just funding that was the problem why wouldn't they just hold a fundraiser. I'd gladly donate money to the LAPD to get every single one of them to wear cameras while on duty, and I know that there's literally hundreds of thousands of Los Angelenos that would do the same. The funding excuse is bullshit. The Federal government pays for the military surplus equipment and the state pays for the riot gear, not the local country police department. Its still bullshit that funding priorities are like this. I'm with you and I'd pay more in taxes to pay for cameras on every cop car and persons. Everyone deserves police they can trust no matter where they live. If the federal government can pay to arm police with military weapons they can pay for cameras for them to be held accountable for what they do with those weapons. Period. You don't need to raise taxes for something like this, the police could literally hold a bake sale and people would flock to it to give them their money. They've tried issuing cameras to police. The few places its been fairly tried, use of force drops by 60%. http://benswann.com/police-use-of-force-drops-60-when-officers-required-to-wear-video-cameras/Of course, this is a rare example. Most other times its even brought up, police unions fight tooth and nail to kill it.
Good lord. I mean I knew cops were abusing power but damn. Numbers like that insinuate a great number of people are being abused by the police.
|
On August 18 2014 14:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 14:11 Millitron wrote:On August 18 2014 13:47 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 18 2014 13:37 Sermokala wrote:On August 18 2014 13:28 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 18 2014 13:25 Sermokala wrote:
The police officer could have had his dashboard camera but the department didn't have the money to install them or have more then 2 for the entire force of 11. This is such bullshit. You're telling me that the Ferguson Police department can afford Tear Gas, Sound Cannons, Armored Vehicles and automatic weapons but can't afford to install dash cams in every squad car? That's bullshit. The funding excuse is a fucking cop out. They could if they were required to appropriate funds for cameras. Hell I'd go a step further, I think if it was just funding that was the problem why wouldn't they just hold a fundraiser. I'd gladly donate money to the LAPD to get every single one of them to wear cameras while on duty, and I know that there's literally hundreds of thousands of Los Angelenos that would do the same. The funding excuse is bullshit. The Federal government pays for the military surplus equipment and the state pays for the riot gear, not the local country police department. Its still bullshit that funding priorities are like this. I'm with you and I'd pay more in taxes to pay for cameras on every cop car and persons. Everyone deserves police they can trust no matter where they live. If the federal government can pay to arm police with military weapons they can pay for cameras for them to be held accountable for what they do with those weapons. Period. You don't need to raise taxes for something like this, the police could literally hold a bake sale and people would flock to it to give them their money. They've tried issuing cameras to police. The few places its been fairly tried, use of force drops by 60%. http://benswann.com/police-use-of-force-drops-60-when-officers-required-to-wear-video-cameras/Of course, this is a rare example. Most other times its even brought up, police unions fight tooth and nail to kill it. Good lord. I mean I knew cops were abusing power but damn. Numbers like that insinuate a great number of people are being abused by the police.
I agree that police should wear cameras for a multitude of reasons, but that is an insane leap of logic.
|
On August 18 2014 14:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 14:11 Millitron wrote:On August 18 2014 13:47 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 18 2014 13:37 Sermokala wrote:On August 18 2014 13:28 Vindicare605 wrote:On August 18 2014 13:25 Sermokala wrote:
The police officer could have had his dashboard camera but the department didn't have the money to install them or have more then 2 for the entire force of 11. This is such bullshit. You're telling me that the Ferguson Police department can afford Tear Gas, Sound Cannons, Armored Vehicles and automatic weapons but can't afford to install dash cams in every squad car? That's bullshit. The funding excuse is a fucking cop out. They could if they were required to appropriate funds for cameras. Hell I'd go a step further, I think if it was just funding that was the problem why wouldn't they just hold a fundraiser. I'd gladly donate money to the LAPD to get every single one of them to wear cameras while on duty, and I know that there's literally hundreds of thousands of Los Angelenos that would do the same. The funding excuse is bullshit. The Federal government pays for the military surplus equipment and the state pays for the riot gear, not the local country police department. Its still bullshit that funding priorities are like this. I'm with you and I'd pay more in taxes to pay for cameras on every cop car and persons. Everyone deserves police they can trust no matter where they live. If the federal government can pay to arm police with military weapons they can pay for cameras for them to be held accountable for what they do with those weapons. Period. You don't need to raise taxes for something like this, the police could literally hold a bake sale and people would flock to it to give them their money. They've tried issuing cameras to police. The few places its been fairly tried, use of force drops by 60%. http://benswann.com/police-use-of-force-drops-60-when-officers-required-to-wear-video-cameras/Of course, this is a rare example. Most other times its even brought up, police unions fight tooth and nail to kill it. Good lord. I mean I knew cops were abusing power but damn. Numbers like that insinuate a great number of people are being abused by the police.
And the fact is only made worse by the subsidies that give the Police all of this military gear. They're being given war gear and not being held accountable for what they do with it.
|
Autopsy confirms that eyewitness testimony was inaccurate. Would not be surprised for the toxicology report to reveal that Brown was on PCP at the time, it seems like the most likely case given the evidence available to us at the moment. We'll have to wait.
|
Only desperate people willingly take PCP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
