If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
As many as 85 IP addresses connected to 1 Police Plaza altered entries for some of the most high-profile police abuse cases, including those for victims Eric Garner, Sean Bell, and Amadou Diallo. Edits have also been made to other entries covering NYPD scandals, its stop-and-frisk program, and the department leadership.
Only odd bits and pieces of these police shootings are filtering down to me so I'm horribly uninformed on this topic, but there seems like an awful lot of unarmed people being shot dead by cops recently.
Its my understanding that most of your cops are pro-gun. Is it possible in some part that is because widespread gun ownership combined with their apparent ability to shoot pretty much anyone and say "I thought he had a gun" and get away with it? Discuss.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
That's a direct result of the city of Ferguson targeting its black residents as a revenue source. A huge chunk of those warrants were for "Failure to Appear" in court over some BS traffic violations.
Only odd bits and pieces of these police shootings are filtering down to me so I'm horribly uninformed on this topic, but there seems like an awful lot of unarmed people being shot dead by cops recently.
Its my understanding that most of your cops are pro-gun. Is it possible in some part that is because widespread gun ownership combined with their apparent ability to shoot pretty much anyone and say "I thought he had a gun" and get away with it? Discuss.
Absolutely. But I think an even larger factor is this ....
Police officers who play the simulations have similar results. In a 2005 study from Florida State University researchers, a mostly white, mostly male group of officers in Florida were statistically more likely to let armed white suspects slip while shooting unarmed black suspects instead.
Hence the #BlackLivesMatter theme that has come about. This police shooting unarmed people simply isn't an "across the board" phenomenon.
Apparently a black man holding a screwdriver on his own front porch is a "threat" to some "officers" ....
A mentally ill African-American man was shot by Dallas police officers last summer when he did not drop a screwdriver he was holding.
The family of the victim has released the footage from an officer’s body camera to the public.
38-year-old Jason Harrison suffered from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, and his mother had called for help in taking him to the local hospital after he had stopped taking his medication.
In the released video, Harrison’s mother answers the door, and Harrison comes along behind her, holding a screwdriver. The officers, who appear in the video to be white, demand that he drop the tool and seconds later fire several shots.
“It was the most heartbreaking experience in my life,” said his mother, Shirley Harrison, of the incident. “To stand there helpless, he’s helpless. I couldn’t help him. To be gunned down right before my eye.”
In October, Harrison’s family filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in which they claim that Harrison did not pose a threat. Dallas Police Department spokesman Lieutenant Jose Garcia said that the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office had been sent the case and that a lawyer for the officers said they feared for their lives.
Harrison’s family disagrees. “We maintain the footage shows him not stabbing, not thrusting, not lunging in a way that would jeopardize the lives of these officer,” their attorney, Geoff Henley, said. “He never leaves the front porch and he’s gunned down.”
They are pressing for a wrongful death lawsuit. “We feel it’s vital to this case and we feel it’s vital to the public because this is not the way we want mental health cases contended with in our communities either here in Dallas County or elsewhere,” Henley said. “It’s absolutely horrific to be diagnosing schizophrenia with 9mm guns.”
The two officers involved, John Rodgers and Andrew Hutchins, are back on duty. But for Harrison’s family, the pain is still present.
“Every day I visualize the blood,” Shirley Harrison said. “All I visualize is the blood on his shirt. So it was very traumatic.”
Take note of the key factors here. The mother comes out of the house first and she doesn't appear to be in any kind of distress. She calmly tells the "officers" that the man is bi-polar and schizophrenic. One would think that would give the "officers" reason for pause ... but one would be wrong. The man appears casually holding a screwdriver. Definitely not gripping it in a manner to use as a weapon. He takes a step onto his own front porch. He does not threaten these "officers" or lunge at them in any way. Nevertheless, within seconds he is gunned down ... for "failure to comply"and no other reason. Because apparently taking a step back and continuing to instruct him to put the screwdriver down was clearly not an option.
Think long and hard about calling the police for assistance with a mentally ill person.
I'm sorry but I consider a screwdriver a very real threat. Hard, metal, and fantastic for gouging. Which is not to absolve the cops for escalating the situation.
Johnson was charged with resisting arrest, obstructing justice without threats of force, and profane swearing or intoxication in public at 4:21 a.m. The arresting officer was Alcohol and Beverage Control special agent J. Miller.
Miller noted on the arrest record that Johnson “was very agitated and belligerent but [has] no previous criminal history.”
In the course of the arrest, Johnson sustained a head injury requiring 10 stitches.
Certainly a screwdriver can be used as a weapon so it is a POTENTIAL threat. My only point is that in this situation it was not an ACTUAL threat.
OAW
A very important note here in regards to choosing your weapon.
Unless the choice involves a weapon which won't see you survive the encounter, the most important determinant should be whether a will jury consider it a weapon.
I attack you with a screwdriver, and you defend yourself with a knife. Without ample evidence to the contrary, a jury is going to think you're the aggressor. You're the one with the weapon.
To take this to the extreme, an acquaintance of mine was homeless for a stint. He carried around one of those giant BBQ spatulas with the serrated edge. Cops wouldn't take it from him when he got rousted, and the times he needed to use it, it gave him the extra second he needed to get in the first lick while his opponent went "spatula... WTF?"
(
Last edited by subego; Mar 19, 2015 at 12:01 PM.
Reason: none of your ****ing business)
The video footage that doesn't show anything that happened? That footage?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Absolutely disgusting. We need better oversight of our police. They cannot be trusted to police themselves.
They no longer work for you and me. Ever since the early 1990s when Homeland Security (how's that for a fascist sounding name) started giving departments all over the country billions of dollars to buy military equipment, the game has changed. Combined with the movement towards privatizing prisons, we're in deep shit!
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
They no longer work for you and me. Ever since the early 1990s when Homeland Security (how's that for a fascist sounding name) started giving departments all over the country billions of dollars to buy military equipment, the game has changed. Combined with the movement towards privatizing prisons, we're in deep shit!
This is exactly how I feel. We can't let em touch the 2nd anymore than they already have, it's the final check on them and is especially important with the 1st, 4th, and 5th effectively nullified.
I hope you've had a chance to read the other thread about privatizing SWAT resource allocation - I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.
I'm sorry, but I can not support this. 60 days is enough time for the police to get their stories straight. A lot of the most contentious information about a police shooting occurs within the first 24 hours, especially statements from the officers involved.
The problem is a (justified) lack of trust for the police, and it's their job to correct that problem. Hiding behind a new law will only encourage more shenanigans and deny the families of the victims justice, even if that justice is only in the court of public opinion.
It also further incentivizes cops to leave no witnesses, as the 1st amendment would allow any citizen involved in the indecent to report the names of the officers. The "shoot-first" or "SWAT-first" mentality would be further ingrained into the officers involved, because they could just get out of dodge if they really had the citizens after them.
If the cops don't want mobs after them, they ought to think twice before killing citizens or think twice about becoming cops in the first place. I see no reason to shield the police from the public's wrath - that's one of the most fundamental checks and balances we have against them.
More transparency is the answer, not less. They do work for us, after all.
I can understand that viewpoint. But I have to consider the other side. When the unarmed person ends up shot and killed the standard play is to drag the victim's name through the mud in order "justify" the shooting in the minds of large swaths of the public and potential jury pool. Notice how if a guy is shot in the back by a cop they will publicize the fact that the guy was arrested for having a joint in his pocket 10 years ago ... as if that is even REMOTELY relevant to the situation at hand. So in the interest of fairness why shouldn't people know who the cop is and whether or not he has a history of excessive force complaints, etc. If your Average Joe was arrested for a crime you can best believe that the media will refer to him as "Joe Blow of the 1500 block of Any Street in North St. Louis". So we can't even NAME a police officer? Forget where he lives because that's not important. But not even his name and complaint/discipline record on the job?
I can understand that viewpoint. But I have to consider the other side. When the unarmed person ends up shot and killed the standard play is to drag the victim's name through the mud in order "justify" the shooting in the minds of large swaths of the public and potential jury pool. Notice how if a guy is shot in the back by a cop they will publicize the fact that the guy was arrested for having a joint in his pocket 10 years ago ... as if that is even REMOTELY relevant to the situation at hand. So in the interest of fairness why shouldn't people know who the cop is and whether or not he has a history of excessive force complaints, etc. If your Average Joe was arrested for a crime you can best believe that the media will refer to him as "Joe Blow of the 1500 block of Any Street in North St. Louis". So we can't even NAME a police officer? Forget where he lives because that's not important. But not even his name and complaint/discipline record on the job?
OAW
Yeah, I agree that this doesn't pass the sniff test and is designed to reduce the public's free speech in protest. They know our attention spans collectively are short, and are trying to exploit that.
In the event of a really bad shoot, you'd also have those truly angry about it targeting any ole' cop vs the bad apple that did the shoot. This could (like many government initiatives) have the exact opposite effect of what they intend and could lead to more generalized unrest. It would also further enrage the citizenry to withhold the name when shit truly hits the fan. Any attempt to quell the unrest would not be successful until the perpetrator was brought to justice, and the police would not appear credible until that name was released.
Too many people are trying to shoot/attack cops right now, I'm for this... but only for a limited time, maybe the next 6-12 months, until things settle down a little.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
That's a pretty bad idea, in the real world cops are pretty well-protected against serious consequences (convictions are exceedingly rare), the last thing you need is to keep their names a secret — the protections they have now are way more than good enough. And as the others have pointed out, the victim usually doesn't get the same courtesy, quite the contrary, the police gives out details in press conferences.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Too many people are trying to shoot/attack cops right now, I'm for this... but only for a limited time, maybe the next 6-12 months, until things settle down a little.
But are those attacks targeted or not? The two cops who got shot in NYC were not targeted personally, they were targeted because they wore the uniform. Not releasing the names of police officers involved in an incident will do diddily squat.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I'm sorry, but I can not support this. 60 days is enough time for the police to get their stories straight. A lot of the most contentious information about a police shooting occurs within the first 24 hours, especially statements from the officers involved.
Good counter-point.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
It also further incentivizes cops to leave no witnesses
That's already the current state of things, for police and citizens. Dead men can't give their side of the story.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
If the cops don't want mobs after them, they ought to think twice before killing citizens or think twice about becoming cops in the first place. I see no reason to shield the police from the public's wrath - that's one of the most fundamental checks and balances we have against them.
So, I 'm about to cross the line here – if the police are acting like tyrants is an armed vigilante mob creating their own justice on these officers they see as unaccountable an exercise of their second amendment rights?
But are those attacks targeted or not? The two cops who got shot in NYC were not targeted personally, they were targeted because they wore the uniform. Not releasing the names of police officers involved in an incident will do diddily squat.
I don't think we need to wait until they are, even just a 60-90 day period for calming down would be good, allowing for the DA to collect all the facts before the officer's name and reputation are destroyed. Right now certain groups are trying and convicting LEOs before any investigation has been made (like in the situation that started this thread in the first place).
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
That's a pretty bad idea
It's better than convicting an officer in the court of public opinion, before any facts have been established... hell, before an investigation has even begun.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Right now certain groups are trying and convicting LEOs before any investigation has been made (like in the situation that started this thread in the first place).
The irony being this is what the officers did to the suspects.
The irony being this is what the officers did to the suspects.
Who did Darren Wilson try and convict? He was attacked.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
More shenanigans. This time an Inkster, MI (suburb of Detroit) "officer" pulled a gun on a 57 year old unarmed black man and beat the sh*t out of him during a routine traffic stop even though he displayed no aggressiveness toward them whatsoever ....
The cops say they pulled Mr. Dent over for running a stop sign. But these are some key facts revealed by the dash-cam video:
0:45 - Mr. Dent applies the brakes as he approaches the stop sign.
0:52 - Mr. Dent releases the brakes. The stop sign is not yet visible in the video as there are parked cars blocking the view.
0:53 - The stop sign first becomes visible in the video. Mr. Dent has continued on his way. The police vehicle follows running the stop sign.
This is important because the officers had no clear line of sight to the stop sign at all. We see Mr. Dent applying the brakes. So at worst this may have been a "rolling stop" ... not a wholesale disregard for the stop sign. But even that can be easily challenged by the video.
1:03 - The lights begin flashing on the police vehicle.
1:10 - Mr. Dent applies the brakes.
1:16 - Mr. Dent applies the brakes again.
1:19 - Mr. Dent applies the brakes yet again. Brakes remain on as his vehicle slows.
1:40 - Mr. Dent has pulled over.
Now this is important because the police claimed that Mr. Dent attempted to flee the police car. But you can see with your own two eyes that they are clearly full of sh*t!
1:52 - The driver of the police vehicle approaches Mr. Dent's car with his gun already drawn.
1:54 - Mr. Dent opens his door. (Not a smart move dude ... you should know better. ). The first officer immediately points his gun at Mr. Dent.
2:00 - Second officer drags Mr. Dent out of his vehicle while the first officer keeps his gun pointed at him.
2:08 - First officer puts his weapon away and puts Mr. Dent in what appears to be a chokehold. Second officer attempts to pull Mr. Dent's left arm behind his back.
2:17 - First officer begins punching Mr. Dent about the head and face. Mr. Dent immediately covers his face with both hands in order to protect himself.
Now this is important because this is where the bullsh*t "resisting arrest" charge comes in. The second officer had to force Mr. Dent's left arm behind his back because he was using it to cover his face from the punches being thrown by the first officer. Mr. Dent ended up with a broken eye socket from those punches. Imagine what damage would have been done if he had not covered up and taken all of those blows clean?
3:35 - Mr. Dent is handcuffed. At some point he was also tased in his thigh but that isn't visible on the video.
3:45 - Mr. Dent is lifted off the ground in handcuffs.
3:45 - 3:50 - The first officer appears to have a conversation with a "random" officer who reported to the scene.
4:00 - The "random" officer opens the rear driver's side door which obstructed the view of the first officer ... the one who beat Mr. Dent ... leaning inside the front driver's side door.
4:14 - The first officer crawls inside the front driver's side door and we see him moving around near the passenger seat.
4:23 - The first officer exits the front driver's side door and walks away from the car.
Now this is important because the police claim that they found a small package of crack cocaine under the passenger seat. Mr. Dent denies the cocaine was his and says the cops planted it. The following is a nice summary of the "discrepancies" between the official police story and the video footage .... and this is why I'm inclined to believe him.
Accounts of the incident from Dent and from Inkster police — all of whom in the video appear to be white — are wildly different:
- Police said Dent attempted to flee the police car, but the video appears to show Dent maintaining a consistent speed and then pulling over safely across the street from a police station.
- Police say Dent threatened to kill the officers. Dent says he didn't — and none of the six officers' microphones were turned on at the beginning of the incident to substantiate their claim.
- One officer said Dent bit him on the arm. Dent said he didn't, and the officer didn't seek medical attention or photograph his injury to support the allegation.
- Police said they found a bag of crack cocaine under the passenger seat of Dent's car. Dent, who has worked for Ford Motor Co. for 37 years and has no criminal record, said officers planted the cocaine. A post-arrest blood test showed no drugs in his system.
A judge dismissed all charges involved in the physical confrontation with police after watching the video obtained by WDIV. Dent's lawyer said he was offered a plea deal resulting only in probation on the cocaine possession charge, but Dent turned it down, telling the station he wouldn't plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit.
According to police reports, Dent opened the driver's door, then turned his body toward the interior of the car and appeared to be reaching for something in the console. The police said they demanded to see his hands, but he just turned to them with a "blank stare as if on a form of narcotic" and then said, "I'll kill you."
But the video shows the police officers walking up to the open door, then one immediately shoving the gun at Dent, then dragging him out onto the pavement. There is no audio. Dent says the police officer yelled, "Get out of the car! I'll blow your head off!"
I apologize if I didn't thoroughly read your post, but the suspect has no criminal record, the cop involved is being investigated (or was) for planting evidence in another case, and the video's audio is conveniently missing (The cop claimed he yelled "I'll kill you").
A. That's a gray area
B. When you use deadly force on someone, you become judge, jury, and executioner
A. Not according to numerous official (state and federal) investigations. Only certain people still contend the shooting was unjustified, and they have their own axe to grind.
B. What does that have to do with defaming a police officer before all the facts in a case can be collected?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I apologize if I didn't thoroughly read your post, but the suspect has no criminal record, the cop involved is being investigated (or was) for planting evidence in another case, and the video's audio is conveniently missing (The cop claimed he yelled "I'll kill you").
A. Not according to numerous official (state and federal) investigations. Only certain people still contend the shooting was unjustified, and they have their own axe to grind.
The investigations didn't clear him of wrongdoing – they merely determined there wasn't enough evidence to indict him (and one of those investigations was clearly biased. The other had a rather high bar).
Further, the physical evidence (His injuries) don't back-up his statements.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
B. What does that have to do with defaming a police officer before all the facts in a case can be collected?
That it's equally off the cuff and prone to error.
The investigations didn't clear him of wrongdoing – they merely determined there wasn't enough evidence to indict him (and one of those investigations was clearly biased. The other had a rather high bar).
Further, the physical evidence (His injuries) don't back-up his statements.
The point is, he was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion loooong before any facts in the case were established, and a waiting period before the officer's name is released would help stop certain attempts at character assassination, before they are.
That it's equally off the cuff and prone to error.
It's a good thing we can at least correct one problem then, right?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
No that wasn't the point, else you wouldn't have tried to bring up Wilson to counter my observation of irony.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
It's a good thing we can at least correct one problem then, right?
Doesn't really fix that problem. The officer will still be tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, just like Wilson was long before he was identified. This just prevents someone from going vigilante. Or at least that's my interpretation of it. Snow-i sees it differently. And as Oreo pointed out, it still doesn't prevent broad retaliation against the department.
I'm not sure how I feel about the policy, but I note, between the Brown and Garner case, I personally only know the name of the cop in the Brown case, i.e. the less guilty cop.
That's already the current state of things, for police and citizens. Dead men can't give their side of the story.
I don't disagree. This just gives the police another 60 days to look at all angles and be very careful about what they're lying about.
So, I 'm about to cross the line here – if the police are acting like tyrants, is an armed vigilante mob creating their own justice on these officers they see as unaccountable an exercise of their second amendment rights?
Absolutely not. Though I will grant you the 2nd is necessary for the people to be able to perform such an event. The armed mob is a response to the breakdown of the executive in one or more areas. It's an extralegal response to extralegal conditions. If the cops aren't following the constitution, the people are the only ones who can restore law and order (it wouldn't be other cops, else if they did we wouldn't need the armed vigilante mob in the first place). To be clear, I'm not advocating such a mob for any current events or any that I foresee in the near future. Shit would really have to hit the fan for that to be a viable answer. If the shit does hit the fan, however.....
I don't think we need to wait until they are, even just a 60-90 day period for calming down would be good, allowing for the DA to collect all the facts before the officer's name and reputation are destroyed. Right now certain groups are trying and convicting LEOs before any investigation has been made (like in the situation that started this thread in the first place).
The victim(s) do not have a 60-90 day period, if convenient to support their version the police is very eager to present details about the victim or to release claims about the course of events. And the public has good reason to be angry at the way police investigations are handled, and that very, very few cops have to face serious consequences for abuses of power. If anything, we should shine a stronger light on these cases and increase transparency, not introduce laws that allow the police to be even more closed than it is now.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
It's better than convicting an officer in the court of public opinion, before any facts have been established... hell, before an investigation has even begun.
Police officers in the US don't have a problem of being convicted en masse for being overly violent, and coverage in the media is currently the only for society to process and discuss these transgressions.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Yes, it is. Wilson was convicted in this very thread before any facts were made public.
Doesn't really fix that problem. The officer will still be tried and convicted in the court of public opinion, just like Wilson was long before he was identified. This just prevents someone from going vigilante. Or at least that's my interpretation of it. Snow-i sees it differently. And as Oreo pointed out, it still doesn't prevent broad retaliation against the department.
It prevents the officer's life and reputation from being destroyed before knowing any of the facts in a situation. The public doesn't remember when someone is exonerated, only that they were accused.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
They aren't "victims", not until the facts come out, and classifying everyone who is shot by police as one is absurd.
Police officers in the US don't have a problem of being convicted en masse for being overly violent, and coverage in the media is currently the only for society to process and discuss these transgressions.
Sorry, but that's hogwash, the media is more than happy to destroy people to get more views, and they aren't "transgressions" until after an investigation says they are. Again, I'm not saying to never release names, I'm just saying to wait until the facts in a case can be assessed, then if that LEO is found to be guilty of a transgression the public can rip them to shreds.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Though I will grant you the 2nd is necessary for the people to be able to perform such an event.
Just one thought about this: you've seen plenty of examples in this thread of people who were either unarmed or had a much less powerful weapon (let's say screwdriver vs. gun). If that's how cops react to unarmed black men, what do you think will happen if they are armed like some of the open carry advocates that we've talked about in another thread? How many people would rush to the defense of the black victim's right to bear arms and how many would say »Well, why did that idiot keep his (legal) gun in the car or in his holster?« Would carrying openly make it better for blacks or not? I think it'd make it much worse and give cops a more legitimate reason to claim things like »He was going for his gun!«
I think the press is a much more appropriate tool here, the police feels the pressure from the public, they feel that people who watched one of these police brutality videos know in their gut the police officers are in the wrong. And that something should change.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
No it isn't. Your point does rebut mine, it's a meaningless tangent.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Wilson was convicted in this very thread before any facts were made public.
Semantic time? Facts or evidence? Twitter had already presented a lot of evidence before it became a national story (Where you could claim it became tainted).
BTW, you were one of the first people to bring up Wilson is this thread, too.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
It prevents the officer's life and reputation from being destroyed before knowing any of the facts in a situation. The public doesn't remember when someone is exonerated, only that they were accused.
Interesting dichotomy here – During that time the victim will have his reputation destroyed – and he will never be able to respond.
They aren't "victims", not until the facts come out, and classifying everyone who is shot by police as one is absurd.
Of course they are murder victims, the only question is whether the events that led to the death were unlawful or not.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Sorry, but that's hogwash, the media is more than happy to destroy people to get more views, and they aren't "transgressions" until after an investigation says they are.
You're hiding behind legal procedure, just because at the end of legal proceedings it was determined that there isn't sufficient evidence to convict doesn't mean the public has to agree with that conclusion. I'm sure there are cases where a cop's life was unjustly destroyed, but in view of these systematic and wide-spread abuses, be it racism or just the fact that 2/3 of the population of a town had outstanding warrants for, mostly, traffic offenses, I don't think we need more protection of cops right now, we need more transparency.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Again, I'm not saying to never release names, I'm just saying to wait until the facts in a case can be assessed, then if that LEO is found to be guilty of a transgression the public can rip them to shreds.
I don't think even guilty people should be ripped to shreds in public, but you seem to be saying that only the names of people who are found guilty should be released. And that just supplies police with more ways to cover up dirt.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I don't disagree. This just gives the police another 60 days to look at all angles and be very careful about what they're lying about
It's certainly a fair point. It also restricts journalists from being able to do their on investigative work.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Absolutely not. Though I will grant you the 2nd is necessary for the people to be able to perform such an event. The armed mob is a response to the breakdown of the executive in one or more areas.
Well that's an interesting interpretation. Why isn't justified against law enforcement that is clearly abusing their powers and have no check?
Originally Posted by Snow-i
To be clear, I'm not advocating such a mob for any current events or any that I foresee in the near future. Shit would really have to hit the fan for that to be a viable answer. If the shit does hit the fan, however.....
No it isn't. Your point does rebut mine, it's a meaningless tangent.
Nope.
Semantic time? Facts or evidence? Twitter had already presented a lot of evidence before it became a national story (Where you could claim it became tainted).
BTW, you were one of the first people to bring up Wilson is this thread, too.
But I wasn't throwing rocks at him or tearing him down, like others were doing before they even knew a damned thing. Twitter hadn't presented "evidence", it was anger-filled opinion. The mob isn't justice.
Interesting dichotomy here – During that time the victim will have his reputation destroyed – and he will never be able to respond.
What "victim"? That hasn't been established yet. Also, how many wrong things do make a right? "Well, they killed someone, what right do they have to a life without being falsely labeled as a murderer?"
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
No, they aren't, not in the modern, SJW sense of the word that people like to bandy about.
You're hiding behind legal procedure, just because at the end of legal proceedings it was determined that there isn't sufficient evidence to convict doesn't mean the public has to agree with that conclusion. I'm sure there are cases where a cop's life was unjustly destroyed, but in view of these systematic and wide-spread abuses, be it racism or just the fact that 2/3 of the population of a town had outstanding warrants for, mostly, traffic offenses, I don't think we need more protection of cops right now, we need more transparency.
No I'm not, I'm saying that mob "justice" is bullshit, especially in today's reactionary society, and dragging a cop through the mud without knowing the facts is wrong.
I don't think even guilty people should be ripped to shreds in public, but you seem to be saying that only the names of people who are found guilty should be released. And that just supplies police with more ways to cover up dirt.
I never said that, I said that facts should be gathered and assessed before the name is given, so they can be presented with the identity before the inevitable character assassinations can begin.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Top