Ferguson....

Apparently Zito would have just let a force of a 5-10 officers monitor the protests and subsequent riots and then let the chips fall where they may. Thankfully, you aren't in charge of public safety.
 
zitothebrave said:
When a cop rolls into a legal peaceful protest with military gear, they're there to protect you? Well this country is ****ed if people think that.

welcome-to-the-new-world-order1.jpg
Click to expand...

When did the police force take away 1 right from the peaceful protesters? Just show it to me.
 
thethe said:
I'm not moving the goalpoztz. We are talking about what could have possibly happened to change what we think happened. There is no evidence to prove the cop did anything but defend himself.
Click to expand...

There's no evidence that he did anything to defend himself either becuase the material evidence is weak. If Brown was shot at 35 feet, that means there was plenty of time for the officer to have a different plan? For example lets assume the facts as they likely are based on what we know.

Brown punches officer in car (though may not have happened, officer may have Cape Feared himself for allwe know as Brown hasn't been confirmed to have any abrasions or contusions to show a sign of a struggle) Brown reaches for his gun, it goes off, he runs over 35 feet away turns around and charges the officer. We have no report of the officer calling for backup. Why wasn't the officer getting back into his car? there's lots of issues with the evidence as we have it now on both sides.
 
gilesfan said:
When did the police force take away 1 right from the peaceful protesters? Just show it to me.
Click to expand...

You'll never get a response to that question. The facts of this event (Brown death / subsequent protests and riots) don't jive with the story some want to discuss here.
 
zitothebrave said:
And the appropriate reaction to even if the rioting happened first is to treat US citizens like they're under siege?
Click to expand...

What is the proper reaction? Ask the business owners and employees of those businesses if they were under siege or not.
 
thethe said:
You're a tool if you think that a local police department would have been able to control the situation. Again, business owners are ecstatic that a proper force came into the town.

Your hyperbole hurts this discussion because you know you can't argue the actual facts.
Click to expand...

There were no riots by ANY account that I've read (please post yours if you can) before the police showed up in Military force. So you don't know what the **** would have happened. Stop acting like you do.
 
zitothebrave said:
There's no evidence that he did anything to defend himself either becuase the material evidence is weak. If Brown was shot at 35 feet, that means there was plenty of time for the officer to have a different plan? For example lets assume the facts as they likely are based on what we know.

Brown punches officer in car (though may not have happened, officer may have Cape Feared himself for allwe know as Brown hasn't been confirmed to have any abrasions or contusions to show a sign of a struggle) Brown reaches for his gun, it goes off, he runs over 35 feet away turns around and charges the officer. We have no report of the officer calling for backup. Why wasn't the officer getting back into his car? there's lots of issues with the evidence as we have it now on both sides.
Click to expand...

Officers tend to go after bad guys and try to arrest them instead of running away.
 
zitothebrave said:
There were no riots by ANY account that I've read (please post yours if you can) before the police showed up in Military force. So you don't know what the **** would have happened. Stop acting like you do.
Click to expand...

The cops took nobodies rights away. Even if there was no looting prior to the cops showing up (unconfirmed liked you said) the response to cops showing up to keep the peace should not be to riot. Everyone was allowed to peacefully assemble which is the right that is guaranteed to all US citizens.
 
zitothebrave said:
There's no evidence that he did anything to defend himself either becuase the material evidence is weak. If Brown was shot at 35 feet, that means there was plenty of time for the officer to have a different plan? For example lets assume the facts as they likely are based on what we know.

Brown punches officer in car (though may not have happened, officer may have Cape Feared himself for allwe know as Brown hasn't been confirmed to have any abrasions or contusions to show a sign of a struggle) Brown reaches for his gun, it goes off, he runs over 35 feet away turns around and charges the officer. We have no report of the officer calling for backup. Why wasn't the officer getting back into his car? there's lots of issues with the evidence as we have it now on both sides.
Click to expand...

So you don't think that Brown physically assaulted the cop?
 
gilesfan said:
So police officers should be able to subdue 300 pound men that punch them in the face and break bones while they are charged at them?

I can't imagine how this it is the cops fault, that while injured, he couldn't subdue an angry 300 pound man without use of a gun. Is he supposed to be able to out wrestle him? Does he have to risk his life because the guy isn't armed? If Brown takes the officers guy, how many people would he kill with it?
Click to expand...

Police in Ferguson don't have tasers? If not, they should; I find police tend to overuse even those, but at least it's less likely to be lethal. What about mace? Same issues of overuse; same benefits of limited or non-lethality.

This touches on one of the most important issues raised by this case: that, institutionally, we need to—most importantly—instill the idea throughout our police forces that officers should not and cannot think of lethal force as a first or second or third (or anything but a last) resort; and we need to better equip them with the tools to render that protocol manifest.

Ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, Brown's complicity or innocence is irrelevant: an officer's first reaction shouldn't be going for her or his gun. Too often, with black youth and black men, it is. Too often, in general, it is. If that's too much for them to handle, then they shouldn't be police.
 
gilesfan said:
When did the police force take away 1 right from the peaceful protesters? Just show it to me.
Click to expand...

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/aclu-first-amendment-suspended-ferguson

Of course you'll say the rioting started first. But's that just an excuse. It would have happened regardless cause when too many peolpe get togethe rit makes cops antsy. That's the truth. Even if there's no ill will, too many people makes the cops on edge and they overreact. It happens over and over again. I'm not pro-rioting, I am anti- military police. Though apparently you and thethe are cool with it. As long as you can sit at home and watch TV.
 
jpx7 said:
Police in Ferguson don't have tasers? If not, they should; I find police tend to overuse even those, but at least it's less likely to be lethal. What about mace? Same issues of overuse; same benefits of limited or non-lethality.

This touches on one of the most important issues raised by this case: that, institutionally, we need to—most importantly—instill the idea throughout our police forces that officers should not and cannot think of lethal force as a first or second or third (or anything but a last) resort; and we need to better equip them with the tools to render that protocol manifest.

Ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, Brown's complicity or innocence is irrelevant: an officer's first reaction shouldn't be going for her or his gun. Too often, with black youth and black men, it is. Too often, in general, it is. If that's too much for them to handle, then they shouldn't be police.
Click to expand...

How can you possibly believe this? Why should an officer even be put into that situation when doing a routine stop?
 
thethe said:
The cops took nobodies rights away. Even if there was no looting prior to the cops showing up (unconfirmed liked you said) the response to cops showing up to keep the peace should not be to riot. Everyone was allowed to peacefully assemble which is the right that is guaranteed to all US citizens.
Click to expand...

And there we have it, the zenith of thethe just not getting it. I think we've achieved white privilege nirvana.
 
jpx7 said:
Police in Ferguson don't have tasers? If not, they should; I find police tend to overuse even those, but at least it's less likely to be lethal. What about mace? Same issues of overuse; same benefits of limited or non-lethality.

This touches on one of the most important issues raised by this case: that, institutionally, we need to—most importantly—instill the idea throughout our police forces that officers should not and cannot think of lethal force as a first or second or third (or anything but a last) resort; and we need to better equip them with the tools to render that protocol manifest.

Ultimately, as far as I'm concerned, Brown's complicity or innocence is irrelevant: an officer's first reaction shouldn't be going for her or his gun. Too often, with black youth and black men, it is. Too often, in general, it is. If that's too much for them to handle, then they shouldn't be police.
Click to expand...

If you think cops should be trained to use mace (probably not effective tool) or tasers (possibly a better solution), that's fine. But, a cop that feels his life is in danger and has already been physically assaulted should have every right to care about protecting his own life first and foremost. Where is the blame for Brown for his actions on that day? Would Brown have been shot in cold blood had he not assaulted the cop?
 
thethe said:
You said you aren't sure he punched the cop right?
Click to expand...

I said it may not have happened, if you read the next sentence or 2 you would have seen why I said that may not have happened. you know you have good odds of if you punch someone in the face of injuring your hand right? I'm not saying he did or didn't, but we don't know if he didn't shoot Brown from behind either. WE make an assumption based on what we perceive the facts to be.
 
zitothebrave said:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/aclu-first-amendment-suspended-ferguson

Of course you'll say the rioting started first. But's that just an excuse. It would have happened regardless cause when too many peolpe get togethe rit makes cops antsy. That's the truth. Even if there's no ill will, too many people makes the cops on edge and they overreact. It happens over and over again. I'm not pro-rioting, I am anti- military police. Though apparently you and thethe are cool with it. As long as you can sit at home and watch TV.
Click to expand...

That's bc they did riot first. That link is from many many days after the rioting and looting. You failed again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top