Ferguson

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

It would have been better for you to type "I don't live in reality or have any experience in this area but I'm going to arrogantly stand by my stupidity because that's the guy that I am."

 

LoL... I prefer: "Pretty rainbows, purple flying unicorns, and Big Candy Mountain." But though, on second thought, I don't want him crossing the border into my liberal-progressive paradise. I hope border patrol jumps his azz!

 

;-P

[Alaska Darin]

 

 

LoL... I prefer: "Pretty rainbows, purple flying unicorns, and Big Candy Mountain." But though, on second thought, I don't want him crossing the border into my liberal-progressive paradise. I hope border patrol jumps his azz!

 

;-P

It's almost as if the President and the Attorney General aren't kangerooing up an investigation right now to charge Officer Wilson with anything to please the mob.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

It would have been better for you to type "I don't live in reality or have any experience in this area but I'm going to arrogantly stand by my stupidity because that's the guy that I am."

Stop acting like a !@#$. You don't get to purposefully blur the lines of what represents a federal agent because you don't like the lead-up to a non-outcome.

 

Simply because we are currently being subjected to a runaway Federal executive does not mean that the Federal executive is empowered to exert itself.

 

Infact, the Governor of MO has already told the office of the AG to go !@#$ itself over the issue. The laws of the State of MO govern, and there are no "whims" that prevailed.

Edited December 3, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Alaska Darin]

 

Stop acting like a !@#$.

 

Simply because we are currently being subjected to a runaway Federal executive does not mean that the Federal executive is empowered to exert itself.

 

Infact, the Governor of MO has already told the office of the AG to go !@#$ itself over the issue. The laws of the State of MO govern, and there are no "whims" that prevailed.

It's one !@#$ing example. Ask any cop with more than 5 minutes on the job to educate you or STFU.

[boyst]

Round 2, fire it up again!

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/03/us-usa-new-york-chokehold-idUSKCN0JH2BI20141203

 

A New York City grand jury on Wednesday returned no indictment against a white police officer who used a choke hold on Eric Garner, an unarmed black man, while arresting him for illegally selling cigarettes, local media reported.

They said the Staten Island panel decided against criminal charges for Police Officer Daniel Pantaleo.

[GG]

Are you ready Staten Island?

[KD in CA]

But Officer Wilson was given the benny of doubt by the Grand Jury. Justice played out. He was treated as more credible and rightly so.

 

It should never have gone to a grand jury. Just like George Zimmerman should never have gone on trial. They were nothing more than media crafted public witch hunts. How that doesn't bother more people is beyond me.

 

Are you ready Staten Island?

 

I just read that. Here we go with more the same bullsh-- narrative.

[GG]

I just read that. Here we go with more the same bullsh-- narrative.

 

I think the appropriate response is to blockade Grand Central.

[IDBillzFan]

I just read that. Here we go with more the same bullsh-- narrative

 

Except after watching the Jet's blow the game to the Fish Monday night, it would at least make sense if Jets players enter the stadium this weekend by putting their hands around their throats in solidarity with Eric Garner.

Edited December 3, 2014 by LABillzFan

[Deranged Rhino]

It should never have gone to a grand jury. Just like George Zimmerman should never have gone on trial. They were nothing more than media crafted public witch hunts. How that doesn't bother more people is beyond me.

 

 

 

I just read that. Here we go with more the same bullsh-- narrative.

 

Regardless of whether or not the shooting is justified, I would hope any time an officer shoots an unarmed citizen there is at least a grand jury convened.

[DC Tom]

Regardless of whether or not the shooting is justified, I would hope any time an officer shoots an unarmed citizen there is at least a grand jury convened.

 

 

I was thinking the same thing the other day. Two hundred years ago, the Royal Navy held a court martial for any officer that surrendered his ship. Not necessarily to punish, but to determine that every attempt was made to avoid it, and that the captain's and officers' actions weren't negligent. If the court martial found the surrender was reasonable...end of story. No lasting harm to the officers' careers, no further implications of negligence. It would be nice if we could do the same thing with shootings - convene a grand jury, make a thorough investigation, and if the officer is found guiltless, his record and reputation are clean.

 

Sadly...we can't. We live in a society where accusation implies some measure of culpability, and the convening of an investigation implies guilt. That's one of the reasons Congress holds so many useless partisan hearings.

[4merper4mer]

 

Sadly...we can't. We live in a society where accusation implies some measure of culpability, and the convening of an investigation implies guilt. That's one of the reasons Congress holds so many useless partisan hearings.

 

But you can't leave it at that. That is why police departments have groups called internal affairs and those guys are real dicks to the other cops. Greggy has certainly seen enough movies to know this.

[TakeYouToTasker]

It's one !@#$ing example. Ask any cop with more than 5 minutes on the job to educate you or STFU.

Fantastic appeal to an empty authority, lined up smashingly with a "No True Scottsman" fallacy. Perhaps you've stepped up from simply acting like a !@#$, to actually being one now?

 

That's fine. I'll just !@#$ you like a !@#$:

 

It doesn't matter that I am not a police officer (I'm not), or if I have close familial ties to many (I do). Nor does it matter if anyone else does.

 

You do not need to be, or know any LEOs in order to have qualified opinions on this matter. Unless, of course, you're declaring yourself unqualified to comment on... well... just about anything, without directly holding that profession.

 

So, I'll thank you to stop chiming in on the ACA, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, anything to do with Congress, the Executive, or SCOTUS, or really, well... anything and everything else that you don't do for a living.

 

Police are agents of the Executive branch of our government. They have no business at all making demands that are opposed to the freedom of speech, or any other freedom for that matter.

 

Further, if they don't like the restrictions placed on them by the law, be it changing or otherwise, they can seek another profession. No one is pointing a gun at them.

[KD in CA]

I think the appropriate response is to blockade Grand Central.

Yet another reason to drive. I'm pretty sure they'll leave the West Side Highway alone. Can't be much fun blocking traffic that's already standing still.

[4merper4mer]

Police officers are agents of the government, and are subject to the laws which define their role as agents of the government. These are not "whims". Nor are their any actual "whims" to which they are subject.

 

Further, as government agents, they are our servants; and if new laws are passed to which they must report, so be it. They are at the disposal of the people, not the other way around. That's how representitive government works.

 

 

Government agents, especially those of the executive whom are empowered to act upon the population with force, should never be "given the benefit of the doubt".

 

They should always be expected to prove that the force used was justified when called into question, as they did in this case.

 

The fact that race baiters have chosen to immorally seize upon specific incidents to encite politically and monetarilly beneficial uprisings should never change that standard.

 

Are you from Canada?

 

If the St. Louis Police Department or the Ferguson Police Department demanded an apology you would have a point. They didn't. You have no point...or a basic understanding of what the SPLOA might be.

[B-Man]

Coroner ruled Eric Garner's death a homicide. Chokehold that killed him was against NYPD's rules. It's all on video. http://reason.com/bl...-death …

 

Everyone knows that this should be something where they hand you a citation and move on. Not have a gang of cops fight you to the ground................ Unacceptable

 

 

One way the Garner case is different from the Michael Brown case: conservatives are just as appalled and outraged by Garner as those on left are.

 

 

You see its illuminating when watching the difference in reactions. The Left treats every case as if it's the same while Conservatives react to actual facts.

 

 

From: Charles C. W. Cooke :

 

Government is simply a word for the things we decide to do together. Like choke men to death over rules governing the sale of cigarettes.

 

 

The state is force. This is another good example of why there should be few laws, and why that force should be used in few circumstances.

 

 

Seriously, can you imagine what Sam Adams would have said at the news that a man had been killed over cigarette taxes.

 

 

 

No taxation without asphyxiation.

 

 

.

[Alaska Darin]

 

Fantastic appeal to an empty authority, lined up smashingly with a "No True Scottsman" fallacy. Perhaps you've stepped up from simply acting like a !@#$, to actually being one now?

 

That's fine. I'll just !@#$ you like a !@#$:

 

It doesn't matter that I am not a police officer (I'm not), or if I have close familial ties to many (I do). Nor does it matter if anyone else does.

 

You do not need to be, or know any LEOs in order to have qualified opinions on this matter. Unless, of course, you're declaring yourself unqualified to comment on... well... just about anything, without directly holding that profession.

 

So, I'll thank you to stop chiming in on the ACA, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, anything to do with Congress, the Executive, or SCOTUS, or really, well... anything and everything else that you don't do for a living.

 

Police are agents of the Executive branch of our government. They have no business at all making demands that are opposed to the freedom of speech, or any other freedom for that matter.

 

Further, if they don't like the restrictions placed on them by the law, be it changing or otherwise, they can seek another profession. No one is pointing a gun at them.

The police DEPARTMENT didn't make any demands on anyone or anything. A private entity did. Try and figure out the difference instead of spewing more typed diarrhea in a vain attempt to find some credibility.

 

Furthermore, you questioned the reason why this private entity exists, which is perfectly clear to anyone with even an inkling of a clue to how public entities work. Another epic fail on your part.

 

Putting more words on the screen isn't the key to being correct. So try writing nothing and stf up while you're behind

[TakeYouToTasker]

The police DEPARTMENT didn't make any demands on anyone or anything. A private entity did. Try and figure out the difference instead of spewing more typed diarrhea in a vain attempt to find some credibility.

 

Furthermore, you questioned the reason why this private entity exists, which is perfectly clear to anyone with even an inkling of a clue to how public entities work. Another epic fail on your part.

 

Putting more words on the screen isn't the key to being correct. So try writing stf up you're behind

Ah, so you haven't bothered to read, or comprehend, what I wrote upthread. Again, stop acting like a !@#$ unless you want me to slap you around.

 

I'll try again:

 

 

"It's a organization designed to "protect the rights of police officers".

 

Their membership includes active officers (government agents).

 

The officers membership in this organization is as a function of their role as government agents, not private citizens.

 

When a group of government agents band together to form a "private organization" in order to further their agenda as government agents, as stated in the organization's own charter; it doesn't serve to blur the line, and make that advocacy OK. It's simply a disgusting attempt to mask the intentions of government agents, especially when the demands of the organization are to muffle free speech directed at the member government agents."

Edited December 3, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Deranged Rhino]

I was thinking the same thing the other day. Two hundred years ago, the Royal Navy held a court martial for any officer that surrendered his ship. Not necessarily to punish, but to determine that every attempt was made to avoid it, and that the captain's and officers' actions weren't negligent. If the court martial found the surrender was reasonable...end of story. No lasting harm to the officers' careers, no further implications of negligence. It would be nice if we could do the same thing with shootings - convene a grand jury, make a thorough investigation, and if the officer is found guiltless, his record and reputation are clean.

 

Sadly...we can't. We live in a society where accusation implies some measure of culpability, and the convening of an investigation implies guilt. That's one of the reasons Congress holds so many useless partisan hearings.

 

I'm with you. It should be SOP in all officer related shootings. It'd have a two handed effect: 1. help combat public fears of police / prosecution collusion and 2. go a long ways towards helping change the mindset that investigation = guilt.

 

 

But you can't leave it at that. That is why police departments have groups called internal affairs and those guys are real dicks to the other cops. Greggy has certainly seen enough movies to know this.

 

It's true! But what happens when the IAD is dirty?! Then you're forced to rely on Tom Cruise or Denzel Washington and vigilante justice.

 

Police are agents of the Executive branch of our government. They have no business at all making demands that are opposed to the freedom of speech, or any other freedom for that matter.

 

Further, if they don't like the restrictions placed on them by the law, be it changing or otherwise, they can seek another profession. No one is pointing a gun at them.

 

Agreed.

 

The police DEPARTMENT didn't make any demands on anyone or anything. A private entity did. Try and figure out the difference instead of spewing more typed diarrhea in a vain attempt to find some credibility.

 

Furthermore, you questioned the reason why this private entity exists, which is perfectly clear to anyone with even an inkling of a clue to how public entities work. Another epic fail on your part.

 

Putting more words on the screen isn't the key to being correct. So try writing stf up you're behind

 

A private organization comprised of Police Officers designed to protect the rights of police officers. And as police officers, they should know better. As I said originally, this is a symptom of a larger problem. And the fact more people aren't outraged by it shows that it's not just the cops who are starting to think this way...

 

That's why it's a problem. All the attempts to try to justify it on the SLPOA's end is just semantic masturbation. They should know better, they're supposed to protect the police -- this makes them look TERRIBLE. And they brought it completely upon themselves.

[4merper4mer]

Ah, so you haven't bothered to read, or comprehend, what I wrote upthread. Again, stop acting like a !@#$ unless you want me to slap you around.

 

I'll try again:

 

 

"It's a organization designed to "protect the rights of police officers".

 

Their membership includes active officers (government agents).

 

The officers membership in this organization is as a function of their role as government agents, not private citizens.

 

When a group of government agents band together to form a "private organization" in order to further their agenda as government agents, as stated in the organization's own charter; it doesn't serve to blur the line, and make that advocacy OK. It's simply a disgusting attempt to mask the intentions of government agents, especially when the demands of the organization are to muffle free speech directed at the member government agents."

 

You're not too bright.

 

I should elaborate. Their request/demand is made from no position of authority whatsoever. Your posts are based on a completely false premise and when that was pointed out, you tried to morph the actual facts into meeting your premise. Sometimes it is better to admit you were wrong.

 

 

It may not have been smart for the association to draw attention to themselves in a stupid way like that, but they can. IMO the players did something stupid but they have every right to do so if their employer has no issues. The association then stupidly asked for an apology or whatever but that is their right too.

 

At any point, did they threaten to use any of their authority in retaliation? Of course not. Why? Because that is not within the associations realm of authority.

Edited December 3, 2014 by 4merper4mer