• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White Cop guns down another black man

Let me demonstrate how this thread is going in images:

Gun-Backfire-300x240.gif


And the OPs reaction:

backpedal.gif


ten_foot_pole_by_cedrus-d4vedqo.jpg
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
I can blame them and I do. If Michael Brown is the rallying point, why wouldn't they rally around this case? How fair is it to shoot someone who only has a knife with a gun. Clearly, that's excessive and unfair.
Click to expand...

I don't think there was anything special about the Michael Brown case that triggered everything, I think it was just the straw the broke the camel's back. Plenty of other "worthwhile" cases had happened prior without mass protests. Anytime you are dealing with large numbers of people it is hard to tell what will set things off. Rosa Parks was not the first black person to refuse to move to the back of the bus. Rodney King was not the first black man to be video taped getting his ass kicked. The Arab Spring was triggered by a man setting himself on fire in front of a government building in Tunisia.

You can never tell what will trigger a revolt but it is rarely just about the incident that triggered it.
 
Redress said:
Not to speak for Hatuey, but I think the reason he did not like the thread had more to do with the way Grim trying to use race as a political tool against those he disagrees with. You got to admit, it is kinda a vile, disgusting tactic...
Click to expand...

Happens all the time, in fact race is the very centerpiece of what's all been happening since the GJ decision in the Michael Brown case. I don't really see anything wrong with posting a video to show that a white cop killing a black person doesn't mean have to mean that the cop was just out to kill someone black.
 
BrewerBob said:
I don't think there was anything special about the Michael Brown case that triggered everything, I think it was just the straw the broke the camel's back. Plenty of other "worthwhile" cases had happened prior without mass protests. Anytime you are dealing with large numbers of people it is hard to tell what will set things off. Rosa Parks was not the first black person to refuse to move to the back of the bus. Rodney King was not the first black man to be video taped getting his ass kicked. The Arab Spring was triggered by a man setting himself on fire in front of a government building in Tunisia.

You can never tell what will trigger a revolt but it is rarely just about the incident that triggered it.
Click to expand...

That's the thing isn't it? Some people are so hellbent on proclaiming that these protests are only about these individual shootings that they forget that the opinions being voiced out have been around for a long time. The general argument around the Michael Brown/Eric Garner cases is that the law is not applied equally all. On top of that argument you have the verifiable statistics where black suspects get more time than white suspects for similar crimes. Then you have the claims of excessive violence used by cops when it involves people of different ethnic backgrounds. Then you have the supposedly justified racial profiling the police admit to doing. Then you have the disdain for laws like Stop & Frisk. To believe that this case is really just about police shooting black people is ridiculous.

What's even sadder is that these "non-racists" who will defend cops tooth and nail will call anyone and everyone who joins these protests "race hustlers" and "race traitors". That's about as intellectually dishonest as one can get. There are white people, Asian people, black people, etc joining in demonstrations. Hell, in this very forum the Eric Garner case has me siding with people I thought I'd never agree with. In those threads, the pattern is still the same and the main concern is that the police are becoming too militarized and less concerned with actually being part of their neighborhoods. There is a concern that the police are trained to treat everyone as a criminal with or without cause. This is taking into consideration that crime has dropped and that we're nowhere near as violent a country as we were 50 years ago.

I believe that these demonstrations (looting is not part of demonstrating) have pretty valid concerns behind them. They have pretty good reasons to protest. However, the right wing has tried to manipulate this to be about taxes and nanny states who knows what else. It couldn't possibly be the laws they've helped put into place with their tough on crime legislation. No sir! I won't even go into that because it would only serve to further insult the memory of people like Garner.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
No, I guess seeing what you are doing is not what you expected...maybe it is the liberal media's fault...
Click to expand...

Exploiting race for all types of reason happens pretty much every day, by the media too.
 
Last edited:
This may sound weird, but I dont know why the cops didnt at any time ask him what he wanted...what he needed...and how we can end this peacefully. Approaching him was the exactly wrong thing to do. Im not saying the shooting was or wasnt justified, but that was lousy crisis response.
 
The problems with the obvious race baiting done by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton is that they took an actual issue and turned it on terms of race. Police brutality and police militarization is something that is occurring right now, we are expanding our prisons and we are giving new training manuals to police on how to diminish mass riots, not to mention the national intelligence against the domestic population is exploding but because of people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton we've turned it into a white and black thing.

Police brutality effects everybody, white people die by the police also. There are cases of police killing homeless white men for no reason at all and no body did anything about it. Now Louis Farrakhan is actually giving a call to insight violence against white people, there has even been a murders of whites as a direct result of the ferguson " uprisings" and the White House is basically suggesting that it's an acceptable response. I strongly believe we should blame our government officials and law makers who have created this militarized police monster for the sake of humanity and we need to stop focusing on perpetrators race and victims race or we'll never pull out of a constant division of humanity.
 
pbrauer said:
If you read the story, you'll fin out the man with the knife was bi-polar who stopped take his medications.
Click to expand...

Which exposes another problem with our society. Someone so dangerous that they will attack others with a knife if they stop taking their meds should be locked away in a state hospital. We have got to stop with the honor system of outpatient treatment.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Which exposes another problem with our society. Someone so dangerous that they will attack others with a knife if they stop taking their meds should be locked away in a state hospital. We have got to stop with the honor system of outpatient treatment.
Click to expand...

That's pretty draconian. Schizophrenia doesn't work that way. With most mental illnesses, even the most experienced professionals can't always predict what will happen if a person stops taking them. Hell, I'd say in most cases, there's really no telling what will happen. There are people who can go a year without taking medication and feel fine and never harm anyone. There are women who stop taking their antipsychotics and decide to drown their children. Then there are those who stop taking them but just wonder as homeless through the streets. You may as well start locking people up the minute they get prescribed any meds. Just in case.
 
BrewerBob said:
I don't think there was anything special about the Michael Brown case that triggered everything, I think it was just the straw the broke the camel's back. Plenty of other "worthwhile" cases had happened prior without mass protests. Anytime you are dealing with large numbers of people it is hard to tell what will set things off. Rosa Parks was not the first black person to refuse to move to the back of the bus. Rodney King was not the first black man to be video taped getting his ass kicked. The Arab Spring was triggered by a man setting himself on fire in front of a government building in Tunisia.

You can never tell what will trigger a revolt but it is rarely just about the incident that triggered it.
Click to expand...

What do Rosa Parks, Rodney King and the Arab Spring have to do with the Michael Brown situation?
 
pbrauer said:
If you read the story, you'll fin out the man with the knife was bi-polar who stopped take his medications.
Click to expand...

My sister was raped and murdered by a bi-polar.
 
It this case, the police were justified in using deadly force. What is not justified is criminals believing they have a right to resist because past allegations of police brutality, committed in the past, on other persons.

Each case warrants examination to determine if deadly force was authorized. In this case, it was justified.
 
Looks like one less dirtbag on the street. More is needed
 
Hatuey said:
Still drive by posting when you've got no substance? I noticed you never came back to this:





Want to take me up on the challenge X? ;) I'll make it interesting. If I can find 5 posts justifying something cops do, can you admit you're wrong and then change a sig? ;)
Click to expand...

I didn't think the appropriate thread to determine the conditions of some sort of wager but it appears to be no problem. I just don't know what you mean by "change a sig". I have no sig, right, now to change. I think there'd also need to be some cut off date so you can't site posts you've just done recently (y'know, to prove how unbiased you are. ;)).
 
Libertie76 said:
The problems with the obvious race baiting done by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton is that they took an actual issue and turned it on terms of race. Police brutality and police militarization is something that is occurring right now, we are expanding our prisons and we are giving new training manuals to police on how to diminish mass riots, not to mention the national intelligence against the domestic population is exploding but because of people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton we've turned it into a white and black thing.

Police brutality effects everybody, white people die by the police also. There are cases of police killing homeless white men for no reason at all and no body did anything about it. Now Louis Farrakhan is actually giving a call to insight violence against white people, there has even been a murders of whites as a direct result of the ferguson " uprisings" and the White House is basically suggesting that it's an acceptable response. I strongly believe we should blame our government officials and law makers who have created this militarized police monster for the sake of humanity and we need to stop focusing on perpetrators race and victims race or we'll never pull out of a constant division of humanity.
Click to expand...

Quoted for Truth

EMNofSeattle said:
Which exposes another problem with our society. Someone so dangerous that they will attack others with a knife if they stop taking their meds should be locked away in a state hospital. We have got to stop with the honor system of outpatient treatment.
Click to expand...

Do you realize how many Americans live with Bi-polar? About six million people. You got some secret prison system somewhere that can hold them all? Otherwise, I don't see how you back up that idea...

Hatuey said:
That's pretty draconian. Schizophrenia doesn't work that way. With most mental illnesses, even the most experienced professionals can't always predict what will happen if a person stops taking them. Hell, I'd say in most cases, there's really no telling what will happen. There are people who can go a year without taking medication and feel fine and never harm anyone. There are women who stop taking their antipsychotics and decide to drown their children. Then there are those who stop taking them but just wonder as homeless through the streets. You may as well start locking people up the minute they get prescribed any meds. Just in case.
Click to expand...

I wholehearted agree with 99% of what your saying, however, I don't think anyone, especially someone with a illness like Bipolar, is ever "fine".
 
Hatuey said:
That's pretty draconian. Schizophrenia doesn't work that way. With most mental illnesses, even the most experienced professionals can't always predict what will happen if a person stops taking them. Hell, I'd say in most cases, there's really no telling what will happen. There are people who can go a year without taking medication and feel fine and never harm anyone. There are women who stop taking their antipsychotics and decide to drown their children. Then there are those who stop taking them but just wonder as homeless through the streets. You may as well start locking people up the minute they get prescribed any meds. Just in case.
Click to expand...
Actually there is an easy way around this. If someone is determined to need meds, to suppress violent urges. Then they go into a mental health facility. But if their family doesn't want them in one, they can sign him out as his custodian. They will agree to keep him on his meds, and if he later snaps and is determined to have not taken them, there should be criminal charges for the family member who signed him out, is how I would structure it.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Actually there is an easy way around this. If someone is determined to need meds, to suppress violent urges. Then they go into a mental health facility. But if their family doesn't want them in one, they can sign him out as his custodian. They will agree to keep him on his meds, and if he later snaps and is determined to have not taken them, there should be criminal charges for the family member who signed him out, is how I would structure it.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple. It's actually very difficult (at least in my state) to commit someone to a mental hospital, even on short term basis. Once they are stabilized, they are allowed to leave, and cannot be kept against their will. Outpatient groups like MHMR are supposed to do site visits and followup with them, and the patient is supposed to take the meds and see their doctors. When they don't, they decompensate and stuff like this happens. The sad fact is that most "crazy" people are not always "crazy", but no one can control their behavior but them. So do we lock them up against their will even when they are "sane" while medicated?
 
tomkat364 said:
It's not that simple. It's actually very difficult (at least in my state) to commit someone to a mental hospital, even on short term basis. Once they are stabilized, they are allowed to leave, and cannot be kept against their will. Outpatient groups like MHMR are supposed to do site visits and followup with them, and the patient is supposed to take the meds and see their doctors. When they don't, they decompensate and stuff like this happens. The sad fact is that most "crazy" people are not always "crazy", but no one can control their behavior but them. So do we lock them up against their will even when they are "sane" while medicated?
Click to expand...

If they won't take their meds, or see the doctor, or are repeatedly contacted by police when off their meds, yes they should be confined, you should not have a right to put the public in danger by refusing treatment, if a cancer patient refuses chemo they die sooner, when people with mental health issues, and not all mental health, but some certain conditions, other people could die sooner.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
If they won't take their meds, or see the doctor, or are repeatedly contacted by police when off their meds, yes they should be confined, you should not have a right to put the public in danger by refusing treatment, if a cancer patient refuses chemo they die sooner, when people with mental health issues, and not all mental health, but some certain conditions, other people could die sooner.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I don't think people change, and especially those with mental illnesses like schizophrenia and bipolar disorders seldom "get better." But, playing devil's advocate, we have a lot of "repeat offenders" for actual crimes as well, and most progressives (as you self-describe) would not be in favor of judging that someone is likely to "do it again" and imprison them for repeatedly breaking the law in the past. There should be some middleground between letting these people roam freely and permanent institutionalization. What that middle ground may be I have no idea.
 
X Factor said:
I didn't think the appropriate thread to determine the conditions of some sort of wager but it appears to be no problem. I just don't know what you mean by "change a sig". I have no sig, right, now to change. I think there'd also need to be some cut off date so you can't site posts you've just done recently (y'know, to prove how unbiased you are. ;)).
Click to expand...

Ah okay, excellent so for example, does the one in this thread count? ;)
 
pbrauer said:
I think he should have called for reinforcement before he tried to handcuff the guy.
Click to expand...

From the video, there were at least two LEOs with weapons drawn. This against a man with a knife. How many more LEOs would be enuf reinforcement? ;)

We could not see what transpired immediately before the shot. Did this man pull a "Michael Brown" and charge the Officer?
Also, couldn't a taser have worked? Couldn't the shooting Officer shoot this guy in the leg or arm or shoulder? IE: A place not lethal?
Or, was shooting him the only recourse because there was no time for anything else?

Who knows besides the Officer that shot him? Speculation is such fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom