• 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!

Protests over Missouri teen's death turn violent[W:647,807]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can't honestly say I'm good at judging faces from photos no matter what color the subject is

Stop there. The rest is irrelevant. All black people look alike.
 
Well, in all fairness the looting seems to have died down. However, we continue to see a complete focus on the 2-3 days of violence as opposed to the fact that the riots only began because the entire police department of St. Louis refuses to investigate their own in a transparent manner.

Bull****. They weren't even allowed time to investigate the event. And "transparent manner"? Ridiculous, details of an investigation remain closed until the investigation is done. The FBI isn't going to be any more of what you seem to consider transparent.
 
Right! See the word NOT in all caps preceding the words making excuses???? Now quote me making excuses for the criminal behaviour in Fergeson.

Right! :roll:
 
If you hit a cop, its assault...period. You cant hit a cop jus cause he be dissin u.

Read my post again and tell me what part of "self defense" depends on "dissing". Again, as I stated if a cop hits you, you have every right to hit them back. It's called self defense. Think I'm wrong?

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: “Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”
 
Well, in all fairness the looting seems to have died down. However, we continue to see a complete focus on the 2-3 days of violence as opposed to the fact that the riots only began because the entire police department of St. Louis refuses to investigate their own in a transparent manner.

The looting has to die down once most of the best stuff is already stolen.

How does looting and rioting have anything to do with protesting the actions of the police department?
 
No, sorry, I don't work for a bank and I don't work with hedge fund managers, so I never saw that, nor do I know anyone who was looted by them (including myself).

But of course, this is entirely off topic, isn't it Risky? Or did I stumble into the wrong thread. I thought we were discussing the protests in Missouri.

We were discussing were discussing the fact that un-normal and un-decent people come in all colors, educations, genders and careers.
 
Bull****. They weren't even allowed time to investigate the event. And "transparent manner"? Ridiculous, details of an investigation remain closed until the investigation is done. The FBI isn't going to be any more of what you seem to consider transparent.

Ridiculous details? Like...

1. The police didn't talk to witnesses
2. The name of the officer in question wasn't released
3. They only looked into the matter when a big fuss was made

Right. Ridiculous details. All of which would have been standard procedure if someone had killed a cop.
 
Read my post again and tell me what part of "self defense" depends on "dissing". Again, as I stated if a cop hits you, you have every right to hit them back. It's called self defense. Think I'm wrong?

Based upon your bad reading of the decision and does not substantiate your claim that resisting arrest or detention equates to self defense.
 
The melodrama level in these threads is getting stifling but I'll play.

If the cop has a swollen face that might be an indication that he was attacked.

And the reason is still unknown so there is no justification for shooting.

It doesn't explain why he was attacked or even that Brown caused the injury but it should be part of the investigation. It's also my understanding that there were two kids involved when this whole thing went down so if the cop was being attacked and he's not the one that started the incident then yes, shooting may well have been warranted.

And the witnesses are saying the cop attacked Michael Brown. If as a result the cop was hit back, and he shot to defend himself - it's not justified. You don't get to attack someone, the kill them if you're losing the fight.
 
So... a swollen face is enough to shoot someone? I'll remember that from now on. I mean, if a suspect defended himself from a violent police officer and the officer decided to shoot him, it'd be justifiable... YES?

What if the suspect punched the cop then tired to wrestle his gun away from him?? Are there alot of "bad cops" out there, sure is. But this whole push to convict people before we really know what happened is asinine at best. We need to let the evidence come out, instead of this trail by public opinion that seems to be the norm these days. And of course when you add the regular cast of racebaiters to the mix you get riots, arson, and innocent people being killed.
 
Ridiculous details? Like...

1. The police didn't talk to witnesses
2. The name of the officer in question wasn't released
3. They only looked into the matter when a big fuss was made

Right. Ridiculous details. All of which would have been standard procedure if someone had killed a cop.

#1, we don't know that. That's what is being reported in the press who doesn't have any more access to the details of the investigation that any of us.
#2, anyone with half a brain knows why that is, in fact, doesn't even take that, all you need is the candle power to read and understand simple sentences.
#3, absolutely incorrect.

I didn't call the details ridiculous, I called your moronic hate-filled statement ridiculous.
 
And the reason is still unknown so there is no justification for shooting.



And the witnesses are saying the cop attacked Michael Brown. If as a result the cop was hit back, and he shot to defend himself - it's not justified. You don't get to attack someone, the kill them if you're losing the fight.

You're really not interested in an investigation, are you? You've already got your mind made up and you aren't interested in hearing any other version of the story. that's fine but it makes it kind of hard to discuss this in a rational manner with you.
 
Based upon your bad reading of the decision and does not substantiate your claim that resisting arrest or detention equates to self defense.

Lmao:

Sigh:

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing now. Not only do you admit that you can't tell the difference between two people who aren't the same color, you go against matters settled in court. You have a right to defend yourself even from police officers if they're violently assaulting you. Or are you going to argue that you don't?
 
And the reason is still unknown so there is no justification for shooting.



And the witnesses are saying the cop attacked Michael Brown. If as a result the cop was hit back, and he shot to defend himself - it's not justified. You don't get to attack someone, the kill them if you're losing the fight.

You're obviously been running your argument on your hatred of the police alone. Thus far there has been reported only ONE witness, the other teen.
 
#1, we don't know that. That's what is being reported in the press who doesn't have any more access to the details of the investigation that any of us.

Sigh.

Police Haven't Spoken to the Witness Who Saw the Entire Ferguson Shooting Unfold - The Wire

Freeman Bosley, Johnson’s attorney, told msnbc that the police have yet to interview Johnson. Bosley said that he offered the police an opportunity to speak with Johnson, but they declined.

“They didn’t even want to talk to him,” said Bosley, a former mayor of St. Louis. “They don’t want the facts. What they want is to justify what happened … what they are trying to do now is justify what happened instead of trying to point out the wrong. Something is wrong here and that’s what it is.”

Stop it. This is getting embarrassing.

#2, anyone with half a brain knows why that is, in fact, doesn't even take that, all you need is the candle power to read and understand simple sentences.

Well, I don't have half a brain. I have an whole brain and it's telling me that the reason the names weren't released was because cops are held to a different standard than the rest of us.

#3, absolutely incorrect.

Well, I for one am convinced. Except...

Police Haven't Spoken to the Witness Who Saw the Entire Ferguson Shooting Unfold - The Wire
Mike Brown Shooting: FBI To Investigate Death Of Missouri Teen While Riots Continue For A Second Night
FBI looking into possible civil rights violations in Michael Brown shooting - CBS News

It took the FBI getting involved for the police in Missouri to even be concerned.

I didn't call the details ridiculous, I called your moronic hate-filled statement ridiculous.

Getting touchy? You're being proven wrong on every single statement you make and still have the nerve to get lippy.
 
You're obviously been running your argument on your hatred of the police alone. Thus far there has been reported only ONE witness, the other teen.

Witnesses to Michael Brown’s shooting detail his last minutes | fox4kc.com

While Michael Brown appeared to tussle with an officer before he was shot dead, he didn’t enter the police cruiser as authorities claim he did, two witnesses told CNN.

The women’s accounts corroborate that of a previous witness, all three of whom said the officer fatally shot the unarmed teen.
 
All you're doing is racebaiting, the same as Jesse and Rev Al. So played out and tired.

Hey, he's the one that made the argument. He can't tell one black person from another even if they are... oh you know.. different people. Now back in your hole until you decide to debate me on Nazis.
 

I don't care about what ifs. The point of my post was to show that a swollen face proves absolute nothing other than he was hit. That it went over your head is not surprising.
 
Lmao:

Sigh:





You're arguing for the sake of arguing now. Not only do you admit that you can't tell the difference between two people who aren't the same color, you go against matters settled in court. You have a right to defend yourself even from police officers if they're violently assaulting you. Or are you going to argue that you don't?

You really can't see it can you? I'll bold it for you so you have some hope of understanding the law:

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

He (Brown) was not without fault, even the witness admits that. He was not in a place where he had a right to be, again, witness confirms that. There is no self defense argument available here.
 
Yet you still whine about Randy Weaver, showing your residual hate is still festuring .

I don't think you understand what the word hate means.
 
You really can't see it can you? I'll bold it for you so you have some hope of understanding the law:

He (Brown) was not without fault, even the witness admits that. He was not in a place where he had a right to be, again, witness confirms that. There is no self defense argument available here.

Translation: From now on if you reach your destination and decide to walk down the street as millions do everyday, cops are justified in mistreating you and shooting you if you refuse to be mistreated.
 
You act as if you know this community pretty in depth. I'd be willing to bet you don't.

Don't be naive. You know the black community does not cooperate with cops. It is common knowledge.

Why would i have to know this one community. It is pretty clear from their actions it is true.
 
Sigh.

Police Haven't Spoken to the Witness Who Saw the Entire Ferguson Shooting Unfold - The Wire



Stop it. This is getting embarrassing.



Well, I don't have half a brain. I have an whole brain and it's telling me that the reason the names weren't released was because cops are held to a different standard than the rest of us.



Well, I for one am convinced. Except...

Police Haven't Spoken to the Witness Who Saw the Entire Ferguson Shooting Unfold - The Wire
Mike Brown Shooting: FBI To Investigate Death Of Missouri Teen While Riots Continue For A Second Night
FBI looking into possible civil rights violations in Michael Brown shooting - CBS News

It took the FBI getting involved for the police in Missouri to even be concerned.



Getting touchy? You're being proven wrong on every single statement you make and still have the nerve to get lippy.

Once again, yes, Johnson's attorney said that early on, and the press reported it. Of course Johnson had already released a full accounting to the press. And we haven't heard from the police who they have and have not interviewed. Have attorneys ever lied to the police and the press? Oh, but you're sure that's not happening here, right?

And no, you've proven the whole brain is off the table for you here. When the release of information is deemed to put the subject and/or their family in imminent danger, police don't release the name. That's known by everyone apparently BUT you.

Your links don't show there was any foot dragging or delay in the investigation.

That last little gem applies directly to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom