• 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!

Justice Department tellsFerguson police tostopwearing bracelets

JasperL said:
"Again, would you approve or disapprove if DOJ investigators wore bracelets, "I AM MICHAEL BROWN" while interviewing Ferguson PD? Of course not..."
Click to expand...

Whether they wear such bracelets (or not) does not change the reason for the DOJ's sudden interest in the Ferguson PD.
 
shrubnose said:
If it had happened in Jefferson's time when almost all Blacks in the USA were slaves any protestors would have been killed.
Click to expand...

SB, that's totally irrelevant. I made no mention of demonstrations but referenced the fact Obama ventured into where his mouth didn't belong.

And there were riots of blacks in the slave era, only you simply shot them then.
 
Fearandloathing said:
SB, that's totally irrelevant. I made no mention of demonstrations but referenced the fact Obama ventured into where his mouth didn't belong.

And there were riots of blacks in the slave era, only you simply shot them then.
Click to expand...



I know that there were and that's exactly what I was talking about.

Supposedly the USA has moved beyond that kind of thing. Has it?

I have read reports that indicate that it still has quite a ways to go.
 
JasperL said:
It might very well be that. But the case isn't resolved. Lots of people on both sides have made their minds up, but we don't actually know what really happened, and there has been no trial or other process to resolve the big differences in the accounts.

And in the meantime, while policing protests by the black community over this incident, POLICE OFFICERS ON DUTY are wearing bracelets saying "I AM [the person whose actions you are protesting]" It's a giant FU to the protesters. The DOJ letter also said they'd received reports that at least some of those seen wearing the bracelets had also blacked over their names with tape, which is a further FU to the protesters.

Seriously, do you think wearing a bracelet saying "I AM [THE ACCUSED PERSON]" and blacking over their name tag is a good way to signal to the public you serve that you're a trusted and impartial defender of the law? It's unprofessional and shouldn't be tolerated, especially in a volatile situation that the police are supposed to be working to make less so, not pouring gas on the flames, which those bracelets and blacking over name tags just does. Whether DOJ has the authority to request or demand this I have no idea, and it's largely beside the point. It shouldn't be happening.

The time and place for supporting their union member and fellow officer is off duty on their own time and in civilian clothes.
Click to expand...

Actually, for me, one of the only reasons unions should exist at this point in time is to collectively support their union members who are being criticized and/or under criminal investigation for carrying out their duties as assigned. Some may think that unions should only exist to siphon money from workers into the coffers of Democrat politicians and supporting liberal agendas. I think they are in existence to take care of the welfare of their union membership. This is one way of doing it.

Secondly, you seem to have no problem with the Justice Department's conflict of interest here while you criticize the local police for what you see as a conflict of interest. You see this as white against black, as clearly the racist leadership of the Department of Justice also does. I feel pretty safe in saying that if a black police officer was being treated in the same manner in this community, the Ferguson PD would be acting in a similar manner. But then, those who trade in race baiting wouldn't ever notice.
 
A reasonable request if the PD is actually interested in maintaining at least an image of impartiality. It certainly couldn't hurt its standing with the community.
 
JasperL said:
Speaking of prejudice, let's say you're a Ferguson police officer being interviewed by DOJ. What would you think if the investigator wore a bracelet, "I AM MICHAEL BROWN"?

It takes the common sense of a gnat to realize the bracelets shouldn't be worn by anyone in an official capacity anywhere near Ferguson MO.
Click to expand...

Firstly, if an investigator from the DOJ in this matter wore a bracelet saying "I AM MICHAEL BROWN" I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised. In my view, that goes without saying. There's clearly only one position taken by the leadership of this DOJ, right up to the President. If they wore such a bracelet, it would be refreshingly honest and transparent.

Secondly, ever see an officer wear a bracelet or ribbon in support of breast cancer awareness, aids awareness, gay rights, hate crime awareness, etc.? I have. Should they only be allowed to express their first amendment rights by wearing bracelets that have been sanctioned by the PC censors?
 
Last edited:
CanadaJohn said:
Firstly, if an investigator from the DOJ in this matter wore a bracelet saying "I AM MICHAEL BROWN" I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised. In my view, that goes without saying. There's clearly only one position taken by the leadership of this DOJ, right up to the President. If they wore such a bracelet, it would be refreshingly honest and transparent.
Click to expand...

OK, so you're taking a position identical to those demanding an indictment before any evidence has been been examined, only you're on the other side. Good to know. In the view of some protesters, the cops siding with a murderer goes without saying....

Secondly, ever see an officer wear a bracelet or ribbon in support of breast cancer awareness, aids awareness, gay rights, hate crime awareness, etc.? I have. Should they be allowed to only be allowed to express their first amendment rights by wearing bracelets that have been sanctioned by the PC censors?
Click to expand...

That's not even approaching an apples to apples comparison. That list includes nothing about the police taking sides in a matter under current investigation and which might or might not lead to one of their own being charged with a crime including murder.

And the police don't have a first amendment 'right' to wear whatever the hell they want on their uniforms and say whatever the hell they want while on duty. Or, perhaps they have that "right," and their employer has the right to fire them for cause, immediately, if their actions undermine their official duties, and declaring to the protesters that they have taken side with the person whose actions they are protesting undermines the police's ability to be trusted by the public to be impartial.
 
JasperL said:
OK, so you're taking a position identical to those demanding an indictment before any evidence has been been examined, only you're on the other side. Good to know. In the view of some protesters, the cops siding with a murderer goes without saying....



That's not even approaching an apples to apples comparison. That list includes nothing about the police taking sides in a matter under current investigation and which might or might not lead to one of their own being charged with a crime including murder.

And the police don't have a first amendment 'right' to wear whatever the hell they want on their uniforms and say whatever the hell they want while on duty. Or, perhaps they have that "right," and their employer has the right to fire them for cause, immediately, if their actions undermine their official duties, and declaring to the protesters that they have taken side with the person whose actions they are protesting undermines the police's ability to be trusted by the public to be impartial.
Click to expand...

The letter to the ferguson pd also stated that The police officers in ferguson were also violating name tag protocol by not wearing identifiable name tags
 
CanadaJohn said:
Actually, for me, one of the only reasons unions should exist at this point in time is to collectively support their union members who are being criticized and/or under criminal investigation for carrying out their duties as assigned. Some may think that unions should only exist to siphon money from workers into the coffers of Democrat politicians and supporting liberal agendas. I think they are in existence to take care of the welfare of their union membership. This is one way of doing it.
Click to expand...

You've imagined the motives for the bracelets then attributed it to the officers. It's nice to do that for them, but there is no basis for your position. And you've already declared Wilson innocent of any wrongdoing, which of course I could have guessed.

Secondly, you seem to have no problem with the Justice Department's conflict of interest here while you criticize the local police for what you see as a conflict of interest. You see this as white against black, as clearly the racist leadership of the Department of Justice also does. I feel pretty safe in saying that if a black police officer was being treated in the same manner in this community, the Ferguson PD would be acting in a similar manner. But then, those who trade in race baiting wouldn't ever notice.
Click to expand...

What is the DOJ's conflict of interest here? I have no idea which conflict I supposedly have no problem with.

And please explain where I have said either that the issue is just a black versus white issue, and I've taken the position of blacks. I haven't taken their position, except to note the obvious that police officers declaring their support for the accused murderer is inappropriate while the investigation is ongoing, especially on duty while engaged with protesters. It's a FU to the protesters, and is made worse by some of the same ones allegedly blacking out their badges.
 
JasperL said:
OK, so you're taking a position identical to those demanding an indictment before any evidence has been been examined, only you're on the other side. Good to know. In the view of some protesters, the cops siding with a murderer goes without saying....
Click to expand...
And in light of the evidence we know of the protestors are in the wrong for believing that and for protesting based on false beliefs.




Unitedwestand13 said:
The letter to the ferguson pd also stated that The police officers in ferguson were also violating name tag protocol by not wearing identifiable name tags
Click to expand...
Protocol is not law.
And it is especially wise of them not to wear name tags with the calls for vigilantism and the outing of their family and home locations. Their badge number is sufficient.
 
Excon said:
And in light of the evidence we know of the protestors are in the wrong for believing that and for protesting based on false beliefs.
Click to expand...

We KNOW that? Please post this new incontrovertible evidence!

You've looked at SOME of the evidence and decided based on a partial knowledge of some of it that the officer is innocent. The protesters, looking at the same partial evidence and their incomplete knowledge of it have come to a different conclusion.....

Protocol is not law.
And it is especially wise of them not to wear name tags with the calls for vigilantism and the outing of their family and home locations. Their badge number is sufficient.
Click to expand...

Their employer believes differently. If they'd wanted officers to just display badge numbers, they'd have given them badges with no names. And I don't think in other circumstances employees are allowed to overrule employers with no consequence, and I sure haven't seen conservatives supporting that as a matter of principle.
 
JasperL said:
You've imagined the motives for the bracelets then attributed it to the officers. It's nice to do that for them, but there is no basis for your position. And you've already declared Wilson innocent of any wrongdoing, which of course I could have guessed.



What is the DOJ's conflict of interest here? I have no idea which conflict I supposedly have no problem with.

And please explain where I have said either that the issue is just a black versus white issue, and I've taken the position of blacks. I haven't taken their position, except to note the obvious that police officers declaring their support for the accused murderer is inappropriate while the investigation is ongoing, especially on duty while engaged with protesters. It's a FU to the protesters, and is made worse by some of the same ones allegedly blacking out their badges.
Click to expand...

You have no trouble attributing positions to me that I haven't stated yet you bristle when I do the same based on your words.

I've indicated that police union members expressing solidarity with one of their own isn't the slightest bit troubling to me. Police are often considered, for better or worse, like a family and families often provide unconditional support for family members in times of trouble. I've seen it numerous times here in Toronto and it doesn't bother me one bit. You, however, seem to think that if only the police were a little more circumspect, a little less transparent, people would assume they're not actually supportive of their own member - that's pretty inane if you ask me.

As for the DOJ's conflict of interest, the DOJ has decided that they will investigate the entire Ferguson PD for signs/incidents of racism. I find it to be very poor judgement, at least, and potentially illegal intimidation, for the DOJ to attempt to dictate what officers in the Ferguson PD may or may not wear in support of their fellow officer. It would be no different than any other situation were a judge to try to influence testimony in a case he/she was going to solely adjudicate. The mere fact that the DOJ implies in their "request" that the wearing of the bands exacerbates racial tensions is enough to discredit any outcome DOJ investigators may arrive at.
 
JasperL said:
OK, so you're taking a position identical to those demanding an indictment before any evidence has been been examined, only you're on the other side. Good to know. In the view of some protesters, the cops siding with a murderer goes without saying....



That's not even approaching an apples to apples comparison. That list includes nothing about the police taking sides in a matter under current investigation and which might or might not lead to one of their own being charged with a crime including murder.

And the police don't have a first amendment 'right' to wear whatever the hell they want on their uniforms and say whatever the hell they want while on duty. Or, perhaps they have that "right," and their employer has the right to fire them for cause, immediately, if their actions undermine their official duties, and declaring to the protesters that they have taken side with the person whose actions they are protesting undermines the police's ability to be trusted by the public to be impartial.
Click to expand...

I did no such thing - I've simply taken my anecdotal recollections of the way this DOJ, under this President, has handled issues that have a racial component and determined that they are unprofessionally biased in favour of one side and one side only.
 
You do know that every black and white person in the USA is a separate human being with their own life to live outside of the group that they belong to, eh?
 
This is about the worst thing the local police could do from a PR aspect, and only demonstrates their complete lack of judgment and rational forethought... which is probably why things got out of hand to begin with.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You have no trouble attributing positions to me that I haven't stated yet you bristle when I do the same based on your words.
Click to expand...

You said this: "support their union members who are being criticized and/or under criminal investigation for carrying out their duties as assigned."

Their duty isn't to shoot an unarmed person. Whether that person was a threat to the officer, who initiated the physical confrontation, when and under what circumstances the police officer killed Brown, are all subjects of the investigation. If the investigation determined the officer shot Brown with his hands up surrendering, he is a criminal. We don't know whether he did or not. And while that investigation is ongoing the police have a duty to be impartial enforcers of the law, including against their own. Wearing the bracelets signals they aren't even pretending to be impartial. It's a dangerous signal to the community, especially when that community is protesting, and will make the situation worse, which is directly contrary to their duty to that community, who like it or not is who they serve.

I've indicated that police union members expressing solidarity with one of their own isn't the slightest bit troubling to me. Police are often considered, for better or worse, like a family and families often provide unconditional support for family members in times of trouble. I've seen it numerous times here in Toronto and it doesn't bother me one bit. You, however, seem to think that if only the police were a little more circumspect, a little less transparent, people would assume they're not actually supportive of their own member - that's pretty inane if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I expect them to support their own. But they have to use the common sense God gave a gnat while on duty, in uniform.

As for the DOJ's conflict of interest, the DOJ has decided that they will investigate the entire Ferguson PD for signs/incidents of racism. I find it to be very poor judgement, at least, and potentially illegal intimidation, for the DOJ to attempt to dictate what officers in the Ferguson PD may or may not wear in support of their fellow officer. It would be no different than any other situation were a judge to try to influence testimony in a case he/she was going to solely adjudicate. The mere fact that the DOJ implies in their "request" that the wearing of the bands exacerbates racial tensions is enough to discredit any outcome DOJ investigators may arrive at.
Click to expand...

They're asking people whose duty it is to impartial enforcers of the law to at least make the barest public show that they'll pretend to do their duty. Nothing more. They're not saying the officers cannot speak out while off duty, on their own time, etc.

And there is no need to "imply" the bands exacerbates racial tensions - that is a question of fact, that really has nothing to do with you or me supporting the officer or the protesters. They view it, correctly in my view, as a FU to the protesters, same as taping over their names. But even if I'm wrong and it's simply a show of support for their union brother, you can't control what or how the protesters view those bracelets. And on duty, in uniform, while engaging with the protesters, they have a duty to appear impartial.
 
JasperL said:
We KNOW that? Please post this new incontrovertible evidence!
Click to expand...
:doh
Just as I thought. You do not know the known evidence.
If you want to learn it, go to one of the threads where it is discussed.


JasperL said:
You've looked at SOME of the evidence and decided based on a partial knowledge of some of it that the officer is innocent.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
I have looked at all that is available and based on the totality of it realize the Officer was not wrong.
When the initial claims of "hands up" were changed it becomes obvious that all the other accounts were fabrications based off the original false claims.
Especially as we have evidence that he was approaching the Officer as the Officer fired upon him.


JasperL said:
The protesters, looking at the same partial evidence and their incomplete knowledge of it have come to a different conclusion.....
Click to expand...
Spare us the false info. The potestors are not looking at the same evidnce.
They are only looking at and considering the false narrative that was initially spread. They haven't looked at all of the known evidence.
They went with the false claims of his hands were up surrendering, and that he was executed. Crying hands up don't shoot. Which should receive the response, "Pants up don't loot".


JasperL said:
Their employer believes differently. If they'd wanted officers to just display badge numbers, they'd have given them badges with no names. And I don't think in other circumstances employees are allowed to overrule employers with no consequence, and I sure haven't seen conservatives supporting that as a matter of principle.
Click to expand...
What the hell are you talking about? Badges come with a number. Name tag are separate.
Nor have employees overruled anybody here.
You are speaking nonsense.

And as stated.
Protocol is not law.
And it is especially wise of them not to wear name tags with the calls for vigilantism and the outing of their family and home locations. Their badge number is sufficient. ​
Do you really not understand the above?
 
JasperL said:
You said this: "support their union members who are being criticized and/or under criminal investigation for carrying out their duties as assigned."
Click to expand...

You don't think officer Wilson was carrying out his duties as assigned on the day this incident happened? I do. You may, the court may, public opinion may, determine that he was negligent in carrying out those duties, but there's zero doubt he was working at that time. If he robbed a liquor store and shot Brown in the process, we wouldn't be talking about support among the police force for their member.

JasperL said:
They're asking people whose duty it is to impartial enforcers of the law to at least make the barest public show that they'll pretend to do their duty.
Click to expand...
One would hope the DOJ would follow this sage advice, but not under this Attorney General and President.

JasperL said:
And there is no need to "imply" the bands exacerbates racial tensions - that is a question of fact, that really has nothing to do with you or me supporting the officer or the protesters. They view it, correctly in my view, as a FU to the protesters, same as taping over their names. But even if I'm wrong and it's simply a show of support for their union brother, you can't control what or how the protesters view those bracelets. And on duty, in uniform, while engaging with the protesters, they have a duty to appear impartial.
Click to expand...
No, I can't control the irrational behaviour of protestors nor the racial animus they have in their hearts. Nor do I expect to bow to that irrational behaviour nor that racial animus. You may want to, I don't.
 
The namebands are provocation in a situation that doesn't need it. Neither are they part of the uniform, so should not be worn on duty.
 
radcen said:
This is about the worst thing the local police could do from a PR aspect, and only demonstrates their complete lack of judgment and rational forethought... which is probably why things got out of hand to begin with.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
The individual/s wearing them actually demonstrate that they have fine judgement and support the correct side.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The namebands are provocation in a situation that doesn't need it. Neither are they part of the uniform, so should not be worn on duty.
Click to expand...
:doh
Bs.
It is not provocation.
 
Excon said:
:doh
Just as I thought. You do not know the known evidence.
If you want to learn it, go to one of the threads where it is discussed.

Wrong.
I have looked at all that is available and based on the totality of it realize the Officer was not wrong.
When the initial claims of "hands up" were changed it becomes obvious that all the other accounts were fabrications based off the original false claims.
Especially as we have evidence that he was approaching the Officer as the Officer fired upon him.

Spare us the false info. The potestors are not looking at the same evidnce.
They are only looking at and considering the false narrative that was initially spread. They haven't looked at all of the known evidence.
They went with the false claims of his hands were up surrendering, and that he was executed. Crying hands up don't shoot. Which should receive the response, "Pants up don't loot".
Click to expand...

Nothing like stereotyping the entire crowd with negative stereotypes to show your impartiality and reasoned analysis of the evidence.... I'd respond but there is no real point. You're clearly not interested in looking at the issue objectively.

What the hell are you talking about? Badges come with a number. Name tag are separate.
Nor have employees overruled anybody here.
You are speaking nonsense.

And as stated.
Protocol is not law.
And it is especially wise of them not to wear name tags with the calls for vigilantism and the outing of their family and home locations. Their badge number is sufficient. ​
Do you really not understand the above?
Click to expand...

So the people in charge have approved officers taping over their name tags? I'd like to see the evidence for that?

If you can find it, it's more evidence the person in charge is an idiot and should be fired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom