• 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

CRUE CAB said:
Not part of the uniform.
Click to expand...

Would it be different if the the tables were turned? IOW, would those defending the DoJ interfering in a local police dept. if say the bracelets were being worn by the federal agents in support of Michael Brown?

Yeah, I think the arguments would be totally turned 180 degrees, so this is a thread not about the bracelets at all, but about today's people like Holder and those he has put in place under him injecting when they should just not say anything at all, about such stupid stuff like that...It shows how liberals react emotionally to these types of things.
 
TheNextEra said:
Yes, but it is up for the Police Departments and not the DOJ to make this call. There is no reason for the DOJ to even make a request like this and only makes the matter worse. By publicizing this, they now have made an even MORE volatile situation worse.
Click to expand...
I agree the DOJ should not demand or order (which they didn't), but I have no issue with them requesting or advising. It is the local PD's final call.

Given that, allowing them is shortsighted and foolish. The PD are supposed to be the wise and rationals ones, and should act accordingly.
 
j-mac said:
Would it be different if the the tables were turned? IOW, would those defending the DoJ interfering in a local police dept. if say the bracelets were being worn by the federal agents in support of Michael Brown?

Yeah, I think the arguments would be totally turned 180 degrees, so this is a thread not about the bracelets at all, but about today's people like Holder and those he has put in place under him injecting when they should just not say anything at all, about such stupid stuff like that...It shows how liberals react emotionally to these types of things.
Click to expand...
I agree its not really about the bracelets. But that is what they are going to use to enforce it at the department.
 
TheNextEra said:
Yes, but it is up for the Police Departments and not the DOJ to make this call. There is no reason for the DOJ to even make a request like this and only makes the matter worse. By publicizing this, they now have made an even MORE volatile situation worse.
Click to expand...

How have they made the situation worse?

And I don't see what's irrational about the public expecting the police department to not PUBLICLY, IN UNIFORM, ON DUTY take sides in an active investigation. Seems like the bare minimum the community could expect would be the police officers of their town at least pretend to be impartial while ON THE JOB.
 
radcen said:
I agree the DOJ should not demand or order (which they didn't), but I have no issue with them requesting or advising. It is the local PD's final call.

Given that, allowing them is shortsighted and foolish. The PD are supposed to be the wise and rationals ones, and should act accordingly.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the DOJ demanded it, however, it is not even in their realm to ask for it.

As for the PD, that is THEIR choice on how they want to do it. If I were running the PD I would have it in the policy to not wear it, only because I know it will aggravate the iditos that want to riot and would most likely put the officers in higher risk.

HOWEVER, with that said, I am not running the PD and I also understand the want of the officers to support their fallen comrade. Either way it is not MINE or the DOJ business on how the PD is run and the very fact this request by them is public puts the Police officers at risk even more.
 
radcen said:
I agree the DOJ should not demand or order (which they didn't), but I have no issue with them requesting or advising. It is the local PD's final call.

Given that, allowing them is shortsighted and foolish. The PD are supposed to be the wise and rationals ones, and should act accordingly.
Click to expand...

Why? Most of these guys worked with the officer, and probably knew him as a friend, as well as a co worker. I am sure that if it were something like cancer he was now battling instead of hyped PC prosecution no one would have a problem with a bracelet showing support.
 
CRUE CAB said:
I agree its not really about the bracelets. But that is what they are going to use to enforce it at the department.
Click to expand...

Just asking, what "it" exactly? So I understand....
 
j-mac said:
Would it be different if the the tables were turned? IOW, would those defending the DoJ interfering in a local police dept. if say the bracelets were being worn by the federal agents in support of Michael Brown?

Yeah, I think the arguments would be totally turned 180 degrees, so this is a thread not about the bracelets at all, but about today's people like Holder and those he has put in place under him injecting when they should just not say anything at all, about such stupid stuff like that...It shows how liberals react emotionally to these types of things.
Click to expand...

It's indefensible for anyone in a position of authority wearing any bracelets announcing their bias in this case to those who expect impartial enforcement of the law. It's so obviously wrong that I can't believe conservatives have lined up to defend that kind of thing by the police, of all people.
 
j-mac said:
Why? Most of these guys worked with the officer, and probably knew him as a friend, as well as a co worker. I am sure that if it were something like cancer he was now battling instead of hyped PC prosecution no one would have a problem with a bracelet showing support.
Click to expand...

It's OK that you've made your mind up before the grand jury has convened and heard and resolved the many conflicting accounts. You're not getting paid by that community to at least pretend to be impartial in an active investigation involving one of your own who might be guilty of, and charged with, a felony, up to and including murder. Or, he might be innocent. We don't know because none of us have seen or heard the conflicting evidence. We might never know what really happened.

But in the meantime, it's a bit stunning that you think it's OK for those people paid to be impartial to declare they aren't to the people who pay their salaries to serve them. All it takes to know it's wrong by the police is to take the tiny step and put yourselves in the shoes of that community.
 
JasperL said:
I'm not sure who you're talking about, but who I was referring to were police officers, hired by the city to serve the community including the many engaged in peaceful protests as is their right as an American.
Click to expand...

American citizens can't break the law, just because they're pissed off.
 
apdst said:
American citizens can't break the law, just because they're pissed off.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending looting or burning or lynch mobs - they should be arrested, charged, convicted and jailed. But then the vast majority of protesters are doing none of that - they're protesting, which is their right as an American.
 
TheNextEra said:
Where is the law or policy that says they can't?
Click to expand...

I'll bet there's a clause in the union contract. Pulling policy out of their pockets like than can ooen the city up to a law suit because of unfair labor practices. i.e. if a policy isn't written down and presented to the employees, it doesn't mean ****.
 
JasperL said:
I'm not defending looting or burning or lynch mobs - they should be arrested, charged, convicted and jailed. But then the vast majority of protesters are doing none of that - they're protesting, which is their right as an American.
Click to expand...

A right that the officers have, as well.
 
TheNextEra said:
I didn't say the DOJ demanded it, however, it is not even in their realm to ask for it.

As for the PD, that is THEIR choice on how they want to do it. If I were running the PD I would have it in the policy to not wear it, only because I know it will aggravate the iditos that want to riot and would most likely put the officers in higher risk.

HOWEVER, with that said, I am not running the PD and I also understand the want of the officers to support their fallen comrade. Either way it is not MINE or the DOJ business on how the PD is run and the very fact this request by them is public puts the Police officers at risk even more.
Click to expand...
We do have the right to an opinion as the PD represents us through our tax dollars. The idea that a police department should be able to be set up then go on their merry way and do whatever they want is part of the problem and why we're here discussing this to begin with.

I also see nothing wrong as the federal DOJ acting in an advisory role as they are a higher authority in the legal system.
 
JasperL said:
It's indefensible for anyone in a position of authority wearing any bracelets announcing their bias in this case to those who expect impartial enforcement of the law. It's so obviously wrong that I can't believe conservatives have lined up to defend that kind of thing by the police, of all people.
Click to expand...

Oh please. Whoever told you that police were supposed to be impartial, clearly doesn't know the job of police, or prosecutor. It is up to the police to enforce the law, and the prosecutor to prosecute the law. Their "bias" exists the moment a charge is made. Both entities consider the criminal guilty from the jump. The impartial point comes when a judge and jury consider the charges, and if the state can prove their claim.

It's OK that you've made your mind up before the grand jury has convened and heard and resolved the many conflicting accounts. You're not getting paid by that community to at least pretend to be impartial in an active investigation involving one of your own who might be guilty of, and charged with, a felony, up to and including murder. Or, he might be innocent. We don't know because none of us have seen or heard the conflicting evidence. We might never know what really happened.

But in the meantime, it's a bit stunning that you think it's OK for those people paid to be impartial to declare they aren't to the people who pay their salaries to serve them. All it takes to know it's wrong by the police is to take the tiny step and put yourselves in the shoes of that community.
Click to expand...

No you have it wrong. Police are not judge and jury.

OK, I can't read the bracelet - what does it say?
Click to expand...

Don't know, and it doesn't matter. You just said bracelets shouldn't be worn if people want to maintain professionalism. You didn't qualify that with what they said...
 
Redress said:
Do you really think the police cannot make and enforce uniform regulations amongst it's officers?
Click to expand...

Any local uniform regulations should be dictated by the local police department- not Washington.

Redress said:
You do realize all laws come from "on high", with very few exceptions, as do most regulations?
Click to expand...

Actually, no, it is the opposite.

Our justice system is extremely localized. Individual states pass most laws. Local District Attorneys, juries and judges then determine how those state laws are enforced and interpreted. Likewise, uniform regulations and policing policies are entirely the domain of the local police force.
 
Last edited:
what is that saying.....making a mountain out of a molehill

you have a small department (approx 50 officers)

one of their own is facing serious charges?

they wear a bracelet in support of that officer.....

maybe the officer is guilty.....maybe not

the only thing they know, is that a fellow officer is dealing with a major crisis

i would like to know what the bracelet says.....

but until that is reported, i say no major issue here
 
gdgyva said:
what is that saying.....making a mountain out of a molehill

you have a small department (approx 50 officers)

one of their own is facing serious charges?

they wear a bracelet in support of that officer.....

maybe the officer is guilty.....maybe not

the only thing they know, is that a fellow officer is dealing with a major crisis

i would like to know what the bracelet says.....

but until that is reported, i say no major issue here
Click to expand...

The bracelets says "I Am Darren Wilson".
 
j-mac said:
Is the "policy" of any localities uniform, the business of the DoJ?
Click to expand...

The Chief made the request of his men. If the order was unlawful, I'm sure he or his men would have not carried it out.

What is so hard to understand?

You want to focus on the DoJ, the rioters, the protests, the looters, the dead kid, the officer that shot the kid.

Why not focus on the request by the Chief to his men. Period.
 
j-mac said:
Oh please. Whoever told you that police were supposed to be impartial, clearly doesn't know the job of police, or prosecutor. It is up to the police to enforce the law, and the prosecutor to prosecute the law. Their "bias" exists the moment a charge is made. Both entities consider the criminal guilty from the jump. The impartial point comes when a judge and jury consider the charges, and if the state can prove their claim.
Click to expand...

Yes, their duty is to enforce the law, and as of yet that shooting is still under investigation. And there is no charge yet - the grand jury hasn't met, the investigation is ongoing.

It's obvious you've made up your mind that the Darren Wilson is innocent, the protesters are wrong, etc. And that conclusion before the facts are known is driving your opinion of the whole issue. Again, that's great for you. But it's unbelievable that you can't see the bracelets on the job in uniform are a terrible idea. If your son was shot by police, and they announced their biases this way, you'd be opposed. That's all it takes to understand why the community might object to them wearing them in this case.

No you have it wrong. Police are not judge and jury.
Click to expand...

No, but they serve the people of Ferguson, and they don't pay them to wear bracelets saying, "I AM [the person whose actions you are protesting]" while in uniform, on the job.

Don't know, and it doesn't matter. You just said bracelets shouldn't be worn if people want to maintain professionalism. You didn't qualify that with what they said...
Click to expand...

Well, that's not at all what I said, and I did qualify the statement. You can quote it if you want. I won't bother - not worth the effort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom