• 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!

Ferguson

Is Ferguson about...

  • Racism

    Votes: 16 19.5%

  • Police injustice

    Votes: 22 26.8%

  • Cultural differences

    Votes: 12 14.6%

  • Class Warfare

    Votes: 12 14.6%

  • Crazy people

    Votes: 26 31.7%

  • All the above

    Votes: 29 35.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 16 19.5%
  • Total voters
    82
Gardener said:
Yes, you gave extreme praise to an article with enormous gaps in the sort of information it presented by selecting only that which acted to confirm a pre-existing narritive.
Click to expand...

Extreme praise would be "glory, glory Hallelujah" and I have no idea what you're saying short of an hollow analysis? Speak plainly.
 
grip said:
Extreme praise would be "glory, glory Hallelujah" and I have no idea what you're saying short of an hollow analysis? Speak plainly.
Click to expand...


You selected a narrative that is very limited and operates from assumptions while proceeding to ignore anything that did not align with these assumptions.


If this incident is about those things, it is also about thug culture, racialist double standards, white guilt, perpetual victim status, identity politics, race baiting and any of a number of themes that do not fit with your very narrow agenda here.
 
Last edited:
Gardener said:
You selected a narrative that is very limited and operates from assumptions while proceeding to ignore anything that did not align with these assumptions.


If this incident is about those things, it is also about thug culture, racialist double standards, white guilt, perpetual victim status, identity politics, race baiting and any of a number of themes that do not fit with your very narrow agenda here.
Click to expand...

I don't say all those other factors aren't relevant just not completely dominant. I'm not sure there's much more that can literally be done, except have a national dialog about how the class issue can be addressed. I don't think it's about race, as much as about the growing gap between haves and have nots.
 
VanceMack said:
Lew is a non entity in Missouri. He was before the incident. He will be after the incident. He will have lots of company.
Click to expand...

So your refusal to recognize the man by his name is just an example of you being a jerk? Got it.
 
Excon said:
How do you suggest the community realize that and get past it?
Click to expand...

First... by waiting to see what the results of the investigation are. Protesting, let alone rioting, over hearsay is idiotic no matter what the emotions are.
Second... by calm and respectable community leaders (not Sharpton and race baiters) coming in and leading the people.
Third... I don't know... repeat one and two until there is guilt or innocence.
 
Wiggen said:
So your refusal to recognize the man by his name is just an example of you being a jerk? Got it.
Click to expand...
Geeeeeeezus...it takes you a while...

;)

Relevant factor ignored. Got it. You can focus on my calling Lew by his given name all the while ignoring the FACT and UNDENIABLE reality that he is no different than any of the other race baiting charlatans that ignore the day to day violence, the kids gunned down in the streets by gang members, the decay, and complete ****holes that are such a large number of black communities and only offer the faintest pretense of outrage when tragedy occurs.

Meanwhile...as people continue to fret about poor Mike Brown...approx 346 young people have been killed in black neighborhoods across the country in acts committed by black people. 46,032 violent crimes have been perpetrated on black people in communities across the country BY black people. And that is JUST August. SO FAR.

So yeah...you will have to pardon me if I give less than half a **** about what he calls himself.
 
TobyOne said:
Well if he shot him six times when he was down you might have a point. We don't know that, and it seems unreasonable at this point.
Click to expand...
If he was shot 6 times standing up it would be no better. If a police officer is trying to apprehend someone and force like that is required, a few shots to the legs will do the trick. You have to at least admit that shooting someone so many times is generally not an acceptable thing for a police officer to do.
 
Lursa said:
Both citizens and cops are taught to shoot until the threat stops. Doesnt matter how many it takes, but it should end when the threat ends.

I have no idea what the threat was in the Brown shooting yet.
Click to expand...
Where were you taught that? Where were cops taught that? Have any evidence? BS. That is not what people are taught at all, unless they are in a gang.
 
Mason66 said:
If the suspect continues to charge, the officer will continue to shoot.

Most of the shots were not life threatening and with adrenalin pumping in the suspect, it is viable that he kept coming.
Click to expand...

Superfly said:
If a 350 pound man is coming after you, repeatedly, charging towards you even after you've yelled "Freeze" or "Stop or I will shoot," then again - what is he supposed to do? Tell me what you expect that cop to do if this guy is charging him, refusing to stop.
Click to expand...
The autopsy did not determine that the officer was being charged. And as the doctor performing it noted:

"The bullets did not appear to have been shot from very close range because no gunpowder was present on his body."

"“In my capacity as the forensic examiner for the New York State Police, I would say, ‘You’re not supposed to shoot so many times,’ ” said Dr. Baden"

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/u...-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0
 
Lakryte said:
Where were you taught that? Where were cops taught that? Have any evidence? BS. That is not what people are taught at all, unless they are in a gang.
Click to expand...

I went thru training with the St. Louis police dept and NYPD for my ranger training in those cities for one thing.

And that is what most self-defense training (which includes remaining within the law) teaches as well.

It is indeed what is taught. Where is the logic in stopping if the person is still a threat to you or bystanders? This isnt TV. The legal standard for shooting is very high and presumes you only do so to stop a lethal threat, gross bodily harm, commission of a felony, etc. In that case, you dont stop just to 'give the other guy a fighting chance at life.' The presumption is that they are still the same lethal threat until they are immobile, unconscious, dead, or completely submissive.

Police are actually reprimanded if they 'shoot to wound' btw in many cases. Because again...if the threat was lethal to begin with, you risk your life and the public safety if your 'more difficult shot' misses.

That is why police and citizens are also taught to go for the largest possible target: center of mass, COM, the chest.

http://www.littletongazette.com/October19-2011/ACC_Academy.html
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sirens/2010/dec/09/shoot-kill-vs-shoot-stop-threat/
http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Sa...ting-center-mass-Shooting-to-kill-or-to-stop/
"More than 700,000 law enforcement officers currently working in the United States have been given this or similar instructions in the academy"
http://ccjatraining.com/articles/ShootingToStoptheThreat.pdf
http://howtosurviveit.com/shoot-to-stop/

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-open-carry-121/175041-shoot-kill-vs-shoot-stop-threat-page-2.html
 
Last edited:
No, I don't accept that. A) I don't think cops are trained to shoot to injure. B) I'm pretty sure they're trained to shoot until the threat is no longer a threat. The autopsy supports a narrative of the cop shooting him in the arm first and then when that failed to stop him, popped him in the head.

A cop's first priority is to protect himself. When interacting with the police, its important to know that your best interest is not necessarily his priority.



Lakryte said:
If he was shot 6 times standing up it would be no better. If a police officer is trying to apprehend someone and force like that is required, a few shots to the legs will do the trick. You have to at least admit that shooting someone so many times is generally not an acceptable thing for a police officer to do.
Click to expand...
 
Lakryte said:
The autopsy did not determine that the officer was being charged. And as the doctor performing it noted:

"The bullets did not appear to have been shot from very close range because no gunpowder was present on his body."

"“In my capacity as the forensic examiner for the New York State Police, I would say, ‘You’re not supposed to shoot so many times,’ ” said Dr. Baden"

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/u...-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

I never said that the autopsy determined that the officer was being charged. I said that the officer was being charged because of a statement heard in the media the other day, giving the officer's version of what happened.

As far as Michael Baden, I appreciate his work as a Medical Examiner, as he is foremost in his field. However, he has no right or authority to say what the officer should or should not have done, until he was in his shoes. Can't imagine, as an ME, he has too many opportunities to be fired upon by a suspect fleeing a robbery.
 
Lursa said:
I went thru training with the St. Louis police dept and NYPD for my ranger training in those cities for one thing.

And that is what most self-defense training (which includes remaining within the law) teaches as well.

It is indeed what is taught. Where is the logic in stopping if the person is still a threat to you or bystanders? This isnt TV. The legal standard for shooting is very high and presumes you only do so to stop a lethal threat, gross bodily harm, commission of a felony, etc. In that case, you dont stop just to 'give the other guy a fighting chance at life.' The presumption is that they are still the same lethal threat until they are immobile, unconscious, dead, or completely submissive.

Police are actually reprimanded if they 'shoot to wound' btw in many cases. Because again...if the threat was lethal to begin with, you risk your life and the public safety if your 'more difficult shot' misses.

That is why police and citizens are also taught to go for the largest possible target: center of mass, COM, the chest.
Click to expand...
Please show me the evidence that cops are encouraged to shoot to kill rather than shoot to wound in all circumstances.
 
TobyOne said:
No, I don't accept that. A) I don't think cops are trained to shoot to injure. B) I'm pretty sure they're trained to shoot until the threat is no longer a threat. The autopsy supports a narrative of the cop shooting him in the arm first and then when that failed to stop him, popped him in the head.

A cop's first priority is to protect himself. When interacting with the police, its important to know that your best interest is not necessarily his priority.
Click to expand...
The autopsy report does not determine after being shot in the arm the guy was still a threat. You are just assuming that.
 
Lakryte said:
Please show me the evidence that cops are encouraged to shoot to kill rather than shoot to wound in all circumstances.
Click to expand...

No one said all circumstances but shooting to wound is never ever taught to my knowlege.

Please see my previous post, I added links and you can find explanations.

And btw, I never said 'shoot to kill', it's 'shoot to stop the threat.' Nothing about killing. I even pointed that out in my previous post.
 
Lakryte said:
Please show me the evidence that cops are encouraged to shoot to kill rather than shoot to wound in all circumstances.
Click to expand...

My husband was a cop for 20 years, and he was always told that you never pick up your gun unless you are prepared to use it. Cops are trained to shoot at the largest body mass, which is the torso. You can't aim to shoot smaller masses, because when you are in a situation to have to fire upon a suspect, you are under an extreme amount of stress. Most shootings are instantaneous. It's not like you have 5 minutes to stand there and try to determine the best place to shoot. When you are in that kind of situation, you do what you are trained to do.
 
Superfly said:
I never said that the autopsy determined that the officer was being charged. I said that the officer was being charged because of a statement heard in the media the other day, giving the officer's version of what happened.

As far as Michael Baden, I appreciate his work as a Medical Examiner, as he is foremost in his field. However, he has no right or authority to say what the officer should or should not have done, until he was in his shoes. Can't imagine, as an ME, he has too many opportunities to be fired upon by a suspect fleeing a robbery.
Click to expand...
And other statements said the opposite, so assuming the officer was being charged is not a fair assumption to make.

I do not have to be in the shoes of a terrorist to say that their actions are wrong, nor does Michael Baden have to be in the shoes of the cop to say that shooting somebody 6 times is generally wrong. Michael Baden has seen tons of bodies, many the result of police shootings. He has far more authority to judge how many times an officer is generally supposed to shoot than you or I.
 
I'm making no assumptions, I'm just saying what narrative the evidence supports.

Also, here is a summary of the LAPDs policy on lethal force. I'm guessing that the po po in Missouri probably have a similar one:

LAPD officers’ use of force is concise, consistent with prevailing law, and based on best police practices. Officers are permitted to use force that is objectively reasonable to defend themselves or others, to effect an arrest or detention, and/or to prevent escape or overcome resistance,” Izen said. “Officers are taught to evaluate a suspect’s behavior, the severity of the crime a suspect is committing or about to commit, and whether it is reasonable to conclude that the suspect’s behavior might cause serious injury to an officer or another person.

“If a suspect’s behavior is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death, an officer can, by law and under LAPD policy, use deadly force,” Izen added. “In using deadly force, officers can fire their weapons only to stop deadly threats to keep themselves and the public safe, and can continue to fire until the threat has ended.”


Lakryte said:
The autopsy report does not determine after being shot in the arm the guy was still a threat. You are just assuming that.
Click to expand...
 
Thank god we can double vote.

Police injustice + racism

Both were tied to the reason why the Ferguson protest started (Protest will refer to the protest and not any subsequent riots)
 
Lakryte said:
Please show me the evidence that cops are encouraged to shoot to kill rather than shoot to wound in all circumstances.
Click to expand...

Did you read any of the links? And not encouraged, but taught.

However, there is a germ of a solution there. Advertise to the public daily that police are trained to shoot for the berries. Most suspects will surrender immediately. A guy might take the chance with possibility of losing his life, but not his beanie weenies.
 
Lakryte said:
And other statements said the opposite, so assuming the officer was being charged is not a fair assumption to make.
Click to expand...

So by that token, then, we shouldn't listen to those who are giving any statements. I mean, by what you are saying, of course. It's not a fair assumption to make to say that the officer wasn't rushed, either. :shrug:

I do not have to be in the shoes of a terrorist to say that their actions are wrong, nor does Michael Baden have to be in the shoes of the cop to say that shooting somebody 6 times is generally wrong. Michael Baden has seen tons of bodies, many the result of police shootings. He has far more authority to judge how many times an officer is generally supposed to shoot than you or I.
Click to expand...

Never said that he wasn't. But either way, the man is a doctor. He cannot, should not, say that the officer shouldn't have fired upon the suspect as many times as he did, because he is simply a doctor, and nothing more. A paid doctor - paid for by the victim's family. He's not even LEO.
 
VanceMack said:
Geeeeeeezus...it takes you a while...

;)

Relevant factor ignored. Got it. You can focus on my calling Lew by his given name all the while ignoring the FACT and UNDENIABLE reality that he is no different than any of the other race baiting charlatans that ignore the day to day violence, the kids gunned down in the streets by gang members, the decay, and complete ****holes that are such a large number of black communities and only offer the faintest pretense of outrage when tragedy occurs.

Meanwhile...as people continue to fret about poor Mike Brown...approx 346 young people have been killed in black neighborhoods across the country in acts committed by black people. 46,032 violent crimes have been perpetrated on black people in communities across the country BY black people. And that is JUST August. SO FAR.

So yeah...you will have to pardon me if I give less than half a **** about what he calls himself.
Click to expand...

No, I understand old habits of racism are hard to break. At least you didn't call him 'boy'.
 
Wiggen said:
No, I understand old habits of racism are hard to break. At least you didn't call him 'boy'.
Click to expand...
Look how cute you are trotting out the race card...

:lamo
 
Lursa said:
No one said all circumstances but shooting to wound is never ever taught to my knowlege.

Please see my previous post, I added links and you can find explanations.

And btw, I never said 'shoot to kill', it's 'shoot to stop the threat.' Nothing about killing. I even pointed that out in my previous post.
Click to expand...
And I never said shooting to wound is taught. I said shooting to kill (which the officer did) and shooting 6 times is generally not acceptable. Since there has been no hard evidence that this was a special case where such force was necessary, it is only fair to say the officer likely acted improperly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom