• 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!

Will Ferguson have a chilling effect on police?[W:144]

Will Ferguson have a chilling effect on police work in black neighborhoods?


  • Total voters
    28
I will wait till the investigation is done before drawing any hard conclusion. We do not know all the facts surrounding the shooting.
The fact this 18-year old was shot 6 times by the police officer--twice in the head, speaks for itself. That is completely unacceptable.
 
If the police action is in response to, and in an attempt to prevent such looting and damage, then yes, their use of teargas and rubber bullets are acceptable.
No, it isn't. The police cannot kill all free speech to stop a few looters. Say there is a terrorist in times square. To stop the terrorist, would it be acceptable to kill all of the people in times square to kill the terrorist? No. Just because the cause for action is legitimate, does not mean the course of action is.
 
When some are rioting then the peaceful protestors should listen to the cops and ****ING DISPERSE. Get a license, notify the police and have a peaceful demonstration the next day.
No excuse to attack peaceful protestors in such a militarized fashion. You are so eager to give up your freedoms..it frightens me.
 
Bull****. I haven't seen anything peaceful, with the exception of yesterday's church service.

It might have started out as a peaceful protest, but has turned into a full scale riot.
Then you have selective attention. If all you are watching is clips of the looters, and clips of the crowd's reaction after the police shoot at them with tear gas missiles and smoke bombs, you aren't going to see peaceful protesting.
 
You clearly do not know what evidence is or are playing a stupid game.
Yes it is evidence.
It doesn't have to be admitted in any court to be evidence.

Lets put it this way? What the heck do you think non-admitted evidence is?
Let me clue you in, it is evidence that the court disallowed to be used in court proceedings. Still evidence though. Duh!

You stated this:

What evidence do you not know about?
He attacked the Officer and pushed him back into his vehicle, went for his gun and injured the Officers face which requiring hospitalization.
After the Officer was able to get out of his vehicle, brown didn't surrender but instead progressed towards (charged) the officer as the Officer fired.

It will be evidence in the investigation, and will remain evidence during the trial.


The Officer's account is also evidence.
It will be evidence in the investigation, and will remain evidence during the trial.

So stop with your silly little game.

You answered my question with a statement as if it was fact, as if it was the only account for that and verified by the police chief, like it was the only evidence 'known.' *snicker*

It may indeed change over the course of investigation, new eyewitness reports, or in court.

Did I say Official report, or Evidence that is known? You might want to pay attention to what has been said so you do not make the same mistake.

And that evidence that is known isn't going to change.

So, dont forget......always make sure your evidence is KNOWN! lol
 
Last edited:
I will wait till the investigation is done before drawing any hard conclusion. We do not know all the facts surrounding the shooting.

?? The looting is not justifiable as a protest for a crime or injustice in any circumstances.
 
Didn't the news report some eye witnessess stated Brown was shot in the back? Not true according to the medical examiner. So the question becomes how reliable is the eye witness statements?

Some have been concerned that the release of the robbery tape is out to defaim Brown.

imo, releasing any information before the investigation is completed can taint eye witness recollection, future jury pool in a civil/criminal case.
 
Didn't the news report some eye witnessess stated Brown was shot in the back? Not true according to the medical examiner. So the question becomes how reliable is the eye witness statements?

Some have been concerned that the release of the robbery tape is out to defaim Brown.

imo, releasing any information before the investigation is completed can taint eye witness recollection, future jury pool in a civil/criminal case.

Exactly. the statements all need to go thru the investigation and legal rigor. But good physical evidence is what will help sort out the BS :)
 
I think things like this only serve to worsen relations between police and civilians.

The police feel threatened by the violence directed towards them, and feel more paranoid and afraid in the future, making it more likely that they'll respond with lethal force when in a confrontation.

And everyone else trusts the police less than ever, because of the original shooting, their poor handling of the aftermath, and the escalating violence which many will blame the cops for.

It just feeds on itself.
 
No excuse to attack peaceful protestors in such a militarized fashion. You are so eager to give up your freedoms..it frightens me.

Spoken like a person that has never experienced a violent public situation...
 
Spoken like a person that has never experienced a violent public situation...
No. Spoken like a person who recognizes that we have 1st amendment rights. If some protesters acting violently is enough to cancel out the first amendment, then if I ever saw a protest I didn't like I could pose as one of them and get violent, shutting it all down. The militarized response of these police was unjustified, especially their firing of tear gas at peaceful protesters. Worried about people looting stores? Guard the stores, and arrest people who are actually looting them.
 
No. Spoken like a person who recognizes that we have 1st amendment rights. If some protesters acting violently is enough to cancel out the first amendment, then if I ever saw a protest I didn't like I could pose as one of them and get violent, shutting it all down. The militarized response of these police was unjustified, especially their firing of tear gas at peaceful protesters. Worried about people looting stores? Guard the stores, and arrest people who are actually looting them.

Yes. That can happen and probably does in some instances. The issue here is that violence started at the very beginning and the police tried shutting it down. Peaceful protestors wanting to protest should be smart and isolate themselves from violence at night. Let the police know what they are doing, etc. Just being out at night when people are shooting, etc. doesn't leave the police many options. They are tasked with protecting innocent people and property. Leave the area as asked and set up a properly scheduled and public protest. Just common sense and all this 1st Amendment being trampled crap is not taking common sense into consideration.
 
Yes. That can happen and probably does in some instances. The issue here is that violence started at the very beginning and the police tried shutting it down. Peaceful protestors wanting to protest should be smart and isolate themselves from violence at night. Let the police know what they are doing, etc. Just being out at night when people are shooting, etc. doesn't leave the police many options. They are tasked with protecting innocent people and property. Leave the area as asked and set up a properly scheduled and public protest. Just common sense and all this 1st Amendment being trampled crap is not taking common sense into consideration.
How can they isolate themselves from the violence when the violence follows them? Do you think rioters are going to riot away from the peaceful protests? The police are taksed at protecting innocent people and property, but they may not violate individual rights in the process. By "any means necessary" is not lawful.
 
Mike Brown was unarmed, walking down the street, and a cop killed him.

There's more to the story and we don't have all the details yet but that simple assessment is what seems to be in play right now and it has caused riots, looting, destruction of property, curfews and at least one more shooting. This all begs the question.....if you are a cop working in a predominantly black neighborhood what are you going to do if you are in a situation where you may have to use force against a black suspect? If it's not a life or death situation are you just going to walk away?

In the Mike Brown scenario Officer Wilson could have just blown the whole thing off. Yeah, maybe he just made contact with the kid that robbed the liquor store but is it really worth his career to take action and risk being thrust into the public spotlight? If he says, "Come here, please. I need to ask you a few questions" and the kid tells him to **** off should he just walk away?

If a cop has his own interests in mind he would certainly, in light of the circumstances in Ferguson, have to think twice before having any kind of physical contact with a confrontational black suspect.

That might be a good thing for community relations between police and blacks. Certainly less confrontation would be welcome....wouldn't it?

He wasn't completely "unarmed". He had a lot of mass working in his favor but no, no effect will happen.
 
How can they isolate themselves from the violence when the violence follows them? Do you think rioters are going to riot away from the peaceful protests? The police are taksed at protecting innocent people and property, but they may not violate individual rights in the process. By "any means necessary" is not lawful.

Oh my god... by leaving the scene, going home to bed and re-assembling at the court house the next day or a designated safe public area, that is how. Are we both not adults that can think of adult responses or are we emotionally compromised and can think of nothing other than standing in front of a group of militarized cops and defying them even though violence is occurring around you? What the ****... :roll:
 
No. Spoken like a person who recognizes that we have 1st amendment rights. If some protesters acting violently is enough to cancel out the first amendment, then if I ever saw a protest I didn't like I could pose as one of them and get violent, shutting it all down. The militarized response of these police was unjustified, especially their firing of tear gas at peaceful protesters. Worried about people looting stores? Guard the stores, and arrest people who are actually looting them.

Under a declared State of Emergency certain rights can be suspended. In Missouri - Section 44-100 Emergency powers of governor. - Basically, they can take your house, your car and your food but (under 44.101) not your guns and ammo.
 
He wasn't completely "unarmed". He had a lot of mass working in his favor but no, no effect will happen.

I was kind of going for the general meme in the incident storyline. I figured that if I gave my take on what happened the thread wouldn't make two posts before someone's head exploded.:lol:
 
I was kind of going for the general meme in the incident storyline. I figured that if I gave my take on what happened the thread wouldn't make two posts before someone's head exploded.:lol:

I, for one, am glad that you didn't make someone's head explode. I hate it when that happens, because cleaning up the mess is such a pain in the ass.
 
I was kind of going for the general meme in the incident storyline. I figured that if I gave my take on what happened the thread wouldn't make two posts before someone's head exploded.:lol:

Sadly, as with all crime, there is no political will (benefit) to have a dialogue.
 
I, for one, am glad that you didn't make someone's head explode. I hate it when that happens, because cleaning up the mess is such a pain in the ass.

Meh...that's what we have mods for!:lamo
 
I have not seen an official report on that....can you provide a link? I've also not seen it substantiated by the current investigation.

Excon takes unsubstantiated cop statements as truth and that is the end of any discussion of the matter...
 
Excon takes unsubstantiated cop statements as truth and that is the end of any discussion of the matter...

Well, they are sworn in and generally more believable than thugs.
 
If the police action is in response to, and in an attempt to prevent such looting and damage, then yes, their use of teargas and rubber bullets are acceptable.
No, it isn't. The police cannot kill all free speech to stop a few looters. Say there is a terrorist in times square. To stop the terrorist, would it be acceptable to kill all of the people in times square to kill the terrorist? No. Just because the cause for action is legitimate, does not mean the course of action is.
Nothing you said changes anything I said.

And as for your scenario?
If that terrorist had a nuclear device that would kill thousands more, then yes, killing the hundreds in the square just to kill the terrorist would be justifiable.

But you scenario was absurd in comparison to gas and rubber bullets (non-lethal force) to stop rioting, looting, and damage.
 
You answered my question with a statement as if it was fact, as if it was the only account for that and verified by the police chief, like it was the only evidence 'known.' *snicker*

It may indeed change over the course of investigation, new eyewitness reports, or in court.



So, dont forget......always make sure your evidence is KNOWN! lol
You are speaking nonsense as it is fact.
He fought with the Officer and caused damage to the Officer. Etc...

All you are doing is showing that you do not know what the evidence is.
 
Well, they are sworn in and generally more believable than thugs.

Agree with that but they are also known to twist the truth as well. Many, including I, have witnessed this first hand.
 
Back
Top Bottom