• 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
The cop hasn't been tried and convicted in the media. The media doesn't convict anybody. The court system does, and this guy as a good chance of being found innocent given he is cop and knows the law.

I'd agree that's what's supposed to happen but if the situation deteriorates there is a very real chance that the cop's career will be over and he and his family will be in serious danger just because he did what he's supposed to do.

This cop has been tried and convicted in the media and in the public sphere even though the evidence hasn't come out yet. He is looking at a federal indictment on civil rights crimes and it's pretty much a given that he will be charged with murder. The public has demanded it and the state authorities seem to be leaning in that direction just as a measure to sate the public venom. You have to admit that's a pretty ****ty situation to be in just because you're doing your job and it's exactly that kind of thing that might make another cop think twice before getting involved at all.
 
Was it actually confirmed it was him in the video?

You are right, but the problem doesn't stop with the cop. It was bad enough that this started in the first place. Then it snowballs, because the video was released? Seriously? I read that people were pissed that the video was nothing more than a smear campaign against Brown. How is it a smear campaign if it's the truth???? This is pissing me off - like a lot. The kid was seen on video, practically picking up the store clerk by the neck, and we are supposed to believe that he's an innocent victim who was bullied by the cops? The governor needs to get ahold of this. Is the National Guard there yet? If not, why?



You are right on that as well. And now Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are getting involved, too. Yeah, that makes the entire stupid situation even more credible. :roll:

I feel badly for the cop. They should have never caved to public pressure and released his name.

I guess I just don't have an answer. Honestly, in this situation, I think Brown was dead wrong, and if what I heard was correct, the cop had no recourse but to shoot, because Brown was coming after him, even after repeatedly being told to stop. But this is the problem -- Rodney King. Amadou Diallo. Abner Louima. Trayvon Martin. Jordan Davis.

This bullcrap has been going on for so long, that when there is a guilty black man, nobody can say anything about it without it turning into a freaking civil rights issue. There are too many innocents that have been killed, so now all black men who are shot by white cops are going to be martyrs, whether they are guilty or not.
 
Which is pretty much why I'd opt to segregate cops into neighborhoods where they are the same race as the neighborhood majority. If you can't even trust the populations to keep their **** together when something like this happens, then you have to placate them like the children they are. That's one of our societal problems these days- people lose their minds when anything pisses them off. I get freaking tired of it.

People riot over college football, which is a very minor issue... I don't know what to say. :shrug:

What has a riot ever achieved?

I don't think of it as a personal problem to me since I have never lived in an area that has rioted. It is very sad however.
 
People riot over college football, which is a very minor issue... I don't know what to say. :shrug:

What has a riot ever achieved?

I don't think of it as a personal problem to me since I have never lived in an area that has rioted. It is very sad however.

To me, it isn't sad. It's bull**** for them to be looting and acting violently. Protesting is fine and good. Peaceful protest is cool. The hippie movement had it right back in the 60's. What we are seeing nowadays isn't peaceful protest. It's people getting pissed off and losing their ****.
 
People have a right to free speech and peaceful protest. Nobody should lose their rights because of anybody else. There is no evidence to suggest the entire town is rioting, or that the entire town is violent. There actually have been peaceful protests. Furthermore, if you stay home during a riot, it doesn't exactly mean you are safe, nor does it mean you are preventing a riot.

Police need to keep the citizens safe, and citizens have a right to protest, but not to riot. It would be wrong of the cops to label every single protester and citizen a rioter.



You do realize, of course, that if these "poor people of Missouri" would go their asses home, this wouldn't be happening. If they go home, the cops go home. It's not rocket science. They are rioting. They are looting. They are shooting towards the police cars.

What do you want the police to do, write them a strongly worded letter?
 
People have a right to free speech and peaceful protest. Nobody should lose their rights because of anybody else. There is no evidence to suggest the entire town is rioting, or that the entire town is violent. There actually have been peaceful protests. Furthermore, if you stay home during a riot, it doesn't exactly mean you are safe, nor does it mean you are preventing a riot.

Police need to keep the citizens safe, and citizens have a right to protest, but not to riot. It would be wrong of the cops to label every single protester and citizen a rioter.

bolded by me

Ok, how does LE carry out that statement "to keep the citizens safe, and citizens have a right to protest, but not to riot".
 
I'm not so sure that segregated departments are really the answer. That's more like slapping a bandaid on a severed artery. A viable community requires that people of all races, faiths, etc. work together for the good of that community.

The question i have then is this. What do you do when a significant segment of one of those groups that are members of a community, refuse to work with the others, or believe that the others are out to get them? What do you do when they start to riot? and they don't trust those who are hired to protect the community as a whole?

What do you do when they do this out of ignorance because their schools are so bad as to be non-functional at best, at worst a recruiting and training ground for gangs and other subversive organizations and organized crime, that wish to see the community harmed? are the other segments in the right to remove them, or to separate or segregate that section from the others? does this then become racism, sexism, or some other form of bigotry that the majority imposes upon the section of that community that caused the problem? or is it then a justifiable precaution based upon the problems that that section brought upon the others?

These are the questions that need addressing i think...
 
Well, this post was certainly pointless to read... hope you got something out of writing it at least.

Only to you, because it shows you to be wrong.
But I am sure you got the point, as you choose to respond to it. :shrug:
 
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:
People have the Constitutional right to protest on public streets. Protesting is not defying cops. Perhaps you prefer a dictatorial police state, but I prefer a constitutional republic.
 
Only to you, because it shows you to be wrong.
But I am sure you got the point, as you choose to respond to it. :shrug:

No... it was really just that lame.
 
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.
Where does it say 1st amendment rights can be suspended? Nowhere. Why? Because states cannot suspend federally granted rights. Same reason why they can't take guns and ammo--that would violate the 2nd amendment. You only prove my point.
 
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.
Yes it does. The means matter, not merely the intent of the government. Take a basic Con Law 101 class and you will understand this.

You would killing everyone in Times Square? Really? Thank God you don't write the law or have any power as an official.
 
People have the Constitutional right to protest on public streets. Protesting is not defying cops. .

People also have the right to be safe and secure in their person and property. A basic tenant of the social contract.

Perhaps you prefer a dictatorial police state,

Drama Queen much?

but I prefer a constitutional republic

Perhaps you should understand the 1st Amendment BEFORE you try to sound like an expert... :roll:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

- See more at: First Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw
 
Probably 90% of the young guys in his community fit the description. I want specifics on the description... was it based on an obvious and distinct piece of clothing? How did the officer suspect Michael but not his friend, and why isn't is friend in jail if they robbed a place together? Did Michael actually rob the place or not?

I am not asking the questions to be stupid. I really want to know...

And let's not forget, the initial reason he was stopped was for "blocking traffic." The officer identified him as suspect after letting him go for blocking traffic.

From what I read, the clothes he was wearing in the surveillance video match the clothes he was wearing a few minutes later when he was confronted by the police.

No, the officer did not know initially that he was a suspect in the store robbery. He initially stopped him because he and the other 2 guys were walking down the middle of the street, and he was asking them to get out of the middle of the street as (I assume) they were blocking traffic. It was only a few minutes later when (I assume) a BOLO went out.

As far as why the other two were not confronted, I also heard reports that they ran, while Michael turned around and came back for the officer.

From the surveillance video, it did look like Michael and the other two boys robbed the store, and Michael put his hands on the store owner when he tried to stop him.

All this is just what I have heard from varying reports online, on TV and from "witnesses."
 
Where does it say 1st amendment rights can be suspended? Nowhere. Why? Because states cannot suspend federally granted rights. Same reason why they can't take guns and ammo--that would violate the 2nd amendment. You only prove my point.

Where does it say in the Constitution that at times 1st Amendment rights can not be suspended due to an emergency? Nowhere.

Yes it does. The means matter, not merely the intent of the government. Take a basic Con Law 101 class and you will understand this.

You had one nutty professor from the sounds of it...

You would killing everyone in Times Square? Really? Thank God you don't write the law or have any power as an official.

That is one way to interpret what he said... :lol:
 
No... it was really just that lame.
:doh Figures.
You get shown to be wrong as usual, and you cry lame.
Yep. Figures.

Good to know you don't think accuracy of information is relevant.
 
Yes it does. The means matter, not merely the intent of the government. Take a basic Con Law 101 class and you will understand this.

You would killing everyone in Times Square? Really? Thank God you don't write the law or have any power as an official.
You clearly have no idea of what you speak.
Nothing you said changes anything I said in the following.
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.
 
:doh Figures.
You get shown to be wrong as usual, and you cry lame.
Yep. Figures.

Good to know you don't think accuracy of information is relevant.

Umm... nope. The accuracy is 100% relevant. That is not what was lame... it was your little cry baby tangents that got boring.

Like I said, I agreed with you once my confusion was cleared up but you continued to act like... well, you. :lol:
 
Like I said, I agreed with you once my confusion was cleared up but you continued to act like... well, you. :lol:
Said the one acting as, well... you know. :doh
And the above is not accurate because you did not. As shown. You were absurdly agreeing with an article that wasn't even relevant.
 
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?

The best protest is an intellectual protest.

File complaints, sue the PD, call for the federal department of justice to investigate the PD.

My father and the rest of the people in Shelton accomplished it without any big protest, without national news coverage, without rioting, etc.

The Ferguson protest was so hilariously botched, these people are moronic.
 
Where does it say 1st amendment rights can be suspended? Nowhere. Why? Because states cannot suspend federally granted rights. Same reason why they can't take guns and ammo--that would violate the 2nd amendment. You only prove my point.

Out of curiosity, what authority do you think was used to round up people in New Orleans after Katrina?
 
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?

This is going to sound a little strange at first sight, but I think this whole thing really started with the Zimmerman thing. That is to say, there a certain degree of brutality in Zimmerman;s actions and that set black America on the defensive, as did the Rodney King incident. The cops, since Zimmerna have taken to a new style of brutality as well. Out here, we're just now getting over the 13 year old who was shot in Santa Rosa while carrying a toy gun. Turned out the kid was stoned, so his reaction was slower probably, but for the cop to gun that kid down was a bit over the top. Same thing in the Ferguson case as I see it. The cops; like Zimmerman, are just going kind of crazy under these threats, and they are defending their own lives as they see it.

So who's right? Should the cops be tough enough to keep the local thuggery from being a threat to the neighborhoods, or should the cops just be nice guys until one of them feels threatened enough? I think that the burden is on society at large. The cops keep having to defend themselves from the mentality that is doing all the looting... they are the trouble amkers, and I don't doubt for minute that if alive Brown would have been among them carrying out expensive tires and wheels.
 
Said the one acting as, well... you know. :doh
And the above is not accurate because you did not. As shown. You were absurdly agreeing with an article that wasn't even relevant.

You just simply can't help acting doofy, can you? :lol:
 
You just simply can't help acting doofy, can you? :lol:
When that happens I will let you know.
So how about we get back to your goofy statements. and maybe even your grrr anger?

You were not agreeing with me, but with an irrelevant (to the discharge) article.
 
When that happens I will let you know.
So how about we get back to your goofy statements. and maybe even your grrr anger?

You were not agreeing with me, but with an irrelevant (to the discharge) article.

Bye...
.
.
 
Back
Top Bottom