(September 22, 2016 at 10:07 am)ukatheist Wrote: Is this about riots following police shootings of black people?
I think the first point to make is, from reading postings on here, is that a large proportion of officers aren't even indicted (apologies if I'm using incorrect terminology here, the UK and US legal systems are a little different) - and therefore the opportunity for justice is limited in the first place.

The second point is that of those that do get indicted, a large proportion of those are eventually acquitted, where in different circumstances they would not (e.g. not an officer or not a black victim).

Yet there does seem to be a number of payouts from the police forces to the families of the victims, which does suggest some admission of responsibility on the part of those forces, so if the civil case is strong enough for forces to agree to settle, why aren't we seeing more indictments (and yes, I do know the standard of proof is different for civil and criminal proceedings, or at least it is in the UK).


Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

But again Justice is the impartial process of law. Which means if their is not enough evidence for a murder trial or any trial that accuses a cop of anything, and all charges are dropped. Justice, meaning the impartial due process of law that has the state demand a certain level of evidence before a trial is deem necessary has been served.

Again Justice is a process which in this society presumes that all accused are innocent, This includes police and not just those suspected of breaking the law. Which means there is a threshold of support/evidence that must be established in order for those accused of a crime must exceed before a formal proceeding can take place. If this threshold is not met the charges are dropped. This is JUSTICE as the following the due process of the law allows for no trial based on the specific circumstances. Again to assume all cops have committed a crime because they shoot someone are guilty of something and therefore demand punishment of some kind is not justice again that is vengeance.

(September 22, 2016 at 10:11 am)Thena323 Wrote: Protesters are seeking justice. 

Rioters are probably not. They're opportunists for the most part; plain and simple. 
Their primary interests are their own.

People just can't be bothered to acknowledge the distinction between the two, I guess.

I'm sorry did I say protesters were the same as rioters?

My thread is focused on those who use 'justice' as a way to excuse criminal behavior.

No vengence= We are allowed to burn down businesses, loot stores, kill cops, and the like.

For Justice!

(September 22, 2016 at 10:45 am)Drich Wrote:

(September 22, 2016 at 10:07 am)ukatheist Wrote: Is this about riots following police shootings of black people?
I think the first point to make is, from reading postings on here, is that a large proportion of officers aren't even indicted (apologies if I'm using incorrect terminology here, the UK and US legal systems are a little different) - and therefore the opportunity for justice is limited in the first place.

The second point is that of those that do get indicted, a large proportion of those are eventually acquitted, where in different circumstances they would not (e.g. not an officer or not a black victim).

Yet there does seem to be a number of payouts from the police forces to the families of the victims, which does suggest some admission of responsibility on the part of those forces, so if the civil case is strong enough for forces to agree to settle, why aren't we seeing more indictments (and yes, I do know the standard of proof is different for civil and criminal proceedings, or at least it is in the UK).


Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

But again Justice is the impartial process of law. Which means if their is not enough evidence for a murder trial or any trial that accuses a cop of anything, and all charges are dropped. Justice, meaning the impartial due process of law that has the state demand a certain level of evidence before a trial is deem necessary has been served.

Again Justice is a process which in this society presumes that all accused are innocent, This includes police and not just those suspected of breaking the law. Which means there is a threshold of support/evidence that must be established in order for those accused of a crime must exceed before a formal proceeding can take place. If this threshold is not met the charges are dropped. This is JUSTICE as the following the due process of the law allows for no trial based on the specific circumstances. Again to assume all cops have committed a crime because they shoot someone are guilty of something and therefore demand punishment of some kind is not justice again that is vengeance.

You are assuming that these processes are implied impartially. I am saying that they do not appear to be, and this is why justice is not being attained.

(September 22, 2016 at 10:29 am)Faith No More Wrote: Oh, the irony of complaining that protestors should wait for due process when people are being systematically gunned down by the police for minor offenses or nothing at all.  Or how about the irony of someone that regularly complains about the power of the state taking no issue with the state summarily executing people in the streets?

Why is it that when talking about welfare and other social programs conservatives can't express enough how evil the government is, but when it comes to the cops violating civil rights their response is "these protestors should settle down?"

It's real simple sport, Do what the cop say when he says it. It's not a debate, you don't have the right to protest, you don't get an appeal durning an arrest. That is what court is for.

The cop's primary objective is to have complete control of the situation and all parties involved. So the first thing a cop must do is identify an potential dangers. For instance someone acting nervous for any reason in a car. the cop is not to try and figure out why, just remove the nervous person from a potential danger in the car. so the person is asked to step out. if the person does anything besides step out, again primary mandate takes over control the situation. the officer must escalate the situation, any reaction besides submission results in some type of physical force or restraint by the officer. if the person resists or fights back again the officer must continue to escilate the situation first to be on the surviving side of a violent encounter, so the situation is escalated again. No matter where a person is in the escalation of a fight cops are trained to be one step ahead.

You are at a zero confrontation level, a cop is at be ready he may make a move.

you are at offended, the cop must be cock and ready for a fight.

You are thinking about where or not you can take this guy (even if you are going through the motions of compliance,) the cop is at applying non leathal force/disabling you.

You take a swing and depending on what action he has already taken, he shoots.

Those who see unfairness in a police officers actions simply do not understand the dangers of the job nor the mindset/how they are trained to work.. In a douche bag society everyone demands to be treated to who they are as individuals. unfortunately when dealing with criminals, everyone must be treated the same. Meaning everyone is treated like a criminal until a safety threshold can be establish by the officer. When all potential threats have been neutralized and the cop has control of the situation, it can only be then that you can be treated as an individual again.

Approach as an alpha, demand control and fight for it.. get shot.

If this was a race thing then why is it black cops shoot black people? Why is it white cops shoot and kill white people?

As far as protesters are concern they can do whatever they want within the confines of the law.

(September 22, 2016 at 11:02 am)ukatheist Wrote:

(September 22, 2016 at 10:45 am)Drich Wrote: But again Justice is the impartial process of law. Which means if their is not enough evidence for a murder trial or any trial that accuses a cop of anything, and all charges are dropped. Justice, meaning the impartial due process of law that has the state demand a certain level of evidence before a trial is deem necessary has been served.

Again Justice is a process which in this society presumes that all accused are innocent, This includes police and not just those suspected of breaking the law. Which means there is a threshold of support/evidence that must be established in order for those accused of a crime must exceed before a formal proceeding can take place. If this threshold is not met the charges are dropped. This is JUSTICE as the following the due process of the law allows for no trial based on the specific circumstances. Again to assume all cops have committed a crime because they shoot someone are guilty of something and therefore demand punishment of some kind is not justice again that is vengeance.

You are assuming that these processes are implied impartially. I am saying that they do not appear to be, and this is why justice is not being attained.

But, what is perception with out evidence? Speculation.

So again, Here with this last guy, cops said he had a gun, people on the street said he had a book. Gun was found, no book was recovered. This incident was recorded from the moment just after the shooting. Nothing recorded shows a book. The 'eye witness' who claim he had a book initially said the cop that shot him was white.

Result? Before ANY evidence is reported, Before anything could be sorted out, riots broke out...

So tell me some more how the thought is the 'justice process' is being applied impartially.

The truth is Justice is not the goal. Vengeance is. Justice demands time for a proper trial. vengeance has already made up it's mind and demands action. If justice is what is called for then why isn't sufficient time for justice allowed to be applied?

Now according to the actions of the rioters (not their words) what do they truly seek?

So then Why are we as a society allowing a blood thirsty mob go unchallenged in our streets while they are actively seeking vengeance?

Have we as a country lost all common sense?

When did acts of VENGEANCE become acceptable forms of protest? As a citizen I am allowed to shoot dead anyone trying to rob, loot, or burn down my house or business. Heck I an even shoot anyone dead trying to rob loot or burn down your house or business as well. But here the cops back off and let it burn...

Maybe, that is the ultimate irony/police way of protesting the protesters. 'You want a world with out police, we will allow you to rob, loot and burn down whatever you want, so long as you guys do it to yourselves and your communities. there, wish granted, no cops go nuts...'

Who does that hurt? the hand full of people trying to serve the community with their businesses, and the people who frequent their stores.

Do what a cop says when he says it? I'll take it you're not a fan of the Constitution generally and the fourth amendment particularly. This shit will stop when we citizens unite and demand with one voice the protection provided by the fourth amendment for everyone.

When I was a kid a running joke was "I'm with the KGB, show me your papers"; I don't see much difference with our police today. We have idly sat by with an inexhaustible supply of apathy while our rights have been systematically eroded. Fuck police. I'll change my tune when they serve and protect instead of endeavoring to meet arrest and seizure quotas.

Frankly, dripshit, its because of assholes like you who think the cops should be allowed to shoot anyone they want...especially if they are brown or black.

Go vote for Drumpf you deplorable piece of shit.

Drich, I know that willfully not seeing context is like your superpower, but...

Let's assume "the last guy" had a gun. Let us also assume, for the sake of argument, that he was wielding it in a threatening manner.

The protestors, that you're implying leaped to conclusions in this case, do actually have some evidence, here: what they have, is a pattern of minority men and women being met with lethal force at a rate they find to be disproportionate. They feel this because they also see white people, often doing far more overtly violent acts, being taken in alive, while black people tend to be shot for... well, not doing much of anything, really. So you have a world where, just off the top of my head, the Aurora theater shooter gets taken in alive, yet the black kid with the fake gun gets gunned down. The black guy with his hands up gets shot. And so on.

What is being protested, in these cases, is not just the specific case that sparked this particular round of protests, but also the overarching narrative that becomes clearer each time this happens, which is that police responses tend to favor white people while turning out disturbingly fatal for minorities in analogous or less severe scenarios. You're looking at one more police shooting in a long line of them, and choosing only to see the latest body because it suits your preferred narrative to do so.

The people on the street protesting do not have the luxury of doing that. It's one more and one more and one more, no matter how you sit there and try to twist so that it's just one.

(September 22, 2016 at 10:29 am)Faith No More Wrote: Oh, the irony of complaining that protestors should wait for due process when people are being systematically gunned down by the police for minor offenses or nothing at all. Or how about the irony of someone that regularly complains about the power of the state taking no issue with the state summarily executing people in the streets?

Why is it that when talking about welfare and other social programs conservatives can't express enough how evil the government is, but when it comes to the cops violating civil rights their response is "these protestors should settle down?"

"people are being stematically gunned down for minor offenses or nothing at all"? Are you insane, oblivious to truth, or merely intellectually bankrupt? You sir are a douche of the first order.