(August 17, 2014 at 2:03 am)Minimalist Wrote: So that means we have to accept the abuses of uniformed thugs, Drippy?

What is wrong with trying to weed out the bad apples...and, btw, at the same time send a message to the rest of them that their mission is to "protect and serve" not "shoot on sight."

Who gets to decide what an abuse is? Who identifies the bad apples? The ones being being arrested? The Linch mob making death threats to the officer and his family? How will this be resolved looting?

(August 18, 2014 at 7:30 am)Drich Wrote:

(August 17, 2014 at 2:03 am)Minimalist Wrote: So that means we have to accept the abuses of uniformed thugs, Drippy?

What is wrong with trying to weed out the bad apples...and, btw, at the same time send a message to the rest of them that their mission is to "protect and serve" not "shoot on sight."

Who gets to decide what an abuse is? Who identifies the bad apples? The ones being being arrested? The Linch mob making death threats to the officer and his family? How will this be resolved looting?

Just kill all of them, God will know his children.

(August 18, 2014 at 7:30 am)Drich Wrote: Who gets to decide what an abuse is?

How about "we" do? As in "we the people"? Bring the case before a jury and let the facts come out.

Quote:'Those type of people' are the very reason we have police. I for one am glad there are police that stand between my family and those who turn on soceity the very first oppertunity that they get.

Take the police out of the equation and we will be living in 'the book of Eli.'

Just be careful about giving them unlimited authority or unlimited benefit of the doubt. After all, who will protect you from your protectors?

Min was dead on. The convenience store video that was released was purely for character assassination. No other purpose. Mike Brown didn't rob the store, employees didn't call 911.

At this point that PD will have to be dismantled & started over from scratch.

(August 18, 2014 at 5:39 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: Min was dead on. The convenience store video that was released was purely for character assassination. No other purpose. Mike Brown didn't rob the store, employees didn't call 911.

At this point that PD will have to be dismantled & started over from scratch.

Just because the store failed to call the police doesn't make it not a robbery!
(If a rape victim fails to contact police, does that signify consent?)

The video is important and germane to the shooting because it is evidence of his belligerence and use of the physical intimidation of his immense size mere minutes before the shooting. This evidence of his frame of mind and behavior is important when evaluating the claims of the cop that he was attacked and charged by Michael Brown and the description of a innocent guy in the street as claimed by other witnesses. What is not germane is of course the petty theft.

When one tries to evaluate the veracity of a claimed act, several key points come to mind.

1. What are the known motives of the witness bias?
2. What does the non-biased evidence say? How much independent or unforgeable evidence is available?
3. Can any of the witnesses be impeached by any of the physical evidence?

"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!" otherwise.. Occam's Razor.

(August 18, 2014 at 5:39 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: Min was dead on. The convenience store video that was released was purely for character assassination. No other purpose. Mike Brown didn't rob the store, employees didn't call 911.

At this point that PD will have to be dismantled & started over from scratch.

The only revelant question is Did the douche bag rob a store or not? If he did then know he assassinated his own character.

Just because the cop did not know what mike did 30 minutes before walking down the center of the road, does not mean mike forgot what he did. Meaning when that cop went to pull him to the side, Mike most likly assumed he was going to jail and needlessly escalated the situation himself. (The cop did not beat himself up.) beat up a cop, get shot. Thats kinda a rule a thumb no matter what color you are.

(August 18, 2014 at 11:29 pm)Drich Wrote:

The only revelant question is Did the douche bag rob a store or not? If he did then know he assassinated his own character.

Just because the cop did not know what mike did 30 minutes before walking down the center of the road, does not mean mike forgot what he did. Meaning when that cop went to pull him to the side, Mike most likly assumed he was going to jail and needlessly escalated the situation himself. (The cop did not beat himself up.) beat up a cop, get shot. Thats kinda a rule a thumb no matter what color you are.

That's funny, I didn't know you Yanks had the death penalty for robbery.

(August 18, 2014 at 7:30 am)Drich Wrote:

(August 17, 2014 at 2:03 am)Minimalist Wrote: So that means we have to accept the abuses of uniformed thugs, Drippy?

What is wrong with trying to weed out the bad apples...and, btw, at the same time send a message to the rest of them that their mission is to "protect and serve" not "shoot on sight."

Who gets to decide what an abuse is? Who identifies the bad apples? The ones being being arrested? The Linch mob making death threats to the officer and his family? How will this be resolved looting?

Certainly not someone like you. So you are ready to trust the cops to investigate each other, eh? Wonder how that works out.....

In Wisconsin...the findings were so egregious that they actually got that republicunt shithead Walker to sign a bill calling for outside investigation of police shootings....as if other cops won't cover up for their brothers in blue anyway. Why did they do this?

Quote:Nationwide, officer involved deaths are routinely investigated by their coworkers resulting in an impossible record of perfection. In Wisconsin alone, an "unjustified" ruling by an officer's department or commission cannot be found in 125 years.

Or -

http://data.newsday.com/crime/nassau-police/

Quote:A Nassau County police officer shot an unarmed man in the back. Another intentionally ran down an unarmed man with his squad car, costing him a leg. Still another shot an unarmed cabdriver after a night of drinking off duty.

In each case, department investigators reviewed the use of deadly force and reached the same conclusion within a day: The officer’s actions were justified.

A Newsday investigation into the Nassau County Police Department’s use of deadly force found cases where officers fired on suspects after incorrectly believing they were armed, shot people later convicted of no crime at all, and took action that a jury would later call excessive, resulting in one civil settlement of more than $15 million.

Yet each time, Nassau police’s deadly force investigators validated the officer’s actions.

I suppose someone who uncritically believes the bullshit you believe will accept just about anything that an authority figure tells you. You should work on being less of a credulous fool.

(August 19, 2014 at 12:36 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Nationwide, officer involved deaths are routinely investigated by their coworkers resulting in an impossible record of perfection. In Wisconsin alone, an "unjustified" ruling by an officer's department or commission cannot be found in 125 years.

Or -

http://data.newsday.com/crime/nassau-police/

Quote:.. In each case, department investigators reviewed the use of deadly force and reached the same conclusion within a day: The officer’s actions were justified.
..
Yet each time, Nassau police’s deadly force investigators validated the officer’s actions.

I suppose someone who uncritically believes the bullshit you believe will accept just about anything that an authority figure tells you. You should work on being less of a credulous fool.

I think this is absolutely true and should be strongly remembered in judging the claims from the police. However, it is the black witnesses' testimonies that have been impeached so far with the physical evidence, not the cop's.
When are you going to admit this? When are you going to admit that the two main black witnesses' testimonies that was initially relayed to all the sensation loving media and started the greater riot reaction were lying. They were lying and you and so many others believed them. The guy was not shot in the back.
When are you going to admit that:
1. He was not a honest guy crossing the street.
2. He had committed a very recent crime and would have freaked at the presence of a policeman.
3. He Was in a belligerent, aggressive mood.
4. He was shot about 6 times from the front, corroborating at least in part, with the cop's released testimony.
5. The black witness's testimonies that have been so widespread, have been racist lies, pure racist lies.

(August 19, 2014 at 12:36 am)Minimalist Wrote: (Drich) ...should work on being less of a credulous fool.

I'd trust that to happen about as much as I'd trust a police internal investigation to find wrongdoing.