Dude anytime you strike a armed man you have taken your life and placed it square in his hands. (In the tempement of a man who wants to strike back at you and cause you sever bodily harm)
Economics has absolutly nothing to do with an out and out bully getting shot for reaching for the first tool in his conflict resolution tool box. (His fists.) brown was a bully who routinely used his size and intimidation to get his way that day. Look had how he dealt with the store owner, and look how he dealt with the cop. Mr Leroy brown may have been the baddest man in the whole damn town of fergason with his fists, but in the rock paper scissor game between fists and guns. Guns always win.

This whole thing centers around pride. Pride from brown for not complying with the cop, and pride from the cop wanting to strike back at brown after getting beaten up. This is the same kind of thing that motivates men to fly passenger liners into buildings. It's funny I do not see you soap boxing to bring the quality of living up for those people.

(August 16, 2014 at 9:52 am)Endo Wrote:

(August 16, 2014 at 9:44 am)Brian37 Wrote: 2. GOVERNMENT will happen, to say it shouldn't exist or that we can police ourselves without it is ABSURD.

Wait, wait, wait. How can a government serve the purpose of "being a government" if its members are composed of humans who are apparantly incapable of "policing ourselves without it"? Who governs the governors? Who governs those who govern the governors? Ad infinitum.

There is no ad infinitum here. It is absurd in a flawed species that will always produce greed to rid it of either the private sector or rid it of government. EVERYTHING is run by humans, both business and government. If you stupidly think theocracies or dictatorships or one party rule states don't invest in the global market you are an idiot.

No rules is what Somalia looks like, no private sector is what North Korea looks like. But both those rich warlords in Somalia and Un invest in the global private sector to keep and maintain power. So what both look like is an extreme shift in monopoly of wealth.

China is authoritarian capitalism. It keeps it's one party rule by allowing the private sector to make cheep goods on slave wages to sell to the rest of the world. Saudi Arabia's royal family owns oil companies and global investments in banks and weapons. Gadaffi was a billionaire who owned stock in GE.

You will NEVER rid the world of 7 billion people the desire to want money or private property. What we as the workers of the world can do is put focus where it should be, on all forms of abuse of power and monopolies of power. But you will not rid the world of diversity.

(August 17, 2014 at 12:23 am)Drich Wrote: Dude anytime you strike a armed man you have taken your life and placed it square in his hands. (In the tempement of a man who wants to strike back at you and cause you sever bodily harm)

Sure, maybe, in a third world shithole. Here we have a concept called "necessary force". More particularly, among professional users of said weapons, there is a doctrine called "escalation of force".

I'd hate to live in a place where your "I'm a big man with a big stick, come at me bro" doctrine was acceptable. Please, show me where the penalty for being a "bully" is summary execution in the streets by law enforcement?

(August 20, 2014 at 9:28 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 17, 2014 at 12:23 am)Drich Wrote: Dude anytime you strike a armed man you have taken your life and placed it square in his hands. (In the tempement of a man who wants to strike back at you and cause you sever bodily harm)

Sure, maybe, in a third world shithole. Here we have a concept called "necessary force". More particularly, among professional users of said weapons, there is a doctrine called "escalation of force".

I'd hate to live in a place where your "I'm a big man with a big stick, come at me bro" doctrine was acceptable.

Yup. Don't know what kind of world Drippy lives in, but in the civilized world, slapping someone wouldn't be justification for "placing your life square in the hands of an armed man".

He's exhibit A for my position on religion. You don't even have to connect the dots between his theology and his stance on earthly authority and conflict, they're the same dot. Hell, he's trying to turn this -into- a religious narrative as we speak with his "pride" bullshit. I should just paste his posts into the "anti-theists, prove your claim" thread.

(August 20, 2014 at 9:29 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(August 20, 2014 at 9:28 am)Rhythm Wrote: Sure, maybe, in a third world shithole. Here we have a concept called "necessary force". More particularly, among professional users of said weapons, there is a doctrine called "escalation of force".

I'd hate to live in a place where your "I'm a big man with a big stick, come at me bro" doctrine was acceptable.

Yup. Don't know what kind of world Drippy lives in, but in the civilized world, slapping someone wouldn't be justification for "placing your life square in the hands of an armed man".

So would either of you care to describe a rule to teach to policemen about being attacked while they are armed? Currently the cop is taught that he is not to let an assailant gain control of his weapon, so that any serious attacks on himself are to be met with deadly force.

How would you change the rules for cops? What rule should they be taught for violent attacks on themselves?

(August 20, 2014 at 1:01 pm)Brakeman Wrote:

(August 20, 2014 at 9:29 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Yup. Don't know what kind of world Drippy lives in, but in the civilized world, slapping someone wouldn't be justification for "placing your life square in the hands of an armed man".

So would either of you care to describe a rule to teach to policemen about being attacked while they are armed? Currently the cop is taught that he is not to let an assailant gain control of his weapon, so that any serious attacks on himself are to be met with deadly force.

How would you change the rules for cops? What rule should they be taught for violent attacks on themselves?

See "necessary force" and "escalation of force". The rules are decent in and of themselves, it's just that people tend to either ignore them or twist them to make any reaction they want seem like the right reaction. Which is why we're supposed to have oversight committees and investigations.

(August 20, 2014 at 1:05 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(August 20, 2014 at 1:01 pm)Brakeman Wrote: So would either of you care to describe a rule to teach to policemen about being attacked while they are armed? Currently the cop is taught that he is not to let an assailant gain control of his weapon, so that any serious attacks on himself are to be met with deadly force.

How would you change the rules for cops? What rule should they be taught for violent attacks on themselves?

See "necessary force" and "escalation of force". The rules are decent in and of themselves, it's just that people tend to either ignore them or twist them to make any reaction they want seem like the right reaction. Which is why we're supposed to have oversight committees and investigations.

Were there supposed to be links? How would you change the "necessary force" and "escalation of force" rules that currently apply to an armed policeman? I would think that an oversight committee would judge cops performance to their training. If you think the current training is "decent," Then the cop that shot the teenager was not far off the mark from his training provided the story that he was attacked and lunged at holds.

(August 20, 2014 at 1:01 pm)Brakeman Wrote:

(August 20, 2014 at 9:29 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Yup. Don't know what kind of world Drippy lives in, but in the civilized world, slapping someone wouldn't be justification for "placing your life square in the hands of an armed man".

So would either of you care to describe a rule to teach to policemen about being attacked while they are armed? Currently the cop is taught that he is not to let an assailant gain control of his weapon, so that any serious attacks on himself are to be met with deadly force.

How would you change the rules for cops? What rule should they be taught for violent attacks on themselves?

HOLY FUCK here we go again.

APPROACH MATTERS,

He approached them with the training of fear the worst(I have heard cops say countless times that "no call is simple" which means you assume the worst, even before you see the suspect. You dont even assume a simple traffic ticket will be that simple.

These guys didn't respond the way he wanted upon first verbal contact. Then the second part of his training kicks in. DOMINATE TO GET CONTROL AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

Which is consistent with what his friend said, "it was sudden" which means neither kid had any time to think about what was going on. Which means the COP jumped them.

AND AGAIN Brown broke the cop's grip and RAN AWAY. Now why would he stop running if he had not been hit once while running? If I got hit by a bullet I would stop what I am doing. He got it in the arm at least once running away. Brown at that point decided to give up.

WHICH IS CONSISTENT with what not only his friend said but other witnesses said "PUT HIS HANDS IN THE AIR" And when facing him with his hands up TWO OF THE SHOTS HIT HIM IN THE HEAD.

Now I believe the witnesses. So out of all the shots the two that hit him in the head would mean the one in the eye had to be the first to the head, causing him to be dropped to be hit in the top of the head while falling.

Otherwise if it is the "rushed me" story, the first bullet would have to be to the top of the head with his head leaning forward. Are you going to have me believe that after being hit in the top of the head he had the power to lift his head and get hit in the eye?

Now cops are also trained to STOP using force when needed. When a guy puts his hands up YOU DO NOT CONTINUE SHOOTING THEM!

You keep making it about the struggle between Brown and the cop. THAT DOES NOT MEAN SHIT TO ME. When someone is giving up you do not continue shooting them. Otherwise you are asking me to believe the witnesses are lying. Why is it the witnesses are lying? Because they are black? If not then the cop is wrong.

Now whose lying? Several people who didn't know either kid? Or a cop who has buddies who can help him figure out a story that "might work".

And explain to me why right after it happened no one was allowed to lend immediate aid to Brown, or that his body sat on that street for 4 hours?

(August 16, 2014 at 8:59 am)Brian37 Wrote: I am sick of republicans and libertarians and Ayn Rand assholes claiming that "get government out of the way" helps.

Sometimes the government can fix a problem, sometimes it cannot, and sometimes it makes the problem worse. Take each case on its own merits.

Myself, I lean towards smaller government simply because I don't trust institutionalized power.

Sometimes government can act positively, and I do believe that social equality issues are one arena where it can and does help ... and I'm a libertarian.