Why do the ritors ask for Justice?

[Drich]

 Or do you think given the social climate cops are recruiting guys like this and protecting them when they do something stupid?

Where do you live, on another planet? Are you not familiar with the term "blue wall of silence"?

When do you live in the late 90s?
Seriously, that lady cop who shot the pcp guy has been arrested and is charged with manslaughter. If their was a blue wall of silence, how then how is this lady cop in jail before the rioters can even be bussed to Colorado?

Drich
Out side of the small town (where nothing happens) police officers are tested. And some of the reserve officers don't get tested and some of the administrative officers also forego testing. But there isn't a major city/population area that cops aren't tested in.

Tag, you're it. 

Your turn to provide a source, please; Because, I highly suspect this is just some shit you think. 

Prove me wrong. 
I assure you, I can take it...unlike some people.

Actually I was going off of what I've been told after 20 years being a corrections deputy's son, and having other members of the family in law enforcement serving in other capacities locally and in other parts of the country...

But if you need a link I'll see what I can find.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-jdLhnxY7c

The MMPI-2 seems to be the gold standard:
http://www.copuniversity.com/blog/what-mmpi-test/
Your article also mentions the MMPI-2

What is the MMPI-2?
http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/2/135.full

Do you need me to keep going? You've got two list that say nearly all law enforcement uses psych evalus/testing to determine mental fitness of a candidate, and you have a link showing how in depth this test is by a reputable source. (meaning a well establish learning institution gives an exact break down of the test and an endorsement, verse a liberal rag telling you it's obsolete test.)

Thena wrote:
The wildly prejudicial belief that "All Negroes need to be shown a firm hand" likely drives yours motives and actions whenever you interact with blacks. I get that you're "okay" with that.

Drich 

F-U and the black chip on your shoulder.

 

Well, pardon me. You DID  state that...

maybe through the lens of that black chip.
I gave many examples of me personally being shown a firm hand AND NOT COMPLAINING About it. Meaning I believe ALL PEOPLE NOT JUST BLACKS Should be shown a firm hand if they do not comply with police officers.

Drich wrote:
The problem here is the black community at large is raised to believe they must be alpha males all the time. The want to dominate and be in control, which is in direct violation of every cops mandate on the street. 

And....

Drich wrote:
If you were punched hit or kicked by a certain segment of the population almost everytime you had to confront them would you treat them any differently?
Truth is i would. Why? I am not a stupid person and I want to make sure I go home to my family every night, and if that means i make a mistake and offend a few people, then f-them.

*My highlighting, for emphasis.

Clearly, you felt that it was unfair for me conclude that it's LIKELY you deem it necessary to adopt a tough, zero-tolerance policy when dealing with "the Negroes". I don't know what to say, other than your words were my guide.

If they were then why aren't they in their proper context? Why did you have to heavily edit my words to fabricate a point? If what I said was on the surface, and you are accurately representing what I said, then why not establish the context in which those words were spoken? Why do you hide from the context, why did you omit 1/2 the argument that frames what I said? and only cut up and display the parts of my response then pair it with another cut up quote and display them together???

Did you think I would forget the context in which I originally wrote those words? Or will you simply sell your integrity to sell a point and play the race card??? Always the victim, always the oppressed minority.. You re no better than a tv evangelist who cuts up verses out of the bible and pastes together his own doctrine to try and swindle old and stupid people out of their money, but instead of money you are trying to sell a narrative that paints black people out of their dignity, out of any hope to be anything without a hand out.

because white man will always just stomp you down. When in truth people across the world (Syria) are literally lining up to endure the 'oppression' you say black people can't function under. Why is that? Why would Syrians want to come to a country hostile to them/Dont want them here? For The same reason my family came here... Because even though they were hated (A member of a race hated by all Americans not just whites, as they were a perceived enemy of America for nearly 40 years in 3 different armed conflicts/wars) The reason the came here is even with the hate that ALL Americans were politically correct in feeling pre9-11 when arab people became the new hated race, It is sh*t ton better here (even with all the minority oppression black people seem to be buckling under) than where they came from.. where they were truly oppressed (hunted down and killed for their beliefs/who they were geologically speaking)

Yet here you are born here, and ONLY have one racial obstacle to over come (BY JUST FOLLOWING THE F*CKING RULES OF SOCIETY THAT EVERYONE NEED FOLLOW NOT JUST BLACK) and you want special permission to shit on police and society. With out it you personally will turn on anyone who says, hey this is moronic and infantile. Just do what cops say do and you wont get shot.. If this was a real issue If america was just asking too much then why oh why didn't MLKjr march police shooting an armed black man? or march when police shoot a black man fighting the police? Or march when a black man has a gun and will not comply with orders? Why? because back then unlike today the lines between right and wrong are blurred because back then MLKjr did not want hold up law breaking criminals as heros. Because there were real instances of oppression where inocent people were being mistreated by police and others. It is to these cases that he marched and it is to these cases that he united the community, even so he still did not riot. nor call for the death of anyone let alone police...

Why do people now support the exact oppsite people, protest proceedures and values that MLK Jr pioneered yet still want to align their cause with his?

Drich
How about ANYONE needs to be shown a firm hand if they do not comply and NO one gets a pass moron.

Does ANYONE include those officers who don't comply with law, and abuse their authority? Apparently, not. 

Again you are changing the narritive. This is not about breaking the law or being found guilty. This is about due process, meaning the process in which you must submit yourself which suspected of a crime. More specifically the Arrest process.

And yes I absolutely think all cops despite race creed or religion should be held to the same measure as everyone else. If a cop resists arrest then they too should be shown a firm hand.

See you problem is you think because I am not supporting you I am for them... Not the case. My arguement supports the system in general.. Not for you not for letting them have unchecked authority. However I am for everyone mandated to follow the system as it has been laid out.

They certainly get a pass in the minds of morons, such as yourself. You viewed the video of a completely compliant South Carolina driver getting shot by a state trooper and immediately blamed the victim. THEN you were informed of the trooper's failure to follow procedure AND of his LYING statement to his supervisor. And what did you do, Drich? 

Dude dove in his car or reach deep in his car... I would have shot the guy too after the second or third time I told him let me see your hands... That said i acknoweledge the cops mistake and my own if I were in that situation and then I do expect the cop to be prosecuted if the law so demands it.

You dismissed the facts, carried on and proceeded to invent more excuses for that piece of shit.

Pass, pass, motherf*ckin' PASS.

Or so says the general racist narritive that demands me to be completely for you and what you have to say or against you.

No wander you want to pass this up.

The black driver screw up and got shot because he screw up. So did the white cop, and he got introuble... I have no issue with either men reaping what they have sown.

You are the one looking for special dispensation in accordance to race.

Wrong. 

What I'm looking for, is to be relatively certain that my sons, or anyone else for that matter, won't have law-enforcement officers go upside their head, or put a bullet in their chest without sufficient cause to do so. 

That's it.
[/quote]

then teach them to comply with officers especially if they feel they are treated unfairly. Arresting officers are not your friends nor are they your enemies. they are people doing a job. Now whether or not they do it right is not something to be determined on the street. it is to be determined in a court or a DA's office. a cops job is not that of a lawyer judge or jury. It is only to arrest. if you let them do their job then they will be treated like every other red blooded American.

Also tell them keep their mouth shut and ask for you or a lawyer.

[Drich]

[...]I look forward to dying like Paul rather than kneeling before a Hillary type regime.

That said when they come for me I will not fight them, and just short of God giving me direct instructions to the contrary I will die as they did.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL....

...

LOLOLOLOLOLOL...


...



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL....


Nobody's going to "come for you", Dripsh*t. Nobody gives a sh*t about you, or your masturbatory martyrdom fantasies. You'll die just like most people - as a bed-ridden, bitter old f*ck, sh*tting and p*ssing yourself in the name of the lord. And if "they" did come for you - you'd sh*t and p*ss yourself too, probably denouncing your silly superstitions, given half a chance.

The level of megalomania among idiots claiming humility is sometimes astounding... smh

...Tell that to clinton.

Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she explained. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/24/hi...-abortion/

Who is Clinton to decide what is and what is not 'full participation in society?'

And if the qualifier for Changing "deep-seated religious beliefs" of individual rights, then how long before she decides another fundamental 'human right' is being trampled on by religion? How long before we need to make a pledge to this country before we pledge to God? All she has to do is lable us "radical or deep seated religious" and tell you we infringe on the right to "X" and you children are not safe and Oh yeah we are racist and on and on and next thing you go we have to pledge to hilliary's america, take her mark on our hands or foreheads or we can't do business with the rest of you 'good people.'

[The Grand Nudger]

 How long before we need to make a pledge to this country before we pledge to God?

I hope that bar has long since been met.  Settle your scores with god on your own time, you have eternity.  I need to know I can count on you as an american first in the here and now.

All she has to do is lable us "radical or deep seated religious" and tell you we infringe on the right to "X" and you children are not safe and Oh yeah we are racist and on and on and next thing you go we have to pledge to hilliary's america, take her mark on our hands or foreheads or we can't do business with the rest of you 'good people.'

If you're a bunch of racists who infringe upon the rights of others because of your deep seated bigotry....then the thing to do is stop doing that, not bitch about how someone called you out.  Give unto caesar, my friend.

[Drich]

I don't think you get the point I'm trying to make, read my quote again.

I'm not changing any narrative, I showed you video of 2 men resisting cops by using force. The charges were dropped. If you're not allowed to resist cops authority, then explain why the charges were dropped.
My question, why were the charges of assault on a police officer dropped? They are clearly shown on video fighting with the cops, but according to YOU, one is not allowed to resist an unlawful arrest, and should just bend over and take it.

And again, I said you can not alpha a cop. Meaning you can not intimidate your way out of being arrested. You can't fight your way out of being arrested. Again If a cop has it in his mind you are going to be arrested then that is what will happen.

And again what you do not seem to still understand is that being arrested does not automatically mean you are guilty of a crime or need to goto jail.

To directly answer your question these men were released because the charges were dropped by the person who filed them or were dropped by someone in a police station or someone like the DA who works with them.

So I ask again, why were the charges dropped?

Now the part that you don't seem to get is I am saying if a cop has it in his mind you need to be taken into custody then either he or the army of police standing behind him is going to arrest or kill you. So there is no point in fighting. Now does being taken in mean your going to jail? No. It simply is the start of the 'due process' you are entitled to as a citizen. If their was a procedural or it is determined the wrong person was detained mistake made then more than likely (if they can admit it) then by this 'due process' you will be kicked/let go. I can only assume as I have no way to verify that they were indeed let go that it is because of due process. However in the case of your fan fiction, you can create your own narrative as to the reason why he was let go as that was not even a real arrest.

So again, the short answer is the reason people are let go after being arrested with no trial... the answer is "due process of the law." And arrest does not = a conviction. Only a moron thinks that just because one is arrested that means he is automatically going to jail.

---

NOT FOR A 12 YEAROLD!

Open carry or not this law does not apply to a kid with a gun.

Where is the common sense in this argument? how does the rights of a man let alone a man of a specific race transfer to a child?

I don't think I follow you. Are you saying that since it's totally legal for adults to openly carry a firearm, any children that do so should (Tamir Rice wasn't carrying a firearm) be shot on sight?

I see how you could make yet another foolish assumption... You've cut the narritive, or rather you have taken my quote out of it's intended context. Do you see how I quote an unmolested version of the last thing you said? is so you can properly frame the nature of the answer I am giving you.

So let's rebuild why 12 year old tamir was rightfully and legally shot and killed by examining what was said, we start with post 381
If in the History of the world no 12 year old has killed a man or even a cop with a gun, then I can understand the idea of an over reaction. Not to mention the toy was not a overt obvious toy it was an airsoft pistol that had been modified to look more realistic (the orange barrel was painted black) It looked like a real gun.
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSK1sVOgDq3Su8Zwj_or4t...-nLH7L4nEQ]

Tell me that is a toy. That is a 1:1 replica of 1911 45 automatic that is designed to fire projectiles. Some airsoft guns fire with the aid of co2 carts and make a convincing pop for about 1/2 a second. These airsofts guns function in same exact way the real guns work. There is no discernible way to look at this gun and tell it is a fake. the only way to know for sure is to pick it up, which the cops cant do if the kid has it on him.

So again, why was Tamir shot Because for all the officers had to go on was a "black male brandishing a firearm"
The following NYTimes link has that 911 caller I was talking about. While the 911 caller said it was probably fake it did scare the hell out of him. The article also goes on to admit that that in the video tamir was pulling the reproduction firearm out of his belt. as the car rolls up.

That is why it was LEGAL to shoot and kill Tamir Rice.

It was not the open carry, a cop rolls up on a kid and just randomly snipes him... There was a 911 call that establishes a black male pointing a gun a people, cops are dispatched with this in mind (A guy pointing a gun at people) puts age out the window or are you not familiar with how insurgents/Taliban or isis will use children as young as 10 to be suicide bombers. Then this kid pulls the gun from his waist band. This in any police manual escalates the situation to life or death in any cops mind.

Tamir was to be arrested because he did not know better than to point a gun at people. Tamir died because he did not know he could not point his gun at a cop. So who's fault is that? the cops? or the person charged to teach him right from wrong?

Are you still confused as to why any 12 yearold in this particular situation would Need to be shot by the police?

Or is your evocation of "black folk" supposed to scare me off from calling your bluff?

well it didn't. I'm all in. Show me where open carry laws in ohio allow for 12 year olds to carry openly and then show me where it is ok for them to brandish point them at people in public places. Because that is what can be seen in the video, that is what was reported, and that is the situation the officers were called into.

How many times did James Holmes brandish and point a gun a people? Oh wait he actually killed 12 people... he was taken alive.

Huggs I do respect you but this is the dumbest thing you've ever said.
James Holems did not point his gun at cops. When confronted by cops he complied and was taken peacefully...

So why is this the single dumbest thing you've ever said?

Because your an idiot if you think tamir or James' crimes had ANYTHING to do with their outcomes.

Tamir died because the cop thought he was going to be shot/killed by a 1911 .45 semi automatic.

James lived because he folded like a house of cards. when he was told to do X he did not scream at the cops he did not pull a gun from his belt. He did what he was told when he was told.

That is my whole point. Let the cops have control of the situation and even if you are arrested you will live. Fight a cop go for a gun (real or not) and you die.

Why is it 95% of the population understands this, and 5% think this is too much to ask?

How many times did Dylan Roof brandish and point a gun a people? Oh wait he actually killed 9 people... he was also taken alive and bought a burger to boot.

Again, dylan did what he was told when he was told.. Cops are not judges their primary job is to make an arrest. if you will not allow them to arrest you they are to subdue you. If you will not be subued or threaten their lives then they are to take you by force NO MATTER WHAT YOUR ORIGINAL CRIME IS. However if you comply then they Must take you alive. NO MATTER WHAT YOUR CRIME IS!

That is why those murders lived and Tamir died.

So are you off the idea that the bible says we are to resist arrest? Did Jesus' example/submission to Authorities despite their authority over you, show you that your position (that it is ok to resist police if you are innocent/right are violated) is wrong/unchristian?

[Drich]

 How long before we need to make a pledge to this country before we pledge to God?

I hope that bar has long since been met.  Settle your scores with god on your own time, you have eternity.  I need to know I can count on you as an american first in the here and now.

As any good military man will tell you their responsibilities are: God, Country, Family in that order.

Mine are no different. and I would die defending this country from any domestic threats, even if that means i am in a fox hole next to you. (even though by then you'd be a brother as there are no atheists in fox holes )

If you're a bunch of racists who infringe upon the rights of others because of your deep seated bigotry....then the thing to do is stop doing that, not bitch about how someone called you out.  Give unto caesar, my friend.

Hey smart guy, you don't have to look at hypotheticals here... (If this or if that you must be stopped..) How about simply find book chapter and verse.

If you can't find anything on racism then guess what... we don't have a mandate to be racists. (Matter of fact the opposite is true we are to love our brother according to Christ then he proceeded to tell us men of all races are our brothers.)

So point your hypotheticals some place else.

My point is that once it is established that religious freedoms can be infringed upon for ANY REASON then that will be the day the government creates a law respecting an establishment of religion, and impeding the free exercise of said religion.

Yet Here we are 2015/6 and Clinton someone with a very good chance at holding the top office in the USA is calling for change in 'deep seated religious views.'

So how long before all religions are threats because they infringe on someone's right to do something that pop culture has now made ok...

[Homeless Nutter]

...Tell that to clinton.
[...]

No, I'm telling you - you're a bigoted moron with typical christian persecution complex. You're the one trying to infringe on other people's rights, because you believe your imaginary butt-buddy gave your bunch of deluded f*ckwits a mandate to do so. You're perfectly happy with Trump denying muslims entrance and persecuting them for their "deep-seated religious beliefs", all the while playing the victim and crying about freedum of releegun and putting god before your country. It's pathetic and no one's buying it. Knock it off...

Get over it, jack-ass - as unhappy and unfulfilled, as it obviously makes you - the times of Roman circus are long gone. Nobody's going to knock Jesus's d*ck out of your mouth. Just start getting used to equal treatment, as opposed to the privileged status you'd like for your particular brand of stupid.

[The Grand Nudger]

As any good military man will tell you their responsibilities are: God, Country, Family in that order.

...uh, no, whats this god business?  I never signed up to be a soldier for christ.  Country and family, hooah?

Mine are no different. and I would die defending this country from any domestic threats, even if that means i am in a fox hole next to you. (even though by then you'd be a brother as there are no atheists in fox holes )

-and if jesus was letting loose at us both?  You pull the trigger because you don;t want to be an american's murderer through complacency, right.....? I'd garrote Nelson Mandela for looking at you wrong...just saying.

Hey smart guy, you don't have to look at hypotheticals here... (If this or if that you must be stopped..) How about simply find book chapter and verse.

"Hypotheticals" is a good description for chapter and verse.  What are you asking for, btw?

If you can't find anything on racism then guess what... we don't have a mandate to be racists. (Matter of fact the opposite is true we are to love our brother according to Christ then he proceeded to tell us men of all races are our brothers.)

If there's no mandate...then why tf are you a bunch of unmitigated racists?

So point your hypotheticals some place else.

My point is that once it is established that religious freedoms can be infringed upon for ANY REASON then that will be the day the government creates a law respecting an establishment of religion, and impeding the free exercise of said religion.

Government doesn't have to establish a religion to prevent you asshats from discriminating, obviously.  

Yet Here we are 2015/6 and Clinton someone with a very good chance at holding the top office in the USA is calling for change in 'deep seated religious views.'

....only a few thousand years too late.........

So how long before all religions are threats because they infringe on someone's right to do something that pop culture has now made ok...

It's up to you, isn't it?  If you decide to turn your religious beliefs into a threat to american principles, no one can stop you from doing that.  

: shrugs :

[Pat Mustard]

 How long before we need to make a pledge to this country before we pledge to God?

I hope that bar has long since been met.  Settle your scores with god on your own time, you have eternity.  I need to know I can count on you as an american first in the here and now.

All she has to do is lable us "radical or deep seated religious" and tell you we infringe on the right to "X" and you children are not safe and Oh yeah we are racist and on and on and next thing you go we have to pledge to hilliary's america, take her mark on our hands or foreheads or we can't do business with the rest of you 'good people.'

If you're a bunch of racists who infringe upon the rights of others because of your deep seated bigotry....then the thing to do is stop doing that, not bitch about how someone called you out.  Give unto caesar, my friend.

Well given the nature and substance of the first amendment, I'd consider the 1950's insertion of "one nation under god" to be treasonous, along with any oaths used in wtate ceremonies which explicitly reference a deity (eg so help me god). The most defining characteristic of the US constitution, what makes a unique document is the idea it introduces that the state should be secular and that no religion should influence the way the state does business. Every country prior to this date (including the US under the articles of confederation) tied itself to a particular idea of the "divine".

The USA has lost something major with its retreat into narrow, grandiose and bigoted religiosity since the start of the cold war.

[abaris]

.... along with any oaths used in wtate ceremonies which explicitly reference a deity (eg so help me god).

Isn't there a provision for a secular oath? I mean, the default in my country is also religious, but if you claim to be a non believer, they make you swear without any god. Especially at court.

[Joods]

The provision would be to say "I affirm". That's what I say in court.