I'm stepping out of the Ferguson discussions. Not that my take on the killing has changed, but I feel I have crossed the line with my presentations here the past two days.
@revelette2,
Thank you rev. You are correct and CI seems to be in an arguementive mood rather than an understanding one.
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:When Romney said "the 47% are takers," what message do you think he was sending?
I thought he was talking about 50% of white people out of 430 people who live in my little town who need government help because the jobs they work at dont pay enough to support their families. Blacks arnt the only poor people but living in a place like California you wouldent know about that.
@RABEL222,
I don't think he was talking about white or blacks in specific but just people who receive government assistance in some form.
It is true there are lots of poor whites in the US in need of government assistance and they get it the same as poor blacks so I am not sure what your point is. If they didn't get it, the statics wouldn't show it, but they do.
@revelette2,
True; all the poor receive some form of government assistance. Also, nonprofits do a good job of assisting the poor with food and shelter.
The GOP continues to harp on the poor all while fighting equality in pay and not approving legislation that will help with creating jobs.
Their trickle down theory doesn't work; it hasn't worked for about three decades now, and the shift in wealth continues to go to the top 10% while the middle class struggles to keep up with inflation.
It's not rocket science.
Prediction: Ferguson will be 90% black and very poor in ten years. This city has been in freefall for a long time, and it just picked up speed.
True story: my aunt and uncle are typical bleeding heart liberals. Against advice they bought a house in a Minneapolis neighborhood that had a good number of poor unfortunantes as a political statement. What they did not consider was that the neighborhood had been in decline. What they saw was the rainbow they liked, and it was good enough to stomach. But it kept getting worse. After ten years they had to get out because they no longer felt safe. They sold at a loss even before factoring in inflation. They also admitted that they had made a mistake. Only upscale neighborhoods after that, both a house and a condo.
@hawkeye10,
Your language,
Quote: typical bleeding heart liberals
proves how small minded you are! If you want to make a point, your adjectives only tells us about you.
The only adjective that applies is to you; it's
ignorant.
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:proves how small minded you are!
How so, that is how they self identify, and describe themselves to others. I know a several liberals who do, in my world this is not a derogatory phrase.
@hawkeye10,
NO. It's because you have the tendency to belittle everybody - even people you don't even know personally. You have a huge problem, and you don't even know it!
I found the post about how being a cop is not that dangerous quite amusing. I have listened to the public and the uninformed talking heads on CNN/MSNBC opining the use of force by police as unecessary and cant figure out why they do what they do in these situations.
First, to those who say being a cop is not dangerous, go to your local PD, fill out an application, take the training and do the job...then come and talk to us.
As for some of the misconceptions about the training and use of force for police, here are the facts:
The first thing you must understand is that in EVERY situation you go into there is always one gun present...YOURS. And this gun can be used against you.
When you employ deadly force you do not shoot to wound. (You do not fire a warning shot.) When you are in the "fight or flight" syndrone your senses suffer. So you are taught to aim for the biggest target in order to better achieve a hit to STOP THE THREAT. And you must keep shooting until the threat stops. The biggest target is CENTER MASS on the human torso. Warning shots, shooting to wound in a crisis situation is an invitation to killing an innocent bystander. The officer is responsinle for EVERY bullet that leaves his gun.
Before modern police training cops were being killed by people who were shot once or twice when the officer paused to see if the offender was dead or incapacitated. Officers are trained to handcuff the shooter after being shot because in the past there "dead" people have been known to kill the officer.
The offender ALWAYS has the upperhand in a fight because he knows what he's going to do...the officer has to guess. If the offender is not complying ,i.e. not taking his hads out of his pockets then makes an aggressive move the officer HAS to assume he has a gun and is going to use it and the officer must shoot first in order to live. If a police officer is chasing a subject and the person stops and spins around the officer MUST assume theat he is turning to fire; if he doesnt he could end up dead.
If an offender is with in 21 feet of and officer with an edged weapon and makes any movement forward, the officer must shoot. It has been proven that an aggessor can cover that distance and kill the officer before the officer can shoot. Even if you shoot as him just before he reaches you he will still have enough oxegenated blood in his system to kill you. Only a CNS (central nervous system) hit will drop him and THAT is a VERY small target, i.e. lucky shot. There is a famous case of an offender who was shot point blank in the heart with a .357 magnum who ran down 2 flights of stairs and 50 feet before collapsing. Using pepper spray/taser in this situation is an invitation for the officers demise.
Disparity of force. If a 300 pound 6 foot tall man is fighting with you, a 160 pound 5'9" police officer for your gun and you are injured to the point that you may lose your gun, you SHOOT the offender. If the person is getting away from you and the only way to affect the arrest is to shoot him, then you do so. (it's called the fleeing felon law) The requisite is if the fleeing felon is a violent felon and could be a futher danger to other police or the public. Beating an officer almost to unconsciousness trying to get his gun more then qualifies. The fact that he beat an officer to the point of unconsciousness and tried to get his gun is prima facia evidence of a continuing danger to others.
If the perpetrator disengages then starts back torward the officer he has to assume that if re-engaged he could lose his gun and it could be used on him, so he MUST shoot.
Officers recieve only minimal trainging in the use of their fists when defending against an attack because you can't "certifiy" a person in the use of his fists. You can certify them in the use of pepper spray, baton, taser, and firearm. The need to be certified is a civil liabilty requirement to reduce exposure to lawsuit.
The above tactics were not developed because someone thought they sounded good, they were implemented after hundreds of police officers were killed.
THE REASON THAT IT APPEARS THAT BEING A POLICE OFFICER IS NOT A DANGEROUS JOB IS BECUASE OF THIS TRAINING AND THESE TACTICS MORE POLICE OFFICERS ARE SURVIVING VIOLENT ENCOUNTERS.
This was NOT the case during the 60's and 70's.
If you do not want to be shot by the police...comply with their orders. If you think they wrong, address it LATER.
@giujohn,
You're missing the whole point; you don't kill a kid for stealing cigars - or most anything else in a grocery store. A kids life is worth a lot more than some food, drink or cigars.
Here's some facts that explains the stats of police legal intervention (from politifact.com).
Quote:The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention keeps data on fatal injuries from 1999 to 2011 and one category is homicides by legal intervention. The term "legal intervention" covers any situation when a person dies at the hands of anyone authorized to use deadly force in the line of duty.
Over the span of more than a decade, 2,151 whites died by being shot by police compared to 1,130 blacks. In that respect, Medved is correct.
However, Brian Forst, a professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Criminology at American University, said this difference is predictable.
"More whites are killed by the police than blacks primarily because whites outnumber blacks in the general population by more than five to one," Forst said.
Rather than comparing the raw numbers, you can look at the likelihood that a person will die due to "legal intervention" in the same way you might look at the chance a person will die in a car accident or a disease like lung cancer. When you do that, the numbers flip.
A 2002 study in the American Journal of Public Health found that the death rate due to legal intervention was more than three times higher for blacks than for whites in the period from 1988 to 1997.
That is not the final story though. There are different theories as to why the black rate is so much higher.
Candace McCoy is a criminologist at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York. McCoy said blacks might be more likely to have a violent encounter with police because they are convicted of felonies at a higher rate than whites. Felonies include everything from violent crimes like murder and rape, to property crimes like burglary and embezzlement, to drug trafficking and gun offenses.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that in 2004, state courts had over 1 million felony convictions. Of those, 59 percent were committed by whites and 38 percent by blacks. But when you factor in the population of whites and blacks, the felony rates stand at 330 per 100,000 for whites and 1,178 per 100,000 for blacks. That’s more than a three-fold difference.
McCoy noted that this has more to do with income than race. The felony rates for poor whites are similar to those of poor blacks.
However, it's still my contention that the police doesn't have any right to kill a black kid for stealing cigars.
@cicerone imposter,
No, you're missing the point. He wasnt killed for stealing cigars. The officer didnt even know about the first felony, only the second one...FELONIOUS ASSUALT ON A POLICE OFFICER.
@giujohn,
You wrote,
Quote:FELONIOUS ASSUALT ON A POLICE OFFICER.
Where you there to witness that? Or, are you getting third hand information from FAUX SNOOZE.
After Brown was already shot, the police fired two more into his head.
There's more than self defense there.
Reported by the LA Times.
Quote:Dorian Johnson
A 22-year-old Ferguson resident and friend of Brown, Johnson said he was walking alongside the 18-year-old on Aug. 9 when Wilson drove alongside them in a police car and ordered them to "get the eff onto the sidewalk."
A brief argument erupted, but Wilson then appeared to drive off, Johnson has said. Seconds later, Wilson pulled the car in front of both Brown and Johnson and flung his door open, striking both men.
Johnson said Wilson then thrust his arm through the open window of the car and grabbed Brown by the neck. After a brief struggle, Wilson drew his firearm and threatened to shoot Brown, Johnson said.
Wilson fired once, wounding Brown, and the two friends started running, Johnson said.
But Wilson continued to fire, according to Johnson, fatally wounding Brown. Autopsies have shown Brown was shot six times.
@cicerone imposter,
EVERY witness said there was a fight between the officer and Brown. The officer sustained injury to his face. Other then the gun shots Brown did not. BROWN HIT THE COP. FELONIOUS ASSAULT ON A POLICE OFFICER.
@cicerone imposter,
So are you saying that the officer was NOT hit in the face? He apparently was treated for an injury to his face or there wouldnt have been any X-Rays taken, huh? I hope the hell his eye socket wasnt broken.
@giujohn,
I didn't say that, but nobody knows what precipitated that response.
Don't make statements you can't support with evidence. It makes you and FAUX SNOOZE look more stupid, because they lie all the time.
@giujohn,
No wonder you're confused; you use any web site that supports your position rather than seeking the truth. CNN has more credibility thatn FAUX SNOOZE, you or that '41 year old' nobody.
