Grand jury reaches decision in Ferguson case (Announcement Monday night)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:18:30 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Grand jury reaches decision in Ferguson case (Announcement Monday night)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18
Author Topic: Grand jury reaches decision in Ferguson case (Announcement Monday night)  (Read 48226 times)
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #325 on: November 26, 2014, 12:20:33 PM »


It's not inherently "right wing" or "conservative" to support an overactive and militarized police state.  Our board lefties simply use the following logic:

A) I am a liberal
--> B) My views are mostly liberal.
--> C) Things I like are therefore liberal.
--> D) Things in opposition to my beliefs (slavery in the 1800s, segregation in the 1900s, racist cops in the 2000s) are therefore conservative!!

It's a hilariously lazy and self-absorbed way to sort out issues that don't belong on the political spectrum.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #326 on: November 26, 2014, 12:27:30 PM »

Violence is an absolutely justified form of political action if you are first attacked and you have absolutely no other recourse. The people of Ferguson are never going to get justice through their racist courts and from their racist cops. They realize that and have acted accordingly.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #327 on: November 26, 2014, 12:35:09 PM »

And they have every right to strike fear into the heart of the pig with this justified outburst against the racist system that continues to **** them.
LOL...and you criticize other people for not supporting small businesses enough.

Certainly there are extenuating circumstances that call for outrage from the community, L-NY.  I don't wish for small businesses to be harmed, it'd be great for this to be dircted at Wal-Mart, but what's it all matter if the police are still murdering unabated?  Besides, they aren't purposely going after small businesses... This is just the consequence of grave injustice.  If the white cops could put aside their racism this is all avoided.
If they were attacking police stations, that would make sense. But randomly attacking the businesses  of innocent bystanders (some of them black) and destroying people's livelihoods? That has nothing to do with "fighting injustice" and there's no way you'd defend if it actually affected you or anyone you know.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #328 on: November 26, 2014, 12:38:23 PM »

Well at least we gave Naso's side a good whupping in the Civil War.

Would you say we spanked 'em?

Because everyone in the CSA was a political conservative and everyone in the North was a political liberal.  God, I swear you guys are all like 19 and have only taken a basic high school American history class when it comes to the Civil War.  You all sound really ignorant equating the Union with liberalism, it's the most laughably hackish thing I see here.

The Union in the Civil War was arguably the most radical and progressive force in the entirety of American history, certainly the most radical and progressive government force. To ignore that basic truth of the war is ridiculous.

Indeed. It's amazing how people forget just how radically leftist (economically and by American standards, anyway) the Republican Party was from 1860 until about 1875, when the big business forces finally managed to quell its impulses.

In addition to that, yes: the North certainly was a socially liberal region by the day's standards, and the South was socially regressive. This broader theme has more or less been intact since the founding of our country.

The CSA was probably more liberal than any government we've seen in American history.  You're simply DECIDING that being against slavery is liberal (despite the fact that the party of fiscal populists, relaxing immigration restrictions, fighting prohibition and keeping Republican moralism out of government was the one defending it).  The CSA was EASILY more of a centralized government than the Union, despite preaching states' rights in its attempts to defend slavery in any way possible; it okayed the seizing of private property, ran up a bigger comparative debt than the Union and raised its taxes far more.  Your entire argument is based on the belief that the GOP's (largely economically based) opposition to the expansion of slavery automatically makes it a liberal party ---> the Democrats were conservatives.  Sorry, but that's just simplistic and, more importantly, false validation for your uncompromising views today.  Go back and read primary sources of Northern politicians and voters.  What exactly was socially liberal about the North (BTW, LOL at using a modern term that happens to describe you guys and applying it to people who lived 150+ years ago who are now remembered fondly by history)?  It was just as religious as the South (some of the first abolitionist sentiment came from extremely conservative religious sects like the Quakers ... dare we say the religious right of the era??  No, no, that couldn't be).  It was more in favor of moral intrusion than the South (there's a reason the GOP was the party largely responsible for prohibition ... its Northern voters wanted it).  It certainly was extremely racist against immigrants, especially the Irish (take a look at some Republican campaign posters featuring depictions of Irish workers and call them progressive...).  Again, I ask, other than your desire for the side that's remembered as extinguishing slavery to be equated with your ideology ... What is your evidence?

This is coming from a dyed-in-the-wool Yankee with many liberal tendencies, but it's astonishing how many people on this board simplify historically DOCUMENTED things.  For every one of our communists citing some dumb letter between Lincoln and Marx, there's a documented anti-immigrant ad by Republicans or a documented attempt by Republicans in the North to restrict the voting rights of the poor.  History is complicated, and to say the North was liberal/conservative or the South was conservative/liberal is just plain dumb.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #329 on: November 26, 2014, 12:57:54 PM »

Whats progressive is relative. Prohibition was considered a progressive cause in its heyday, and rightfully so, since fighting alcoholism and drunkenness improved the lives of working families (especially women and children).
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #330 on: November 26, 2014, 01:12:37 PM »

Whats progressive is relative. Prohibition was considered a progressive cause in its heyday, and rightfully so, since fighting alcoholism and drunkenness improved the lives of working families (especially women and children).

Mods please ban.  K?  Thx.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #331 on: November 26, 2014, 01:25:25 PM »

Whats progressive is relative. Prohibition was considered a progressive cause in its heyday, and rightfully so, since fighting alcoholism and drunkenness improved the lives of working families (especially women and children).

Mods please ban.  K?  Thx.

Context Grumps, context.. Trying to make a point here. Prohibition turned out to be a disaster, but the prohibitionists clearly had a progressive goal.
Logged
anvi
anvikshiki
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,400
Netherlands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #332 on: November 26, 2014, 01:30:44 PM »

Violence is an absolutely justified form of political action if you are first attacked and you have absolutely no other recourse. The people of Ferguson are never going to get justice through their racist courts and from their racist cops. They realize that and have acted accordingly.

You don't get justice by destroying the workplaces of people who didn't attack you.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,803


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #333 on: November 26, 2014, 01:31:50 PM »

This is getting crazy. Riots in nearly 200 cities? I get that there are conflicting witness accounts, but it's undisputed that the guy robbed a store and then assaulted a police officer. Aren't there any better poster boys out there for all this outrage?

All in all, this month has been very weird and not in a good way.
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #334 on: November 26, 2014, 01:37:31 PM »

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-contributor-dont-make-bad-guy-michael-brown-into-civil-rights-martyr/

Bernie Goldberg brought up how some journalists and activists have been discussing the civil rights angle in Ferguson, and he rather adamantly said that Ferguson isn’t Selma, it’s 2014, not 1965, and Michael Brown is not an innocent like Emmett Till or Medgar Evars:

    “He brought about his own demise. It’s a tragedy when any 18-year-old kid is killed, and especially for the parents… but Michael Brown was the bad guy in this case, and please, America, let’s not turn this kind into some kind of civil rights martyr because that he is not.”

Goldberg added that there is an “ugly racial history” in the United States, but the media does not want an honest discussion about race issues, they want a politically correct one.

This is it right here. Goldberg hit the nail on the head.
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,306
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #335 on: November 26, 2014, 01:41:02 PM »

Violence is an absolutely justified form of political action if you are first attacked and you have absolutely no other recourse. The people of Ferguson are never going to get justice through their racist courts and from their racist cops. They realize that and have acted accordingly.

You don't get justice by destroying the workplaces of people who didn't attack you.

Unfortunately, history is full of examples of people doing just that.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #336 on: November 26, 2014, 01:42:05 PM »

What's it matter whether Michael Brown was a "bad guy"? Even if he were, I've not seen any legitimate argument for why deadly force was in any way reasonable.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #337 on: November 26, 2014, 01:42:24 PM »

Whats progressive is relative. Prohibition was considered a progressive cause in its heyday, and rightfully so, since fighting alcoholism and drunkenness improved the lives of working families (especially women and children).

Mods please ban.  K?  Thx.

Context Grumps, context.. Trying to make a point here. Prohibition turned out to be a disaster, but the prohibitionists clearly had a progressive goal.

I know I know.....I forgot the smiley  >>>>>>>>>  Tongue
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,306
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #338 on: November 26, 2014, 01:44:09 PM »

What's it matter whether Michael Brown was a "bad guy"? Even if he were, I've not seen any legitimate argument for why deadly force was in any way reasonable.

If he was trying to grab the officer's weapon, then it is reasonable for the officer to use deadly force to stop that from happening.
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #339 on: November 26, 2014, 01:44:57 PM »

What's it matter whether Michael Brown was a "bad guy"? Even if he were, I've not seen any legitimate argument for why deadly force was in any way reasonable.

Absolutely incorrect. You have an angry, hostile, 6 ft 3 inches 300 lb man punching a cop and grabbing at his gun, deadly force is authorized. There isn't a single criminal attorney would could have taken this case and had a prayer.

Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #340 on: November 26, 2014, 01:46:29 PM »

Its one thing to shoot someone, surely quite another to empty your clip into him? Right? I mean this strikes me as a not unimportant point here.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,803


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #341 on: November 26, 2014, 01:48:17 PM »

What's it matter whether Michael Brown was a "bad guy"? Even if he were, I've not seen any legitimate argument for why deadly force was in any way reasonable.

If he was trying to grab the officer's weapon, then it is reasonable for the officer to use deadly force to stop that from happening.

It's only reasonable because a gun is a deadly weapon in and of itself. If it's kill and be killed, then sure, it's justified to kill. If no firearm had been within grabbable range, then deadly force would not even have been in question. That's why in many countries, the police don't carry firearms. Alas, in the U.S. with our gun worshipping culture this is impossible.
Logged
Reaganfan
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #342 on: November 26, 2014, 01:48:53 PM »

Its one thing to shoot someone, surely quite another to empty your clip into him? Right? I mean this strikes me as a not unimportant point here.

That's another thing that liberals don't understand.

Many many times, in shooting situations whether it was cop vs criminal or civilian vs. criminal, what we have seen is where a person says they fired three shots when they might have fired as many as ten. This comes from the "survival" instinct where your mind doesn't accurately record how many times you squeeze the trigger.

Besides that, if the criminal kept coming at the officer, the officer has just cause to keep firing.
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,306
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #343 on: November 26, 2014, 01:52:56 PM »

That's why in many countries, the police don't carry firearms. Alas, in the U.S. with our gun worshipping culture this is impossible.

Name them; because the vast majority of European forces do.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #344 on: November 26, 2014, 01:53:46 PM »

That's another thing that liberals don't understand.

I'm not a liberal.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you suggesting that American police officers are not adequately trained?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

There were, what, six bullets in Brown's body? I'm no firearms expert, but it occurs to me that maybe you're confusing reality with action films again?
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #345 on: November 26, 2014, 01:54:12 PM »

Its one thing to shoot someone, surely quite another to empty your clip into him? Right? I mean this strikes me as a not unimportant point here.

That's another thing that liberals don't understand.

Many many times, in shooting situations whether it was cop vs criminal or civilian vs. criminal, what we have seen is where a person says they fired three shots when they might have fired as many as ten. This comes from the "survival" instinct where your mind doesn't accurately record how many times you squeeze the trigger.

Besides that, if the criminal kept coming at the officer, the officer has just cause to keep firing.

For deadly force to be reasonable at all, the officer would:

a.) need to genuinely be in grave danger
b.) have no other milder method of achieving the same result (making the suspect unable to harm him)

I understand for someone like you who desires a return to the Wild West, this may be unconvincing, but it's the generally accepted standard in most of the civilized world.

Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #346 on: November 26, 2014, 01:54:42 PM »

Name them; because the vast majority of European forces do.

Well, they don't in ours do they? Only specialised firearms units have guns.
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,306
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #347 on: November 26, 2014, 01:56:02 PM »

a.) need to genuinely be in grave danger
b.) have no other milder method of achieving the same result (making the suspect unable to harm him)

Not in the United Kingdom, that's for sure; this is reminding me a lot of the Mark Duggan case.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,190
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #348 on: November 26, 2014, 01:56:20 PM »

The trouble with these sorts of situations is that the police don't particularly care to go after the thirty or so nuts who are smashing stuff up; and instead continue to apply pressure on the peaceful protesters; who are themselves further riled up. Both the police officers and protesters become irrational, angry and prone to bad decisions.

It's incredibly difficult to successfully go after everyone who is smashing things up in these situations. I don't believe it is a matter of not particularly caring.

Oh yes, I was trying to imply that. It's human nature to avoid the dangerous, active elements of a riot and focus on the "potentially volatile" sectors. Just as it's human  nature to react with terror at a bunch of police in full riot gear yelling at you and pushing you against each other.

The riot was so predictable, especially with the prosecutor making such a big song and dance during his presentation. He must have known what he would provoke by his words. Blood. On. Hands
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,803


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #349 on: November 26, 2014, 01:56:35 PM »

That's why in many countries, the police don't carry firearms. Alas, in the U.S. with our gun worshipping culture this is impossible.

Name them; because the vast majority of European forces do.

Off the top of my head, England, Japan and China. In China it's starting to change in some areas because of terrorist attacks, not because the police couldn't handle ordinary crime.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 12 queries.