The Glade 4.0

Oh right, I didn't post that on this forum, which explains your confusion.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Anyone defending the Ferguson Police and Officer Darren Wilson needs to be mindful of Corolinth's post and the fact that it's taken the Ferguson Police several weeks to claim that Officer Darren Wilson was assaulted and beaten. The Ferguson Police have no credibility for any of their claims at this point.

_________________

The extent of his injuries are relevant, but do not indicate the appropriateness of a "self defense" claim. Police do not / should not wait to have Zimmerman-style injuries prior to dispatching a suspect. Charging an officer that has drawn his weapon and told you to freeze is enough - even if you do not touch him.

We don't know that is what happened here, but you don't need to sustain injury to legitimately believe you are defending yourself.

^this

So your point basically amounts to "the police should not try to control riots"? Because that's the implication. When people who are in a large, violent crowd need to be ontrolled, the best way to do so without additional bloodshed is to intimidate them.

Do you think that people have some right to never feel intimidated by the police, regardless of what they happen to be doing? Even when they are clearly engaging in illegal activity such as.. looting and burning the stores of local shopkeepers that have nothing at all to do with the incident the people are ostensibly upset about? For the last 3 days Ferguson has been peaceful, but prior to that there was a period of well over a week of nightly violence, much of it directed at local businesses who are clearly not involved.

Sorry, but the protection of the property and livelyhood of citizens is more important than people not "feeling intimidated", or for that matter, people's internet outrage at the cops.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Or, y'know, arrests of reporters for...nothing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html[/quote]

Yeah, he's not one of the cops, so his side of the story is above suspicion.


First sentence in your article "may have" gotten them arrested. In other words, they got arrested, and as reporters they feel they are above the law and any arrest of them must be an assault on freedom of the press, so they published a piece to imply that's the case, with only their side of the story.

This is why we don't take the press at it's word. They have total control of messaging. They're more dangerous than the government.



Yeah, because clearly there's nothing else going on besides reporters setting up for a live shot.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The same "assault weapons" we talk so frequently about how citizens should ahve a right to own them and use as they see fit? If a weapon is one we all agree is well within the rights of citizens to own and use, it should not seem in the least excessive for the police to have the same - especially given that watching the events unfold revealed a great many shotguns and less-lethal weapons as well as rifles.



Realizing that you're not the one getting upset at me pointing out the ridiculousness of the "camo pants" things, seriously, what difference does it make? Police almost never wear camo; the most likely reason they are in this case is that the military is downsizing and dumping cheap surplus tactical pants on the market. I saw very, very few officers wearing camo or tactical uniforms on the news; the vast majority were wearing standard police uniforms in various colors - light or dark blue, various shades of tan. That only emphasizes the silliness of concerns about "militarization of the police" - not only are they not in one common uniform like the military would be, most of their uniforms aren't military, and people are intentionally focusing on the few that ARE.



Appearance does matter - and in the case of a riot, you should appear as though the rioters have no chance to overcome you. Doing so means they, and you, are less likely to be hurt in such an attempt. Police armored vehicles, notably, are not painted in military camo patterns (further lending credence to the idea that the pants are purchased based on cost) and lack crew-served weapons and other systems found on military versions.

Again, if the police fail and the National Guard shows up they will do so in REAL military vehicles, WITH crew served weapons, and with personnel that might train on law enforcement and rot control once a year - or might not, depending on other training requirements. Training time is scarce as it is, and the Reserves and National Guard are overwhelmed with endless new training requirements that are all about maintaining appearances to the public who sit at their televisions drooling over stories of suicides and the imaginary military "rape problem" rather than preparing soldiers to.. actually fight.

The police intimidating a riot out of existence means that some rioter is less likely to get machine-gunned by a panicky private or someone with PTSD issues from his 3 prior deployments.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So.. you admit the police have reasonable concerns with people videotaping them, then relying on things like camera angle and limited field of view to create a different picture than what the officer perceived at the time? "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" is exactly the principle people want to apply when filming the police. That isn't to say that the police shouldn't be filmed, but the practice of simply accepting video at face value, and then claiming that due process for the police or *shock* allowing other evidence to be considered when considering the events needs to end, particularly amongst the armchair quarterbacks of the internet.

In this case, this video DOES pan around and show a little more than just the 4 feet around the crew, but it doesn't show what they were filming (pretty sure it wasn't "absolutely nothing interesting", and on the date of this video violence was still ongoing), and it DOES show that the police handled their equipment gently and didn't take the tape or drive or card or whatever they store video on these days out of the camera, and didn't try to damage it. That doesn't excuse the polcie entirely, but it does call into question what else was going on - maybe that single gas grenade just took an odd trajectory for some reason, or it was an accidental discharge - still a mistake. We don't know.

This also, frankly, does not speak to militarization of the police at all. Interference with reporters, or for that matter, unruly conduct BY reporters are issues regardless of whether the police ar "militarized".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm sure one day you'll stick to the issue instead of "what DE will say." Really, you can stop protecting the echo chamber now.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The type of either sheer idiocy or intentional focus on minor issues it takes to claim that a recruiting video somehow means that only people interested in the violent, action-oriented parts of the job will apply, or for that matter, make it through the hiring process is hard to imagine.

This guy is doing exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about - question-begging. He simply claims that the first video shows "militarization" then claims it's part of a "trend" he's been covering - except that SWAT activities are not evidence of militarization. They are not at all similar to military tactics for entering and controlling a building - except when the military adopts police tactics in order to accomplish certain objectives that demand less-lethal results.

We have had 10+ years of police-ification of the military, moving away form heavy combat systems and tactics in the name of nation-building. We are not militarizing the police. The increased resemblance is because we've forgotten what the military is for.

There's also the fact that the police, first and foremost, are there to catch criminals. There's nothing wrong with emphasizing that. This is the part of police work people find entertaining even when they aren't police, as it mentions in reference to movies and TV shows. Finally, the fact that you think the last video is "cringeworthy" and "dorky" indicates a catch-22. People know they want the police to enforce the law, and not just do the soft side of stuff, but they want to complain when brought face-to-face with the reality of what that involves, and think community service stuff is "dorky".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Do, please, stop just assuming that someone else's side of the story is unimpeachably true simply because they aren't the cops.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Maybe they have jobs and such? Other obligations outside the tea party? Unlike the people trying to pick up a few extra bucks by looting businesses. Where's your concern for the business owners? Getting your shop looted and burned apparently just has to be ignored because we wouldn't want it to distract from the the actions of the cops! Obviously they just went out and started gassing and arresting reporters for the hell of it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That officer has already been suspended pending disciplinary action, and has been for days. But remember, that one guy doing it means that's how "they" act in Farsky-world. You know, just like all dem niggers (see, Coro? We can all play the shock game) loot stores because there were some doing it in Ferguson.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And yet, the police are out there because of those people, and using appropriate tactics for the most part. You're focusing on one guy displaying that he shouldn't be there, and one tear gas grenade, and a few alleged incidents by reporters, to make broad claims about "jackbooted thugs!" and such, nd now just getting in the pious "but that doesn't mean the looting is justified!". No doubt you're now going to claim that they should do "different" things to control the riots - despite having absolutely no business telling anyone what the proper way to deal with a riot is, and why it would work. We are talking about a few isolated cases of impropriety - some unconfirmed, not mass beatings or shootings.



The police are not according anyone the same treatment as terrorists. Furthermore, I don't see you out there despite your internet outrage over "literally jackbooted government officials", so why should the Tea Party be there? Maybe because they realize that the police are confronting violent looters and rioters and need to use significant force to overcome them, lest they embolden them via ineffective action or the appearance of weakness? Unlike you, who apparently want them to do things in some unspecified "different" way, despite knowing zilch about riots, and for no better reason than that it would look better to you through the lens of selective internet photo and video? Here's a clue - the goal is not assuaging your living room outrage.



Why don't you go take care of that?

Tell me why whites are the ones with the obligation to show racial solidarity? How about black people start rejecting hatemongers like Sharpton and Jackson, stop preaching about the "white man" in so many black churches, and stop telling "white America" what it supposedly thinks, or how in a country of 300 million people, 400 police shootings a year, only about a third directed at blacks, describes some casual attitude towards the shooting of young black men?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This is mostly true, as long as we keep in mind that cameras can become damaged or malfunction, and that they don't always show everything - especially what's going on to the dies or behind. If cameras are regularly "malfunctioning" or "breaking" then there's a problem, but if people are going to instantly leap to the conclusion of wrongdoing ANY time it happens, there's going to be a new problem. Your healer can lose their internet when the boss is at 10% health - **** happens. The camera is not a substitute for due process, either for the police, or anyone else.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

How do you know he's a victim?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

None. So why people think the police are intentionally purchasing suboptimal clothing in order to militarize is inexplcable - other, of course, than fueling the internet hobby of outrage against the police, and having some Grave Threat to Rights and Freedoms to protest from the comfort of one's armchair.

The real answer is that they're almost certainly cheap surplus, purchased from a military that is downsizing. Not unlike those armored vehicles everyone is so worried about.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Well, let's see - the M113 chassis is now 54 years old, and over 80,000 have been manufactured. They are dirt cheap, easy to maintain, readily available as surplus AFAIK, and provide a solution for police departments that may have areas unsuitable for wheeled-vehicle access. You'll note the distinct LACK of crew served weapons or the military camo pattern that gets people so uptight.

As for the others, that's for inserting SWAT members under small arms fire, and providing a mobile command post in dangerous situations. What's the problem? It's scary?

MRAPS - the military is dumping them wholesale. Thousands were ditched in Iraq and Afghanistan because they weren't worth the cost or effort to bring home. They're cheap, readily available, and all they really are is a big truck. What's the worry? Because they have v-hulls to protect soldiers from IEDs that somehow automatically means that using them for anything else indicates a fear of IEDs?

There isn't any rule that says "because an item is used for military purposes in a combat zone, it therefore represents a 'militarization' of any activity it's used for domestically." The military practically runs on PowerPoint. Does that mean giving PowerPoint presentations is "militarization" too?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Or how about - we don't actually have a clear picture yet, just like the Trayvon Martin case.

Here's what else we are not allowed to do - demand punishment or assign blame based on public opinion.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Indications are that the officer was taken to the hospital.



So, if someone punches you in the face, because they didn't inflict serious injury with that blow (as determined later by medical personnel) that means if you defend yourself it was because of wounded pride? I know how anxious you are to get that "respect athouritah" joke out there that's so frequently mistaken for actual argument, but if you think getting hit in the face is merely wounded pride, you're a total **** idiot. This officer has 6 years on the force with nary a complaint against him - not just no justified complaints, but none at all, yet you want to contend that one day he thought he'd shoot a black kid for injuring his pride. Yes, clearly that total lack of self-control and disregard for the consequences is what got him through 6 years with a clean record. He may well have been unjustified in the shooting, but it was pretty clearly NOT because of injured pride, no matter how much you might think South Park is inspired social commentary.

First, blows to the head (as repeated evidence from Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention major-league football) have shown can cause other problems - the immediate kind, like unconsciousness, or later problems from concussion that may not be readily apparent.

Second, when someone is attacking you, you do not magically know at what point they will stop - being hit in the face is an extreme level of threat, especially when the attacker is larger and stronger than you.



That would not be a difference, mainly because the alleged First Amendment issues after the fact have nothing whatsoever to do with the justification or lack thereof of the shooting in the first place. This is a difference only for people looking for an excuse to feel threatened by the police, and who think reporter's versions of incidents are always impeccable, or at least are impeccable when it's convenient for them. You seem to have a real problem comprehending the first amendment, since you also thought that Freedom of Religion means that people have the right to expect the government to force someone else to spend money for their birth control, even when less-intrusive means of providing the same product are available. Here's a hiunt - the First Amendment is not a blunt instrument for Coro to club people he doesn't like over the head with.



So your contention is that reporters can never be arrested while reporting, and are above the law?

The only "objective fact" here is that you don't think through the implications of your statements, nor understand the First Amendment very well. It's nice to know, though, that you think we have a class of super-citizens immune to all allegation of wrongdoing based on nothing more than their own say-so - at least as long as it's convenient for complaints about cops.



For those of you (that, specifically would be you) that think the First Amendment is there to provide automatic canonical truth to the claims of reporters, and immunity from arrest under any circumstance, why are you not out there shooting the police yourself? Oh right. It's about feeling cool and rebellious, and most importantly smarter than anyone else. I mean, you're right there in MO. Why don't you get off your *** and go do something about it?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The Ferguson police may be indeed terrible at managing public information, but that does not call into question the claims of him being hit. It takes pretty much zero cleverness to figure out that a claim of being physically attacked are the strongest argument in their favor. Waiting to put that information out does not impeach its credibility one iota - if that were false, it would gain them nothing to put it out when it is sure to be scrutinized extensively.

Darren Wilson was, indeed, taken to the hospital. As of yesterday it is unclear if he was admitted or not.

As for Coro's post, the only thing we need to "bear in mind" is that Coro does not understand the First Amendment, just like he didn't in the Hobby Lobby discussion a little while back. There is no merit whatsover in the claim that any arrest of a reporter, while engaged in reporting, is a violation of the first amendment, nor is there any reason whatsoever to take reporters at their word that they were "arrested for reporting" if we are not going to take the cops at their word. This just has the effect of making the First Amendment into a shield for an institutionalized press that is already far more dangerous than the government, or any other form of corporate activity.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I notice, by the way, that the fact that the President felt it necessary to become involved by sending his Attorney General there. Never mind the near-certain bias of Eric Holder, the Federal government has no business whatsoever getting involved in this matter, especially not given that the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department is one of the most biased organizations in government, made up almost entirely of social crusader-lawyers.

Then there's the fact that the Governor of Missourri made statements on TV - prepared statements, with teleprompters and all, not off-the-cuff remarks - talking all about "justice for the Ferguson family", and making little, if any mention, of needing to thoroughly investigate.

The simple fact is that for a large number of people in this country, white people and police officers are not entitled to civil rights or due process, and respecting those things in their case is somehow evidence of corruption or racism. Doubly so when it's a white police officer. At this point, the amount of influence exerted on this case is so great that they have called any prosecution of the officer into question.

Those of you that worry so much about police corruption, brutality, and "militarization" ought to be more concerned about this than anyone. Assuming there is a case against the officer (which, despite all the other nonsense, is still a real possibility) it's being heavily jeopardized by the antics of people that are so concerned about appeasing racial tensions.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I kinda feel that replying to the same thread 18 times in a row is like killing someone by stabbing them 18 times. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's a lot of rage.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Or maybe he's just passionate about the subject?

There's no rage involved, Stathol. I had replied as much as I was going to because really, the camo pants thing just made the entire issue a joke. Then I noticed someone complaining that "my response was requested." There was a lot to respond to. When you quote, the window at the bottom does not really let you scroll back very far so if you're dealing with something 4 pages ago and accidentally delete part of it, you can't get back to it, nor easily add multiple quotes to the same response. If I had combined them into one big post people would have complained about TL;DR. And no, I didn't respond to everything; there are a hell of a lot more posts than 18.

That's 2 one-liners about me, now, and nothing to do with the issue at hand. I don't need to rage though, Stathol. The status quo is fine with me; no one ***** on this board is going to change anything.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."