• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

F is for Fascism (Ferguson MO)

deacvision7 said:
IIRC, the initial cop on the scene only cussed once. The other times he raised his voice were in reaction to the man with the knife stepping forward towards somebody.
Click to expand...

i have no desire to watch the video again but that may be correct. IMO, it's hard to argue that the cop kept his cool and handled the situation effectively. The rabbi's seemed to think (and appeared to) they had it under control. If the cop thought otherwise it seems like he should have asked them to back away and then tried to keep the man calm until backup arrived.
 
RChildress107 said:
3 reasons:

1. Cops are public servants given a great deal of power and responsibility. They should absolutely be held to a higher standard than the general public. They should be held to an even higher standard when compared to the mentally ill population.

2. Holding cops to a higher standard has a higher chance of being successful. Asking someone who is supposed to be a model for public service to behave appropriately in order to avoid bad outcomes might actually work. Asking a guy who just stabbed someone and is wielding a knife in a synagogue to behave rationally has a very low probability of success.

3. He's dead. We don't hold dead people criminally accountable in this country. Had he lived he almost certainly would have been held accountable by spending a large portion of his life behind bars or in a mental institution.





So when "bad people" (which i guess for you includes potentially mentally ill people) lose their life it is not "truly tragic"?




Correct. The type of people who stab people in churches and then waive a knife around when a gun is drawn on them ARE different than you (I hope) and me. That's the entire point.

Saying "Well I would behave rationally in that situation, why didn't he?" assumes that he was rational to begin with. Based on the evidence that is a very poor assumption.
Click to expand...

+1
 
We only saw the rabbi's interacting with the man for a minute, so hard to make a judgement there, plus that man's temper seemed to come in waves as evidenced by him putting the knife down at the officer's request but then picking it up again 10 seconds later. I just think that man was terribly imbalanced emotionally.

Now, I don't think the police officer handled the situation perfectly, but I do think he did about everything he could do to resolve the situation as peacefully as possible. And, he isn't even the one that fired the shot.
 
Wrangor said:
True. Pretty insignificant to my post though. It isn't as though the cop's discipline/punishment should be any different because Garner was actually or allegedly selling illegal cigs.
Click to expand...

Interesting- it certainly seems like some on this board (not you) were heavily persuaded by the thought that Brown was a criminal, and therefore he deserved what he got. I would think the idea that Garner may have been innocent would be a pretty big issue.
 
deacvision7 said:
We only saw the rabbi's interacting with the man for a minute, so hard to make a judgement there, plus that man's temper seemed to come in waves as evidenced by him putting the knife down at the officer's request but then picking it up again 10 seconds later. I just think that man was terribly imbalanced emotionally.

Now, I don't think the police officer handled the situation perfectly, but I do think he did about everything he could do to resolve the situation as peacefully as possible. And, he isn't even the one that fired the shot.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I think that reflects an unfortunate, but common, mindset towards (and understanding of) conflict resolution.
 
DeaconSig said:
Interesting- it certainly seems like some on this board (not you) were heavily persuaded by the thought that Brown was a criminal, and therefore he deserved what he got. I would think the idea that Garner may have been innocent would be a pretty big issue.
Click to expand...

For me it isn't because we do owe due process regardless. The issue for me is the amount of resistance. Criminal activity or no criminal activity if you fight the police you are going to get hurt. We need to hold our police to a higher standard, but I have less sympathy for someone that attacks an officer. I could care less if they stole some swisher sweets 10 minutes earlier. I realize that in a high crime, low diversity neighborhood there will a history of unjustified arrests, but you are never going to win fighting a policeman. Never. That needs to be communicated by leaders of the community.

In the Brown scenario I dont know what happened. In the Garner scenario we have pretty clear evidence that while not docile, he was being submissive. I think Garner's size was the factor in the harsh response (not fair, just commenting). He is such a big man that Napolean cops feel they can lean into him to get him down not realizing that they were really choking him. I would have to guess that pretty much every suspect that the cops tackle is going to complain, so I can see how that would be tough to determine whether Garner was lying or telling the truth, but that is kind of beside the point. That situation did not warrant a take down and that is why the officer should be held responsible in some manner. He wasn't intentionally murdering Garner (as some have suggested) but plenty of people are in jail for manslaughter, and the large majority had no intention of taking someone else's life.

No one deserves to be beat up by the cops if they are submissive to the arrest. I don't care if you just raped 15 small children. If the cops come to arrest you, and you are submissive they should have no right to physically abuse you. However I have no problem giving cops a lot of leeway when a suspect becomes aggressive or resists arrest, regardless of how petty the accusation might be. We need to respect our cops, and we need to teach our cops to respect the public. The tie is always going to go to the cop in any society, so I am going to make sure I am always giving proper deference to the authority.

But I do think we as a society should work to create a police system that honors the public it serves in a better manner. The us vs. them mentality the infects communities like Ferguson is detrimental to the citizens and the cops.
 
Last edited:
RChildress107 said:
3 reasons:

1. Cops are public servants given a great deal of power and responsibility. They should absolutely be held to a higher standard than the general public. They should be held to an even higher standard when compared to the mentally ill population.

2. Holding cops to a higher standard has a higher chance of being successful. Asking someone who is supposed to be a model for public service to behave appropriately in order to avoid bad outcomes might actually work. Asking a guy who just stabbed someone and is wielding a knife in a synagogue to behave rationally has a very low probability of success.

3. He's dead. We don't hold dead people criminally accountable in this country. Had he lived he almost certainly would have been held accountable by spending a large portion of his life behind bars or in a mental institution.





So when "bad people" (which i guess for you includes potentially mentally ill people) lose their life it is not "truly tragic"?




Correct. The type of people who stab people in churches and then waive a knife around when a gun is drawn on them ARE different than you (I hope) and me. That's the entire point.

Saying "Well I would behave rationally in that situation, why didn't he?" assumes that he was rational to begin with. Based on the evidence that is a very poor assumption.
Click to expand...

How does the officer know he's mentally stable? He just stabbed a man. Why were the police called if it was under control? And not sure if you understood but none of my statement say that I think he should have been shot however all we have at the moment is witness account that he lunged at the cop.

Now to bore myself I will try and explain the "truly tragic" comment that you have misrepresented to make yourself feel like a good social warrior. Yes any loss of life is tragic. But it was mentioned that the cop put other lives in jeopardy so I pointed out had he not taken action it is a safe assumption that this man could have stabbed someone else for the SECOND time. Yes if this innocent person having not committing any crime died because the cop took no action would be truly tragic. If you don't agree with that or understand then you really are lost.
 
A friend of mine from high school (who also happens to be a cop) is relentless about what happened to Michael Brown and Eric Garner (suggesting the killings were justified). I keep asking him to share his thoughts on Cliven Bundy, but for some reason he refuses.
 
Last edited:
siff said:
A friend of mine from high school (who also happens to be a cop) is relentless about what happened to Michael Brown and Eric Garner (suggesting the killings were justified). I keep asking him to share his thoughts on Cliven Bundy, but for some reason he refuses.
Click to expand...

One of my best friends growing up stopped talking to me because of some comments I made on one of his stupid facebook shares.
 
Wrangor said:
This is part of the problem with this discussion. I think the cop should be prosecuted/disciplined/etc... But just because the cop screwed up doesn't mean he wasn't just trying to do his job. Once the situation became physical all bets were off. Cop wasn't intending to kill him, he was intending to subdue him most likely using a technique he has used many times. This doesn't excuse the action, but it also doesn't mean he had murderous intent. Poor training + poor police philosophy = a bad unintended result. Turns out this bad results was the worst result possible, and a man who had committed a petty crime lost his life.

Labeling the cop as an intentional murderer does nothing to advance discussion, and is a huge part of the problem. Both sides of this issue are quick to label (criminal/murderer/racist/thug), and that is completely unproductive and narrowminded. In Garner's case he deserves punishment (I am in no place to pass that judgment, but just my opinion). More importantly the system of over militarization of our police needs to be put under great scrutiny. Instead we have people calling individual cops murderers and racists, which will do nothing to prevent this type of action from occurring in the future.
Click to expand...
Bingo. And the only reason people are labeling it as intentional is because of the stupid racial aspect of it.....belief in the "war on blacks". If it were a big fat white redneck in that situation being handled that way because he was driving with an open beer in the car, the same people would not react the same way to the identical incident. Most whites would not interpret the incidents differently as far as the police response.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
One of my best friends growing up stopped talking to me because of some comments I made on one of his stupid facebook shares.
Click to expand...

You+_f3e62b133918c8e1b09d4bad0856cdd6.jpg
 
pourdeac said:
Bingo. And the only reason people are labeling it as intentional is because of the stupid racial aspect of it.....belief in the "war on blacks". If it were a big fat white redneck in that situation being handled that way because he was driving with an open beer in the car, the same people would not react the same way to the identical incident. Most whites would not interpret the incidents differently as far as the police response.
Click to expand...

You do realize your counterexample is hypothetical.

Evidence of bias against black people is strong.
 
pourdeac said:
Bingo. And the only reason people are labeling it as intentional is because of the stupid racial aspect of it.....belief in the "war on blacks". If it were a big fat white redneck in that situation being handled that way because he was driving with an open beer in the car, the same people would not react the same way to the identical incident. Most whites would not interpret the incidents differently as far as the police response.
Click to expand...

PhDeac said:
You do realize your counterexample is hypothetical.

.

Evidence of bias against black people is strong.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was going to ask for a link where the "big fat white redneck" was shot because he was driving with an open beer in the car
 
That 99% number is ridiculous. Of course cops will trump something up to justify their actions. Even in cases where people have done something wrong, the police have no right to exceed their duty.

An overwhelming percentage of cops are good people, doing a nearly impossible job. But give them this carte blanche is ludicrous.
 
Sure there is a reason for police intervention most of the time which is why a lot of people on here have called for the repeal of ridiculous laws permitting massive police intervention for someone allegedly selling loose cigarettes on the street.
 
I don't intend on practicing criminal law in any regard so I suppose I would only be indirectly affected by those who would otherwise do criminal law but there was no demand.

Also I didn't say abolish all laws, I said in response to your "people doing something wrong" statement that we wouldn't have had this case come about at all if we didn't have absurd laws in the first place. As far as I know being against this inane law which permits police to detain and arrest this guy doesn't mean that I'm in favor of anarchy. That's a silly statement you made.

If someone passed a law tomorrow criminalizing sodomy in the United States I hardly believe a valid statement to people opposing that law would be "move to Somalia if you don't like laws"
 
bobknightfan said:
If you do not appreciate living in a country that is ruled by laws, you should move to Somalia.

Also, on a more personal note for you, if the government eliminated a lot of its laws...many of which I agree could be eliminated...there would be a lot less need for people going to law school to become attorneys in order to make a living from defending people accused of breaking those laws. Then where would you be?

(And since you are a WF graduate and in law school, you should be intelligent enough to understand why NY has a law against selling loose cigarettes. I believe that you are that intelligent, and you are simply being willfully disingenuous.)
Click to expand...

Bob, given that you are a WF graduate, you should be intelligent enough to know that the majority of lawyers out there do not work as criminal defense attorneys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top