|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Dec 8, 2014 16:45:50 GMT
You had me till the last sentence. I'm still not seeing how any of those things is going to make cops change their behavior.... I agree it's not directly going to make cops change their behavior. What it is doing is showing that people aren't going to lie down and let everyone ignore it every time a cop commits an injustice. It's about making sure that, regardless of how people feel about it, it is being acknowledged, not just swept under the rug. Again. This is minuscule compared to the real issues facing this demographic. But they aren't protesting those problems. I'm not going to support a cause that has criminal thugs as its poster people. I'm planning to go to Rockefeller this weekend with my best friend. They lay down in front of me, I'll be walking over the top of them. |
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Dec 8, 2014 16:52:59 GMT
And why can you, or nobody else, answer the sentence I bolded? Why does no one want to admit that both of those men, especially Mike Brown, played a role in what happened to them? Whenever it is asked here, no one ever answers that part. Because cops are not and should not be judge, jury and executioner. They should be trained to safely take a SUSPECT into custody without killing them. Ultimately that decision is up to the criminal and how they are going to respond. Put a cops life in danger...yeah, you've decided your fate, not the cop. |
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Dec 8, 2014 16:55:16 GMT
When the person puts the officers lives in danger. There are other ways of handling unarmed suspects. Because none of them had been found guilty of whatever the police thought they were doing. It is time the police learn some ways of dealing with suspects that does not end in them killing them. The result of resisting arrest should not be dead on the ground. There has to be another better way. Human life has to have more value than that. Tell that to the criminals and thugs. They choose the officer's reaction. If they are going to attack an officer as Michael Brown did, then the officer has to do what is necessary to prevent them from killing him. Why should an officer die trying to take a suspect into custody? Why is the officer's life in your opinion less important. |
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Dec 8, 2014 17:44:19 GMT
There are other ways of handling unarmed suspects. Because none of them had been found guilty of whatever the police thought they were doing. It is time the police learn some ways of dealing with suspects that does not end in them killing them. The result of resisting arrest should not be dead on the ground. There has to be another better way. Human life has to have more value than that. Tell that to the criminals and thugs. They choose the officer's reaction. If they are going to attack an officer as Michael Brown did, then the officer has to do what is necessary to prevent them from killing him. Why should an officer die trying to take a suspect into custody? Why is the officer's life in your opinion less important. Right! The "criminals" and "thugs" choose to be shot down in the street with out so much as a charge against them or a trial. I believe strongly in the sanctity of ALL human life. I do not place the police officers life less important. I believe the police should protect themselves. I do not believe they should use deadly force unless it is called for. In my opinion in the Michael Brown case, the Eric Garner and especially in the Tamir Rice case excessive force was used compared to the situation at hand. Which is why as I stated the police need to be trained in how to de-escalate situations, so that potential suspects are not gunned down in a matter of seconds. Often in less than a minute. |
|
stampstace
Junior Member
Posts: 74 
|
Post by stampstace on Dec 8, 2014 17:55:37 GMT
For the most part people can take different routes. Now I do not believe in blocking roads going into military bases. We lived a
On a base with one entrance. When people protest there, blocking the gate, it kept us from our homes. We did not have another route to take. When you have a sick baby in the car and you are sitting in line at the gate because protesters are blocking a road for over four hours, it's violating rights. Hold up your signs, yell and scream but do not block people from their homes for over four hours.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:12:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 18:03:58 GMT
Right! The "criminals" and "thugs" choose to be shot down in the street with out so much as a charge against them or a trial. That's exactly what Michael Brown chose by his actions. |
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Dec 8, 2014 18:05:35 GMT
Tell that to the criminals and thugs. They choose the officer's reaction. If they are going to attack an officer as Michael Brown did, then the officer has to do what is necessary to prevent them from killing him. Why should an officer die trying to take a suspect into custody? Why is the officer's life in your opinion less important. Right! The "criminals" and "thugs" choose to be shot down in the street with out so much as a charge against them or a trial. I believe strongly in the sanctity of ALL human life. I do not place the police officers life less important. I believe the police should protect themselves. I do not believe they should use deadly force unless it is called for. In my opinion in the Michael Brown case, the Eric Garner and especially in the Tamir Rice case excessive force was used compared to the situation at hand. Which is why as I stated the police need to be trained in how to de-escalate situations, so that potential suspects are not gunned down in a matter of seconds. Often in less than a minute. Yes, they do CHOOSE. They choose to engage in criminal activity and thuggish behavior. Michael Brown CHOSE to assault the police officer and try to get the officer's gun. Now you tell me, would Michael Brown have cared about the sanctity of the officer's life if he had been able to get officer Wilson's gun from him? I doubt it given his attack on both the store owner and the Officer. He would have gunned down the Officer, and yes, we do know that. Why else did he go for the gun? Those were all his choices. He made the wrong choices, and Officer Wilson had a right to defend himself. At that point the Officer's life was more important. I hate to say it, but due to Brown's actions, there was no other option left but for one of them to die. I'm glad it wasn't the Officer. In Eric Garner's case he was a persistent repeat offender. It doesn't matter what level the crime, he didn't follow police instructions. He resisted arrest. Had he not done that, the officers would not have needed to try to take him down. If he had complied, put his hands behind his back and let them arrest him, he would not have been in a position where his health was a major contributing factor to his death. All his choices. What were the cops supposed to do? Say, "Oh, you don't want to be arrested, ok then, go on your way"? In the case of Tamir Rice, I don't know enough about the situation, but from what I do know, this would absolutely be a case of police overreaction, and definitely does warrant a GJ investigation and probably indictment. But what of the other name? The one you don't hear mentioned in the news? The one that hasn't become a household name? You know the one who was killed by a ricochet bullet in a stairwell in NY? Yeah, I can't even remember his name. Why is that? He was actually an innocent man that was killed by a police officer. Accidentally or not. Why is his name not on the lips of protesters? Why aren't the protesters wearing t-shirts with his last words, or having die-ins in stairwells across the country? Because the officer was Asian. These protests are a result of race-baiting and nothing more. As I said before and I'll say again. When they put as much effort into cleaning up their own streets and neighborhoods as they are in protesting...then I'll respect their voice. |
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
|
Post by raindancer on Dec 8, 2014 18:40:52 GMT
Or maybe he didn't actually DO anything *that* time and was trying to explain he didn't do anything. But their perception is colored by the past events and they decided he was guilty this time because he was a different time. I can see being frustrated and upset. And we don't know that he wasn't harassed at previous times. So much missing information, but regardless I have had to restrain people much larger than myself and there is never a reason to choke someone. And certainly not in that situation. Good lord. I was working with the foster care system when a child died from a prone restraint in a camp here in AZ and my boss, who had already banned this method in our facility, pointed out that this was known to be dangerous and that it isn't necessary. People defended that and tried to say that the kids reaction led to the "only way they could control him" and he died on accident. But that's simply not true. I worked with some extremely violent kids and have had a few concussions and other injuries, but at no point in time did a child deserve to die for those behaviors. Consequences, yes. Death? No.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Dec 8, 2014 18:48:36 GMT
Neither of them "deserved" to die Rain. No one is saying that, but the effects of their actions are what caused the problem. In Eric Garner's case, regardless of if he felt harassed, he still argued and resisted arrest. The store owners called the cops for a reason. Given his history, and the call from the store, I think it's apparent he wasn't just walking by.
|
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Dec 8, 2014 18:52:36 GMT
Right! The "criminals" and "thugs" choose to be shot down in the street with out so much as a charge against them or a trial. That's exactly what Michael Brown chose by his actions. No he did not make that choice. Darren Wilson made the choice! Right or wrong. Wilson choose that route. Not the victim. |
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Dec 8, 2014 19:03:44 GMT
That's exactly what Michael Brown chose by his actions. No he did not make that choice. Darren Wilson made the choice! Right or wrong. Wilson choose that route. Not the victim. The second he reached for the Officer's gun, he chose that option. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 8, 2014 19:17:15 GMT
That's exactly what Michael Brown chose by his actions. No he did not make that choice. Darren Wilson made the choice! Right or wrong. Wilson choose that route. Not the victim. The officer has a right to resort to deadly force if his life or anyone else's is in danger. You can argue about whether his life was truly in danger, but since you don't know nearly as much about the precise situation as the Grand Jury did, I'm going to take their word over yours. And by putting him in that position, Michael Brown may well have taken away any real choice the officer had. |
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Dec 9, 2014 1:24:52 GMT
For the most part people can take different routes. Now I do not believe in blocking roads going into military bases. We lived a On a base with one entrance. When people protest there, blocking the gate, it kept us from our homes. We did not have another route to take. When you have a sick baby in the car and you are sitting in line at the gate because protesters are blocking a road for over four hours, it's violating rights. Hold up your signs, yell and scream but do not block people from their homes for over four hours. but if you already on that road, you can't change. The semi trucks aren't supposed to drive through neighborhoods. In the Denver area, they effectively shut down a highway during rush hour. The people on that didn't have another route for the most part. I can't wait for the cold to come back. It should keep these people at home. |
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Dec 9, 2014 1:27:49 GMT
Or maybe he didn't actually DO anything *that* time and was trying to explain he didn't do anything. But their perception is colored by the past events and they decided he was guilty this time because he was a different time. I can see being frustrated and upset. And we don't know that he wasn't harassed at previous times. So much missing information, but regardless I have had to restrain people much larger than myself and there is never a reason to choke someone. And certainly not in that situation. Good lord. I was working with the foster care system when a child died from a prone restraint in a camp here in AZ and my boss, who had already banned this method in our facility, pointed out that this was known to be dangerous and that it isn't necessary. People defended that and tried to say that the kids reaction led to the "only way they could control him" and he died on accident. But that's simply not true. I worked with some extremely violent kids and have had a few concussions and other injuries, but at no point in time did a child deserve to die for those behaviors. Consequences, yes. Death? No. first, I agree with out about prone position, but what if you had done everything by the book and the child's body reacted badly. It could have been an undiagnosed heart condition. Or a blood clot or something to do with the lungs. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Dec 9, 2014 2:41:22 GMT
Tell that to the criminals and thugs. They choose the officer's reaction. If they are going to attack an officer as Michael Brown did, then the officer has to do what is necessary to prevent them from killing him. Why should an officer die trying to take a suspect into custody? Why is the officer's life in your opinion less important. Right! The "criminals" and "thugs" choose to be shot down in the street with out so much as a charge against them or a trial. I believe strongly in the sanctity of ALL human life. I do not place the police officers life less important. I believe the police should protect themselves. I do not believe they should use deadly force unless it is called for. In my opinion in the Michael Brown case, the Eric Garner and especially in the Tamir Rice case excessive force was used compared to the situation at hand. Which is why as I stated the police need to be trained in how to de-escalate situations, so that potential suspects are not gunned down in a matter of seconds. Often in less than a minute. In the Tamar Rice incident--as he was approached, he was told 3 times to put his hands up, and instead he placed his hands to his waistband where the gun was located. Tamar Rice de used his own fate that day and it is a shame that many in the community can't even acknowledge that he should have listened to the police. If he would have, he'd still be alive today. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Dec 9, 2014 3:46:55 GMT
That's exactly what Michael Brown chose by his actions. No he did not make that choice. Darren Wilson made the choice! Right or wrong. Wilson choose that route. Not the victim. I agree with Jonda--Michael Brown made choices all day that destined his fate. |
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
|
Post by raindancer on Dec 9, 2014 4:19:10 GMT
Or maybe he didn't actually DO anything *that* time and was trying to explain he didn't do anything. But their perception is colored by the past events and they decided he was guilty this time because he was a different time. I can see being frustrated and upset. And we don't know that he wasn't harassed at previous times. So much missing information, but regardless I have had to restrain people much larger than myself and there is never a reason to choke someone. And certainly not in that situation. Good lord. I was working with the foster care system when a child died from a prone restraint in a camp here in AZ and my boss, who had already banned this method in our facility, pointed out that this was known to be dangerous and that it isn't necessary. People defended that and tried to say that the kids reaction led to the "only way they could control him" and he died on accident. But that's simply not true. I worked with some extremely violent kids and have had a few concussions and other injuries, but at no point in time did a child deserve to die for those behaviors. Consequences, yes. Death? No. first, I agree with out about prone position, but what if you had done everything by the book and the child's body reacted badly. It could have been an undiagnosed heart condition. Or a blood clot or something to do with the lungs. But that isn't what happened with the child who died or the man who died in a choke hold. We can play the what-if game forever. I maintain there was never a reason for the officer to put him in the hold in the first place. Especially after watching that video, he wasn't acting violently towards them, he was gesturing, and looked upset. He wasn't attacking them, and there were far too many men to his one. It's inexcusable and the police should have been better. I don't have an issue with cops, I was raised by one. What I have an issue with is men with egos and positions of power abusing that power and hurting people unnecessarily. That man should not be dead. |
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
|
Post by raindancer on Dec 9, 2014 4:21:28 GMT
Right! The "criminals" and "thugs" choose to be shot down in the street with out so much as a charge against them or a trial. I believe strongly in the sanctity of ALL human life. I do not place the police officers life less important. I believe the police should protect themselves. I do not believe they should use deadly force unless it is called for. In my opinion in the Michael Brown case, the Eric Garner and especially in the Tamir Rice case excessive force was used compared to the situation at hand. Which is why as I stated the police need to be trained in how to de-escalate situations, so that potential suspects are not gunned down in a matter of seconds. Often in less than a minute. In the Tamar Rice incident--as he was approached, he was told 3 times to put his hands up, and instead he placed his hands to his waistband where the gun was located. Tamar Rice de used his own fate that day and it is a shame that many in the community can't even acknowledge that he should have listened to the police. If he would have, he'd still be alive today. He was TWELVE years old. For gods sake. Seriously. Grown ass men should try everything else in their power before shooting a child. |
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
|
Post by raindancer on Dec 9, 2014 4:24:00 GMT
Neither of them "deserved" to die Rain. No one is saying that, but the effects of their actions are what caused the problem. In Eric Garner's case, regardless of if he felt harassed, he still argued and resisted arrest. The store owners called the cops for a reason. Given his history, and the call from the store, I think it's apparent he wasn't just walking by. And I maintain that arguing does not justify a choke hold even if you argue every time. Even if you are a douchebag. Even then, you have rights. He died for no other reason than an officer of the law used unnecessary force and broke the law himself to subdue someone who wasn't fighting. |
|
tincin
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,415
Jul 25, 2014 4:55:32 GMT
|
Post by tincin on Dec 9, 2014 4:40:07 GMT
Isn't the point of a protest to disrupt society and wake them up to the issues? If protesters go demonstrate in a park somewhere where they disturb no one how many people will notice or pay attention? Not very many and even fewer will discuss it. Seems like these protests are doing it right.
Also I can't help but notice most posters seem to be focusing on two or three cases. That would be awesome if only two or three unarmed black men had been killed by the police lately. Seems to me it's more like a bi-weekly occurrence.
|
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Dec 9, 2014 5:21:55 GMT
The protesters are focusing on two or three cases. They yell, "Hands up. Don't shoot," while marching. They aren't invoking the name or the story of the man killed in the stairwell.
|
|
azredhead
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,755
|
Post by azredhead on Dec 9, 2014 5:25:03 GMT
The protesters are focusing on two or three cases. They yell, "Hands up. Don't shoot," while marching. They aren't invoking the name or the story of the man killed in the stairwell. or the shootings in Chicago. |
|
|
|
Post by mirabelleswalker on Dec 9, 2014 5:55:23 GMT
Isn't the point of a protest to disrupt society and wake them up to the issues? If protesters go demonstrate in a park somewhere where they disturb no one how many people will notice or pay attention? Not very many and even fewer will discuss it. Seems like these protests are doing it right. Also I can't help but notice most posters seem to be focusing on two or three cases. That would be awesome if only two or three unarmed black men had been killed by the police lately. Seems to me it's more like a bi-weekly occurrence. I was awake, but I'm really feeling a lot of antipathy right now. This is a live feed so if you don't check it soon it will be irrelevant-- linkThat has been going on for hours. If I were sitting in it I would probably end up joining the Republican Party.  |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:12:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 5:57:20 GMT
freecharlie --- Thanks for sharing that article. I shared it on FB, and asked for prayers & mentioned his GoFundMe site.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:12:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 6:05:03 GMT
That's exactly what Michael Brown chose by his actions. No he did not make that choice. Darren Wilson made the choice! Right or wrong. Wilson choose that route. Not the victim. Uh, yes he did. Michael Brown chose to attack a police officer. Darren Wilson chose to defend his own life, which was under attack. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:12:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 6:41:01 GMT
That's exactly what Michael Brown chose by his actions. No he did not make that choice. Darren Wilson made the choice! Right or wrong. Wilson choose that route. Not the victim. HOW did Darren Wilson make Michael Brown strong arm rob a convenience store, walk in the middle of the street after and refuse to obey an officer's request to move to the sidewalk? HOW did Darren Wilson make Michael Brown go for his gun in an attempt to shoot him? HOW did Darren Wilson cause Michael Brown to charge him and pose a very, VERY real threat to his life? You really think Darren Wilson had any control over the choices made by Michael Brown that day that put them BOTH in the situation that unfolded? People like Michael Brown are who our officers encounter every.single.day. Many more officers die in the line of duty with encounters like that than do the criminals. Where is your outrage over that? L |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:12:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 10:34:50 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Aug 18, 2025 20:12:11 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 10:48:51 GMT
Isn't the point of a protest to disrupt society and wake them up to the issues? If protesters go demonstrate in a park somewhere where they disturb no one how many people will notice or pay attention? Not very many and even fewer will discuss it. Seems like these protests are doing it right. Also I can't help but notice most posters seem to be focusing on two or three cases. That would be awesome if only two or three unarmed black men had been killed by the police lately. Seems to me it's more like a bi-weekly occurrence. I was awake, but I'm really feeling a lot of antipathy right now. This is a live feed so if you don't check it soon it will be irrelevant-- linkThat has been going on for hours. If I were sitting in it I would probably end up joining the Republican Party. No more live feed now - 4 hours later. But comments are interesting and echo our discussion here. This conversation is going on all across the U.S. |
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Dec 9, 2014 11:08:52 GMT
In the Tamar Rice incident--as he was approached, he was told 3 times to put his hands up, and instead he placed his hands to his waistband where the gun was located. Tamar Rice de used his own fate that day and it is a shame that many in the community can't even acknowledge that he should have listened to the police. If he would have, he'd still be alive today. He was TWELVE years old. For gods sake. Seriously. Grown ass men should try everything else in their power before shooting a child. A 12 yr old who had what was thought to be a gun who ignored commands by the officer. He would still be alive today if he would have listened!!! It is horrible that a child died (and noted by many he looks older than 12, the police did not know he was just 12 yrs old) however a big part of the problem are people who defy and ignore and argue and challenge the police!!!! In the 3 cases being discussed all would most likely be alive today if they would have complied with police orders and allowed it to "sort it out". These are not cold blooded killings by police officers. In each Instance all 3 ignored and challenged the officers. Pretty soon, if this keeps up, the police will be powerless, armed only with tasers when others will have guns, and then what? I'm not saying that there are not cases of too much force, but I'm not on board with these 3 being that way. It stuns me that so many are overlooking the actions by these men that led to the actions of the police, and are excusing it by glossing over it. Growing up we were taught to obey the orders of police, and now it seems a joke. "Stop. Put your hands up." "Oh, okay you don't want to? Don't feel like it?" "Sure no problem!!!" Police are going to be scarce. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Dec 9, 2014 15:10:19 GMT
People like Michael Brown are who our officers encounter every.single.day. Many more officers die in the line of duty with encounters like that than do the criminals. Where is your outrage over that? I have to correct this misinformation. It's not true that more law enforcement officers are killed each year by criminals than the other way around. About 150 officers die in the line of duty and some of those are accidental. The number of people killed by police is probably in the hundreds ... not thousands, but hundreds. However, the vast majority of them are completely justifiable. Not a single one of the police line-of-duty deaths is justifiable. Not a freakin' one. |
|
