The Ferguson thread

[Kutnupe14]

Sadly, Hough, I think that may be the goal. Make the law apply only to everyone else. You know, everyone's equal, just everyone else needs to be more equal than we do. I'm all for everyone being treated equally under the law. I'm all for everyone having the same opportunity to make or break their life, however they do so, whether by lawful or unlawful action, by who they marry, by with whom they associate. I just don't want to see anyone get opportunities given to them that others are disallowed. Unfortunately, I think the "civil rights" movement, while appropriate in its time, has been coopted to exactly that purpose, and other groups have followed suit. There is no NAAWP, or similar group, and to create one today would be "racist".(Edit: Well... there is, a la "Stormfront", but that's not what I mean.) Advancement is fine, and in the 1960s, "colored" people (from the name NAACP) needed opportunities to advance, as those were denied. Some (Sharpton, Jackson, et al) just never stopped pushing to keep advancing, and continue today to push for more opportunities than others may access. It seems to me that it's not about equality, for them (Al and Jesse, etc.), but about subjugation of everyone else.

That's how I see it... maybe I'm in error, but that's the impression I get. This, for me, is not about the people being led, but about the "leaders" named above, and their ilk.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill, what opportunities are given to some, but disallowed to others and encouraged by the NAACP? And why do people always keep bringing up the NAACP. Black people don't keep them in the news, white people do. I don't know a single person in the organization, and it's membership consists of less than 1% of the black population. BET isn't running constant coverages of their actions, and I'm better informed by Fox News of their current protests than I am from any ethnic media source. It's as if there's a concerted effort to inform to inform the white public "this group exists, and they're out force affirmative action and reparations on you," ....despite the fact they have been relevant in the black community in a quarter of a century.

This Ferguson Report has made absolutely clear, that in some places blacks are still highly discriminated against. Some places.... certainly not all. You won't find a place in the nation where a similar oppression of white people occurs. I had a discussion with some of my friends, and almost all of them believed the report was flawed or doctored because of an Obama/Holder agenda. And looking around the web this seems to be a common theme. Chip, just pointed out, that the associated report concerning Wilson, "didn't pull any punches" and essentially called all of the witnesses liars. So what gives? Is half the report true, and the other half rubbish?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Amen.
Equal outcomes regardless of actions equals Socialism.

The result of the blow back will be increased crime in minority neighborhoods.
(Sorry, ma'am, we've made our quota of police runs to your area. You can come down to the station and fill out a report.)

The end result will be what you currently see in Detroit, near anarchy.

Which would you rather have increased crime or increased loss of rights? If officers are going to police minority neighborhoods, and they want to curb crime, sidestepping the rights of people isn't the preferred method to get the results you want. Communist nations notoriously have low crime.... because they don't have to respect people's rights.

 

[THE BIG SITT]

The Ferguson police department sure seemed to think so.

Darren Wilson's shoot was a GOOD one. I'm certainly not saying otherwise, but the statistics certainly give one pause.

In 24 hours you have gone from thinking the statistics are concerning and should "certainly give one pause" to now thinking the entire FPD is racist?

 

[printcraft]

..............Chip, just pointed out, that the associated report concerning Wilson, "didn't pull any punches" and essentially called all of the witnesses liars. So what gives? Is half the report true, and the other half rubbish?

Wrong, that is a misrepresentation. It didn't call ALL of the witnesses liars.
It was explained that the "liars" were discounted because of the physical evidence
AND the fact that they contradicted their own previous statements on the event.
The ones that WERE believed corroborated the physical evidence and didn't contradict themselves after the fact.

 

[Doug]

Which would you rather have increased crime or increased loss of rights? If officers are going to police minority neighborhoods, and they want to curb crime, sidestepping the rights of people isn't the preferred method to get the results you want. Communist nations notoriously have low crime.... because they don't have to respect people's rights.

"...increased crime or increased loss of rights..." is a false choice; it isn't an "either/or" situation.
I prefer equal enforcement of laws without consideration of race. I believe the vast majority of police officers do this.

My sixteen-year-old son was pulled over and the officer checked his license and registration. When my son asked why he had been stopped, the officer said it was because he had not made a right turn on red when he could have. My son then said he thought right on red was optional, not mandatory. The officer replied that there were a lot of under-age drivers in that neighborhood and that my son looked to be about fourteen.
Is failure to turn right on red when you can probable cause for a traffic stop?
Was my son stopped just for "driving while looking young?"

I always told my children that the correct answers when dealing with the police were, "Yes, Sir;" "No, Sir;" and "Whatever you say, Sir."
If we need to fight the police, we will do it in court where the odds are a lot more even.

If more people took that attitude, we could get the bad cops off the street and have a lot less violence.


As far as Communist countries go, many people would give up all their freedom for the promise of someone else taking responsibility for them.
More's the pity.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Re read my post, Kut. It's not about the NAACP, I only said Sharpton, Jackson, et al, are pushing for everything for Black people and nothing for anyone else, and that anyone pushing for anything for only one group, no matter which group it is, is wrong. Remember what King said about having a dream, that his children would live in a world where they were judged not for the color of their skin but for the content of their character? THAT's what I want. I don't want less for Black people. I don't want less for ANY people. I want people to have equality of opportunity. I used the "C" from the NAACP's name only to show that once, those opportunities were denied, but no longer. I don't honestly know what the NAACP does or doesn't do TODAY, other than by its very existence, foster divisiveness.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill, what opportunities are given to some, but disallowed to others and encouraged by the NAACP? And why do people always keep bringing up the NAACP. Black people don't keep them in the news, white people do. I don't know a single person in the organization, and it's membership consists of less than 1% of the black population. BET isn't running constant coverages of their actions, and I'm better informed by Fox News of their current protests than I am from any ethnic media source. It's as if there's a concerted effort to inform to inform the white public "this group exists, and they're out force affirmative action and reparations on you," ....despite the fact they have been relevant in the black community in a quarter of a century.

This Ferguson Report has made absolutely clear, that in some places blacks are still highly discriminated against. Some places.... certainly not all. You won't find a place in the nation where a similar oppression of white people occurs. I had a discussion with some of my friends, and almost all of them believed the report was flawed or doctored because of an Obama/Holder agenda. And looking around the web this seems to be a common theme. Chip, just pointed out, that the associated report concerning Wilson, "didn't pull any punches" and essentially called all of the witnesses liars. So what gives? Is half the report true, and the other half rubbish?

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Here we go. Only a matter of time after Holder paved the way. Try to get a fair trial there now.

Michael Brown family to sue city of Ferguson, officer

 

[ticktwrter]

I wonder of the percentage of use of force how many were repeat offenders who get arrested repeatedly? We have certain people who get arrested repeatedly and you know they will run or fight each time.

 

[Kutnupe14]

"...increased crime or increased loss of rights..." is a false choice; it isn't an "either/or" situation.
I prefer equal enforcement of laws without consideration of race. I believe the vast majority of police officers do this.

My sixteen-year-old son was pulled over and the officer checked his license and registration. When my son asked why he had been stopped, the officer said it was because he had not made a right turn on red when he could have. My son then said he thought right on red was optional, not mandatory. The officer replied that there were a lot of under-age drivers in that neighborhood and that my son looked to be about fourteen.
Is failure to turn right on red when you can probable cause for a traffic stop?
Was my son stopped just for "driving while looking young?"

I always told my children that the correct answers when dealing with the police were, "Yes, Sir;" "No, Sir;" and "Whatever you say, Sir."
If we need to fight the police, we will do it in court where the odds are a lot more even.

If more people took that attitude, we could get the bad cops off the street and have a lot less violence.


As far as Communist countries go, many people would give up all their freedom for the promise of someone else taking responsibility for them.
More's the pity.

What do you think? I think he was. "right on red," IS optional. You're ok with that intrusion? Your son, had his rights infringed because some officer wasn't afraid to step on his oath while looking for crime.

 

[Kutnupe14]

In 24 hours you have gone from thinking the statistics are concerning and should "certainly give one pause" to now thinking the entire FPD is racist?

Just as much as one group of people is the spawn of the devil.

 

[rhino]

Wrong, that is a misrepresentation. It didn't call ALL of the witnesses liars.
It was explained that the "liars" were discounted because of the physical evidence
AND the fact that they contradicted their own previous statements on the event.
The ones that WERE believed corroborated the physical evidence and didn't contradict themselves after the fact.

Hush, you! You're confusing the issue with facts and logic.

 

[Doug]

What do you think? I think he was. "right on red," IS optional. You're ok with that intrusion? Your son, had his rights infringed because some officer wasn't afraid to step on his oath while looking for crime.

Were his rights violated? Maybe he thought my son didn't turn right because he hadn't passed the test or was trying to be inconspicuous. Is "he looks too young to be driving" a valid reason to pull somebody over? Since some intoxicated people tend to drive really slow, doing 15mph in a 45mph zone in good weather might be a valid reason to pull someone over.
I'm not sure, but I would love to hear from a LEO or attorney to get their opinion. (This happened over 20 years ago so there won't be any lawsuits.)

If I'm walking through my neighborhood at night and a uniformed officer asks for my identification, is that infringing on my rights?
Maybe so, but I'm going to cooperate. There have been a few burglaries, but I would cooperate anyway.
If I'm walking in a public place with lots of other people around and he asks me, and no one else, for I.D., I probably want to know why and may be filing a complaint.

 

[chipbennett]

Were his rights violated? Maybe he thought my son didn't turn right because he hadn't passed the test or was trying to be inconspicuous.

Suspicion must be specific and articulable, and not generalized.

Is "he looks too young to be driving" a valid reason to pull somebody over?

Are police officers specially qualified to determine someone's age, to the specificity needed to reasonably suspect that someone of age is not of age?

Since some intoxicated people tend to drive really slow, doing 15mph in a 45mph zone in good weather might be a valid reason to pull someone over.

Driving 15 in a 45, without hazard or SMV indicators, is reckless driving, regardless of the reason.

If I'm walking through my neighborhood at night and a uniformed officer asks for my identification, is that infringing on my rights?

A mere request would not be a violation of your rights, because you are under no compulsion to comply with that request. On the other hand, a demand, absent specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion of unlawful activity, would be a violation of your rights.

 

[Doug]

Thanks, chipbennett, for the clarification.
Yes, I'm OK with my son being stopped. Both the officer and my son were reasonable and respectful.
If an officer gets unreasonable or disrespectful, I'll fight back in court, not on the street.
If you've got a chip on your shoulder about your rights, you'll probably be fighting, in one way or another, all the time.
I will fight for my rights, in court, when I feel it's necessary, but I view cooperating with police when I don't have to as similar to the officer letting me off with a warning instead of a ticket when I was just a few mph over the limit. Politeness, respect and cooperation can go a long way.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

John Lott finally weighs in on the DOJ report.

Ferguson fake-out: Justice Department?s bogus report | New York Post

 

[jamil]

John Lott finally weighs in on the DOJ report.

Ferguson fake-out: Justice Department?s bogus report | New York Post

Interested to get Kut's reaction to that.

 

[rhino]

John Lott is very smart, very good at interpreting data and statistical analyses, and he's as inherently objective as a human can be.

 

[printcraft]

Interested to get Kut's reaction to that.

.................

Oh my god..... The problem is more widespread than I could have possibly imagined!!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

John Lott finally weighs in on the DOJ report.

Ferguson fake-out: Justice Department?s bogus report | New York Post

Interested to get Kut's reaction to that.

John Lott is very smart, very good at interpreting data and statistical analyses, and he's as inherently objective as a human can be.

Yes...Lott's interpretation will not jibe with the consensus, settled science.

 

[Doug]

John Lott is that rarest thing; an honest man.
He originally did his research because he was certain loosening restrictions on gun ownership and making it easier for people to carry weapons in public would result in more crime and more homicides. He wrote More Guns, Less Crime when his research showed the opposite.