Okay. Your opinions (and your statements preceding them) are incorrect.
I don’t understand. Why should they be throwing anything at anybody harmless plastic bottle or not? If I’m walking down the street and throw a plastic bottle at someones head I’d face arrest. Why would this be different? Just because they are mad?
They shouldn’t be, and they should face arrest. But if the act of arresting them in a crowd increases the risk substantially of harm to protesters and/or the cops, they should not try to make an arrest for something as minor as a harmless object being tossed.
Giving you the benefit of a doubt, that isn’t what I meant. See that word “editing”? I’m talking about the transcription of his remarks, the reporting. I don’t actually know what he meant, that’s why I’m curious. Does he mean the Communist Party USA, the actual organization? Or is it “small c”, implying a vague collection of people who might consider themselves socialists or progressives, but would mostly regard “communist” as somewhere on the spectrum from mistaken to deliberately insulting.
Since this man is in a position to do a whole lot of damage, I’d like to gauge his character and opinions accurately. How about you?
And your citation, this Progressives Today, where in the fuck did you dig up *that *piece of crap? Honest engine, cross yer heart, you seriously believe that they are giving you an fair assessment of the views of American progressives? Seriously?
To the extent that you offer it here as citation? Like it proves something?
I know what you meant, but considering the amount of pointless non sequiturs you clutter these boards with you can’t complain if someone posts some of it back to you.
I assume he meant radical left-wingers and was speaking colloquially. But, in answer to your question, no I don’t really care what he meant.
I never heard of it. It came up on google and I figured if it was progressive it would probably pass muster here, and in any event the key was the video. But in any event, if you don’t like it just ignore it - there were two cites.
It will only increase harm if other people decide to break the law. If that happens, they also should be arrested, and this should continue until people realise that attacking the police, or attempting to prevent them doing their jobs, is not a fucking option.
Do what you’re told and argue later, in court, if you really think your rights have been trampled on by being prevented from throwing stuff at the police and rioting.
Hopefully, if this would increase the risk of harm to police officers, they won’t follow your advice. Cops already know what I’m advocating – sometimes, an arrest isn’t feasible or wise.
Da fuq? You don’t vet your own fucking* cites*?! Gotta be shittin’ me!
It would just get messed up in the rioting.
And nobody’s arguing otherwise. Heck, I’d bet it’s why Michael Brown was shot.
Sometimes we post things that we think are funny and clever, and we’re wrong. Hell, it’s happened to me more times than I can count. I just want you to know, when you come back later and reread this, that you’re not alone. There’s a network in place.
I want you to know that I read your reply last night, and thought it over, and slept on it, and in the cold light of morning, yeah, no. As far as I can tell, the thug who strongarmed that shopkeeper went on to overpoweringly assault the cop instead of complying with him, and so wound up getting shot by the guy he easily roughed up.
If the grand jury winds up agreeing with me, there’s no need for “funny” or “clever”; the remark will simply be accurate. Failing that, if this goes to trial and they find in favor of the guy who (a) would’ve gladly played arresting officer, but (b) resorted to lethal force because reasons, I’ll pat myself on the back for accuracy then.
The Other Waldo Pepper, you seem to be a) accusing Officer Wilson of intent to execute Michael Brown for resisting arrest, and b) saying that this is should be just dandy as far as a grand jury is concerned.
Am I understanding you correctly?
I’m saying that, as far as I can tell, Officer Wilson would’ve been perfectly willing to arrest Michael Brown; that he was unable to do so because of Michael Brown’s knack for, and love of, criminal strongarm tactics; and that, if so, I’d be just dandy with shooting the thug in question, and so too might the grand jury be – and, if the grand jury instead sends it on to a not-so-grand jury, I’d be dandy with them being dandy with it.
Nevermind. Already covered.
Gesundheit.
Here’s the thing with this reasoning; I think you misapprehend the import of the “arrest” Michael Brown interrupted. The word has a very definite legal meaning and a very well established social expectation. Neither legally nor socially/ethically can the arrest of a suspect by an officer of the court have any element of judicial intent. IOW, when a LEO arrests a suspect, it is only so that they can be brought into a process which ultimately puts them in front of an actual court, and so that they can be deterred at that moment from further criminal activity. The intent is to bring the subject into the due process of law, and to exert the level and duration of control over the individual necessary for that to happen.
If an officer is unable to individually make an arrest (due to the scope or difficulty of the circumstances), then he or she has various options, all dependent on the specifics of the situation. All of these options have requisite contexts, and using deadly force has the highest bar to clear; certainly it’s not an appropriate rote response to a fleeing suspect.
So at the very front of the argument here, I’m saying that “shooting Brown because he resisted arrest and assaulted the officer” is not automatically dandy in any state in the US. At the heart of the argument though, I question, as Vinyl Turnip did earlier, the wisdom of your assertion that a subject should be shot for the sole reason that ‘an arrest is not feasible.’
As a reminder, this is the exchange which prompted the discussion:
That turns the shooting of Brown from a ‘self-defense’ question into a straight up issue over law enforcement technique and the work efficiency of the officer.
Since you’re standing by your response to iiandyiiii, I guess I’m just trying to understand why you’d want the sort of society where the police response to a failed attempt to arrest someone can only be an escalation of force by the officer(s) on the scene. There’s an awful lot of middle you’re excluding there, including ‘greater good’ arguments but also including viable law enforcement alternatives to deadly force. Unfortunately, those other options often require more thought, concern and creativity than you and others may be willing to require of our police organizations.
I’ll grant that it’s not automatically dandy. But the facts in this case may be, and in fact strike me as, dandy. And, before long, we’ll see whether one jury or another likewise finds this specific shooting to be dandy.
It doesn’t have to be the “only” police response to a failed attempt. My comment is still accurate if it’s one dandy option among other dandy options.
If the police can solve a problem like Michael Brown with thought and concern and creativity, that’s just dandy. If they can solve a problem like Michael Brown by putting bullets into him, that’s also dandy. And – of course – if Michael Brown doesn’t assault the cop who’s just trying to do his job, neither thought/concern/creativity nor putting bullets into him are required, such that the latter would be horrifying; the police can simply lock a crook like him up before he strongarms another productive member of society like (a) that shopkeeper I sympathize with; or, y’know, (b) me.
And that’s totally the sort of society I want.
Ah, I see. People can be safely categorized as “problems” which can sometimes be “solved” by propelling a few bullets through them. Based of course on the level of difficulty they present for law enforcement.
You deserve the society you want, I guess. May I kindly suggest you go search for that society at the bottom of a rock? xxx