Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » UN Peacekeepers to occupy Ferguson Missouri (Page 45)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 55 pages: 1  2  3  ...  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  ...  53  54  55   
Author Topic: UN Peacekeepers to occupy Ferguson Missouri
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let me anticipate your disorientation PSRT. :

Affiliate transcript- “We won’t stop, we can’t stop, until killer cops... "

Original- “We won’t stop, we can’t stop, until killer cops, are in cell blocks.”

In other words, the ghetto English was so bad that it could pass as ‘We won’t stop, we can’t stop, so kill a cop!” Kid dismissed it by talking out both sides of his mouth.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The protesters in that other video (taken it seems from an apartment window) should not have called for the death of cops. That was wrong.

There, I broke my silence.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kid,

Is it wrong to block traffic, and spoil/disrupt the seasonal celebrations of other New Yorkers?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noel,

quote:
You are being asked to account for rights that you denied, or deride, your fellow New Yorkers, as a law breaker of New York, because you are (apparently) proud of your illegal behavior.. it goes to your sense of "justice", and I am absolutely unsurprised that "accountability" is a foreign concept in your calculus of responsible civic activity.
Sometimes you have to commit a few misdemeanors to up hold the law, and, yes, justice. That has been an essential fact of reality since the dawn of history.

As for your other question, we immediately parted way to let ambulances go through. That was an iron-clad rule that the protesters enforced, at least among the group that I was in. It is also much more than can be said for the great majority of NYC drivers on any given day.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Kid,

Is it wrong to block traffic, and spoil/disrupt the seasonal celebrations of other New Yorkers?

No.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Sometimes you have to commit a few misdemeanors to up hold the law, and, yes, justice. That has been an essential fact of reality since the dawn of history. "...

If a policeman had told you to get on the sidewalk, would you have refused, and why?

"As for your other question, we immediately parted way to let ambulances go through. That was an iron-clad rule that the protesters enforced, at least among the group that I was in. It is also much more than can be said for the great majority of NYC drivers on any given day."...

Did you also hire telepaths to determine if any personal emergencies existed in the balance of civilian traffic?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Sometimes you have to commit a few misdemeanors to up hold the law, and, yes, justice. That has been an essential fact of reality since the dawn of history. "...

If a policeman had told you to get on the sidewalk, would you have refused, and why?

Depends on the circumstance. In this case, it didn't happen.

quote:
"As for your other question, we immediately parted way to let ambulances go through. That was an iron-clad rule that the protesters enforced, at least among the group that I was in. It is also much more than can be said for the great majority of NYC drivers on any given day."...

Did you also hire telepaths to determine if any personal emergencies existed in the balance of civilian traffic?

No.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Philnotfil.

"I think I missed something. "...

The NYPD did not. :

[DeBelasio]- “With Dante (his bi-racial son) very early on, we said, ‘Look, if a police officer stops you, do everything he tells you to do. Don’t move suddenly. Don’t reach for your cellphone... Because we knew, sadly, there’s a greater chance it might be misinterpreted if it was a young man of color.”

How did that statement by De Blasio put the police in danger?
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Depends on the circumstance. In this case, it didn't happen. "...

In what imaginable case would you refuse a lawful order to get on the sidewalk?

In running a quick check of New York census statistics, I found that only 46% of New Yorkers own cars, which makes the 58% disapproval for *your* behavior all the more significant. People sometimes joyride, however; they normally have a good reason for burning time/fuel... yet you made a determination that ego gratification on your part necessitated inconvenience (at best) on their part.

If I read you correctly, evil police infiltrators tried to keep you from experiencing success in screwing with other people (?). I understand that you envision yourself as a protector of "law, and yes justice", but can you see why citizens that own cars might see you as just a little delusionally narcissistic?

[ December 24, 2014, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Philnotfil,

"How did that statement by De Blasio put the police in danger? "...

The mayor capped five months of federal aspersions on law enforcement with an alleged personal anecdote faulting police with "racism" as a default modality. I doubt its authenticity, but the police union saw the writing on the wall by dis-inviting him to their prospective funerals... later vindicated by the deaths of an Asian, and Hispanic, NYPD officer.

Can you appreciate the paradox?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In what imaginable case would you refuse a lawful order to get on the sidewalk?
That's a different question -- you added the word "lawful". Answer, I don't know. But lawful or not, that did not come up in this protest.

In previous ones I've attended (anti-war protests) we obeyed such orders.

quote:
In running a quick check of New York census statistics, I found that only 46% of New Yorkers own cars, which makes the 58% disapproval for *your* behavior all the more significant.
I don't think it's permissible to "block traffic" either if it endangers anyone. One must look at the phrasing of any poll questions. The "die-ins" that blocked intersections were usually brief and very localized. This was not a long-term snarl. I didn't do any agitprop in the street myself -- just public spaces like Time Square, Grand Central, etc. and in fact most of those events were in public commons where there were no cars, or in department stores.

Insofar as we were able to walk against the flow of traffic between cars, it was because traffic was already not moving due to a red light or the usual snails pace of midtown weekday traffic. This is much easier to apprehend in person than it is to imagine in the abstract, but any New Yorker will know what I'm talking about.

The city closes main arteries for Macy's Day Balloon parades, for St. Patty's Day, for UN events, for construction, for movie shoots, for Fourth of July observance, and for a host of other reasons, all of which are far more disruptive to traffic than the protests were, by orders of magnitude.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"That's a different question -- you added the word 'lawful'. Answer, I don't know. But lawful or not, that did not come up in this protest. "...

Is that tacit submission to the rule of law in your "protest" activity?

"The city closes main arteries for Macy's Day Balloon parades, for St. Patty's Day, for UN events, for construction, for movie shoots, for Fourth of July observance, and for a host of other reasons, all of which are far more disruptive to traffic than the protests were, by orders of magnitude. "...

Cities, and municipalities, *also* close main arteries for "protest" activity. It is done by permit for public notification which may affect safety issues.

Would it be too much to ask that in all the organizational footwork of your group, you pull a permit next time?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Philnotfil,

"How did that statement by De Blasio put the police in danger? "...

The mayor capped five months of federal aspersions on law enforcement with an alleged personal anecdote faulting police with "racism" as a default modality. I doubt its authenticity, but the police union saw the writing on the wall by dis-inviting him to their prospective funerals... later vindicated by the deaths of an Asian, and Hispanic, NYPD officer.

Can you appreciate the paradox?

I'm having trouble wading through the bias to get to the paradox. But if I set aside reality, and look at it from the point of view that De Blasio is putting the police in danger, I can sort of see how his statement about his son could support the position.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Philnotfil,

"I'm having trouble wading through the bias to get to the paradox. "...

Keep working on it, many people mature out of liberalistic bias.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Would it be too much to ask that in all the organizational footwork of your group, you pull a permit next time?
It wasn't any one "group." It was comprised of the citizens of NYC, many "groups," and it was more impromptu, as these things sometimes must be to make an impact. I do not think civil disobedience should require a permit.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm still struggling with the idea that a rational person could look at this:
[DeBelasio]- “With Dante (his bi-racial son) very early on, we said, ‘Look, if a police officer stops you, do everything he tells you to do. Don’t move suddenly. Don’t reach for your cellphone... Because we knew, sadly, there’s a greater chance it might be misinterpreted if it was a young man of color.”

And arrive at the conclusion that this statement puts the police at risk.

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It wasn't any one 'group'. It was comprised of the citizens of NYC, many 'groups'... "...

Really, how long did it take you to decide you would be "protesting"?

"... and it was more impromptu, as these things sometimes must be to make an impact. "...

Then arrests should have been likewise "impromptu". Bad stuff happens when mayors let the first "broken window" pass unremedied.

"I do not think civil disobedience should require a permit. "...

That is something of a "duh". Why must protest be "disobedient"? I would think substantive public discourse could rest on merit instead of drama.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by philnotfil:
I'm still struggling with the idea that a rational person could look at this:
[DeBelasio]- “With Dante (his bi-racial son) very early on, we said, ‘Look, if a police officer stops you, do everything he tells you to do. Don’t move suddenly. Don’t reach for your cellphone... Because we knew, sadly, there’s a greater chance it might be misinterpreted if it was a young man of color.”

And arrive at the conclusion that this statement puts the police at risk.

It's pretty simple. Mayor Wilhelm, in publicly stating that, stoked anger at police.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And just in time for the holidays a group of protesters delayed a man from getting to the hospital for treatment so he died.

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2014/12/19/exclusive-man-died-after-berkeley-protests-delayed-help/

What a nice Christmas present for his family right? All wrapped up in "social justice."

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Philnotfil,

Numerous "rational" people had no difficulty anticipating the outcome of DeBlasio's "racism" accusations, directed at the NYPD, beginning with union chief Patrick Lynch. I was expecting law enforcement casualties during the second Ferguson riot when shots were fired to prevent fire fighting efforts.

If the connection between groundless villianization of a racially diverse police department, and subsequent murder of officers by juvenilized criminals does not jump out at you... your struggle is much deeper than a simple maturing process.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vegimo
Member
Member # 6023

 - posted      Profile for vegimo   Email vegimo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some analysis on De Blasio
quote:
The blue rage isn’t rooted in any one statement de Blasio has made against cops — in fact, he has been universally supportive of the rank-and-file in his public utterances. But in his past roles as a public official, he’s often sided with the victims of police brutality, and he recently told an interviewer that he has told Dante, his teenage mixed-race son, not to reach for a cellphone around officers because it might put him in danger as a “a young man of color.” He took the unusual step — unimaginable under the mayoralties of Giuliani or Michael Bloomberg — of inviting Sharpton to City Hall, seating him opposite Bratton at a table where the activist proceeded to strongly denounce the police. (“If Dante wasn’t your son, he’d be a candidate for a chokehold. And we got to deal with that reality,” Sharpton said to de Blasio as Bratton looked on.) Last week, de Blasio privately met with organizers of the Garner protests, another moment that antagonized police.

But the action that turned off cops most of all was his defense of City Hall staffer Rachel Noerdlinger, a longtime Sharpton aide whose son and boyfriend posted anti-police messages on their Facebook accounts. The boyfriend allegedly tried to drive a cop off the road in Edgewater, New Jersey, and later pleaded to a lesser offense, according to the New York Post. The mayor stood behind Noerdlinger for weeks until her son was arrested for trespassing — and even then he didn’t fire her. When she left her job, City Hall officials said she was on leave.

“His words and his deeds don’t match,” said veteran cop reporter Leonard Levitt, who runs NYPD Confidential, a website fed by tips from inside the department and widely read by the rank and file. “You had Noerdlinger’s son calling cops ‘pigs’ and de Blasio doesn’t think that’s inappropriate? What message are you sending? De Blasio says it’s just the union guys who are angry. It’s not. It’s everybody. I’ve been covering this for 25 years and I have never seen anything like it. … The mayor doesn’t have a clue.”


Posts: 255 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

I worked in that part of downtown Berkeley for three years and know it very well. Looking at the map and reading the article, and taking its factual representations at face value, it is inconceivable that a crowd of 800 moving westward on University from Shattuck could have blocked the route for more than two or three minutes.

Unless maybe it was a hemorrhage caused by the police barricade on MLK?

The article is actually very short on facts that confirm the story.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How about another Berkeley. This one is in Missouri.

An armed 18 year old thug pulled a gun on a cop, pointed it at the cop and was about to shoot, so the cop shot him first. The thug happened to be black so now there is a protest there. The protest already turned violent...

because an armed thug pulled a gun on a cop.

We now have two cases of thugs (who happened to be black) shooting at police or pulling guns on police, getting shot and these racist protesters showing outrage at that. It's quite clear what they want now, as it is a pattern. They want police to roll over and let criminals kill them if the criminals happen to be black.

Maybe they should change their hashtags to #blacklivessupersedecoplives

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-missouri-police-shooting-20141224-story.html#page=1

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
washingtonpost.com

quote:
And what about de Blasio? Here’s part of the explanation for why some in the NYPD seem to hate him so much:

There have been a number flash points between de Blasio and police, including one earlier this month, when the mayor spoke to George Stephanopoulos of ABC News about his fears for his biracial son.

“It’s different for a white child. That’s just the reality in this country,” de Blasio said. “And with Dante, very early on with my son, we said, look, if a police officer stops you, do everything he tells you to do, don’t move suddenly, don’t reach for your cellphone, because we knew, sadly, there’s a greater chance it might be misinterpreted if it was a young man of color.”

I get that police officers might not like to hear that, but is there a single sane human being who can say it’s bad advice to give to a black teenager? Or that anyone could take it as encouragement to commit murder?


Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Philnotfil,

"I get that police officers might not like to hear that, but is there a single sane human being who can say it’s bad advice to give to a black teenager? "...

Read the quote I gave you, and see if "slow" movement, and not reaching into pockets for a cell phone, is not "sane" advice to give *any* adolescent within the context of a police confrontation... especially following recent problems generated by self-serving politicians.

Why make it racial?

"... Or that anyone could take it as encouragement to commit murder? "...

Now that is an entirely different question; and yes, when an impressionable black youth is taught that the man wants to kill him by "pig", and his cultural default for interpersonal conflict resolution happens to be rooted in violence, what other outcome could a "sane" person anticipate?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why make it racial? Because the police act on race.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
Why make it racial? Because the police act on race.

That's debatable, what happened to Zemir Begic and the two NYC officers is not.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Damn, my joke thread got serious.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
Why make it racial? Because the police act on race.

Some cops act on race, so other cops have to let themselves be shot based on race? What is this, affirmative human sacrifice?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No one is saying that anyone has to let themselves be shot. That's an absurdly dishonest cast of any arguments made. Rather than all police uses of force should be very clearly and publicly scrutinized so that the bad elements can be identifed and corrected, rather than protecting them under the false pretense that we have to whitewash and protect the ever growing problems with abuse and militarization out of some false assertion that allowing strong public scrutiny somehow translates to "letting themselves be shot".

If you need to shoot someone to defend yourself, you should welcome public analysis of that decision as a far better alternative to being dead- even more so if you're someone who has specifically been entrusted by the public with enforcement powers and greater freedom in deciding when such an on-the-spot execution is warranted.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No one is saying that anyone has to let themselves be shot. That's an absurdly dishonest cast of any arguments made
So why did these protesters now protest TWO incidents where cops shot someone that either pulled a gun on them first or shot at them first. The only thing the cops could have done differently is die. The protesters clearly wanted that.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Protests that actually forced some amount of public investigation that helped prove that the shooting was justified, so if it takes protests to finally bring needed transparency instead of letting police getting away with faking evidence that they were shot at first or that the suspect was even armed, which has happened many, many more time than twice, then I guess were going to see more protests until transparent investigations and trials when necessary to demonstrate that the legal system exists for the public benefit rather than to entrench and defend authoritarian brutality becomes a matter of course.

All without the having to resort to the bald faced lie that you're regurgitating here that demanding transparency and active demonstration of action in good faith is equivalent to asking anyone to die.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Protests that actually forced some amount of public investigation that helped prove that the shooting was justified, so if it takes protests to finally bring needed transparency instead of letting police getting away with faking evidence that they were shot at first or that the suspect was even armed, which has happened many, many more time than twice, then I guess were going to see more protests until transparent investigations and trials when necessary to demonstrate that the legal system exists for the public benefit rather than to entrench and defend authoritarian brutality becomes a matter of course.

All without the having to resort to the bald faced lie that you're regurgitating here that demanding transparency and active demonstration of action in good faith is equivalent to asking anyone to die.

Nice try but the protests either preceded or kept going even after that evidence was released in both cases, and usually right away. That had nothing to do with it.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Nice try but the protests either preceded or kept going even after that evidence was released in both cases, and usually right away.
When police have a history of faking evidence to defend themselves, why should a simple release of evidence be considered sufficient scrutiny?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The trouble is, Pyr, you always use the word "dishonest" to refer to anything you disagree with, and to those who don't live in your intellectual hood, the word Analysis" presumes actual thought. Analysis doesn't involve threats, rioting, and presumptions of guilt. Mobs don't analyze, any more than you do. You just spout your party line without bothering to address the actual facts.

quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
No one is saying that anyone has to let themselves be shot. That's an absurdly dishonest cast of any arguments made.
If you need to shoot someone to defend yourself, you should welcome public analysis of that decision as a far
better alternative to being dead- .


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Nice try but the protests either preceded or kept going even after that evidence was released in both cases, and usually right away.
When police have a history of faking evidence to defend themselves, why should a simple release of evidence be considered sufficient scrutiny?
No; nor should said release be treated as a pretext for violent protest. Scrutiny requires actual THOUGHT which neither you nor the rest of the mob seems willing to deliver.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No; nor should said release be treated as a pretext for violent protest.
Where has the release of evidence ever been used as a pretext for a protest. Another police shooting in the face of a decades long growing pattern of abuse of power by police was the pretext for protests.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
The trouble is, Pyr, you always use the word "dishonest" to refer to anything you disagree with, and to those who don't live in your intellectual hood, the word Analysis" presumes actual thought. Analysis doesn't involve threats, rioting, and presumptions of guilt. Mobs don't analyze, any more than you do. You just spout your party line without bothering to address the actual facts.

I never claimed that mobs were analyzing anything- that's something that you made up. I said that the protests are forcing our justice system to start to at least pretend to analyze itself, something that people have not been able to get it to do though less confrontational means for decades while this problem has festered and grown.

You can make up stuff I didn't say all day long, doesn't change what I did say. It's become clear that mass protests are the only thing that seems to be creating motion on even getting a fig-leaf of movement analyzing and containing abusive police behavoir, so they're more likely to crop up repeatedly until changes are made that actually start to get the problem under control. The fact that public actions that provoke protests toward more violent behavoir is completely orthogonal to the issue, though it's not surprising that some people might be trending closer to outright rebellion when law enforcement decides to double own on oppression instead of working quickly and clearly to reform itself.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dishonesty involves intentionally misrepresenting the truth. Since the protests are very explicitly about holding the police accountable for abuse of authority. Making up the ludicrous claim that calling for accountability because the police simply cannot be trusted to be honest about claims of defensive actions is equivalent to saying they should let themselves be shot is extremely dishonest- the only purpose to inventing such a fiction is to try to whitewash the ongoing abuses that led to the protests in the first place.

People have been pushed to the point that they can literally no longer trust and testimony or nominal evidence that police forces put forward in defense of their own actions. This means that actions that may well be legitimate are going to be protested right along with once that aren't until systems can be brought into place that allows for the public to actually trust evidence that's put forward and ensure that it's scrutinized well enough to provide a new baseline for confidence.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" [snip pyr's useless compulsive insinuation re dishonesty] ince the protests are very explicitly about holding the police accountable for abuse of authority. "

That's crap, Pyr. The protests don't speak with a uniform voice. Some are protesting police conduct; others have made this a broader economic statement. I wish you were willing to consider any variance to your little political script as anything other than "dishonest.". Your continual parroting of that accusation makes you come off as seriously brainwashed.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 55 pages: 1  2  3  ...  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  ...  53  54  55   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1