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 53)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 55 pages: 1  2  3  ...  50  51  52  53  54  55   
Author Topic: UN Peacekeepers to occupy Ferguson Missouri
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't realize Fox News mind controlled Mayor Rawlings in that YouTube video...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An exercise for the reader: compare what she is actually saying she said in the video with what you are saying she meant. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So we have one denier that the sky is blue while staring at it.

Anyone else want to watch that short video and deny that she said the words that rioters were given the "space to destroy" that they wanted?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But of course, when they don't react in this way, when they try the more reasonable approaches, absolutely nothing happens- it's only when they get so mad that they start doing things that are inexcusable that enough people pay attention to actually maybe make change happen.
I'm interested in your assumption that the riots are a vehicle for making change happen. Because most people, including the most vocal advocates for the cause, seem to think that the riots are setting them back, not forward.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, do you understand what she was saying?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For those who were too lazy to click the link and watch the short video, here is the transcript of her statement.

quote:
"We’ve had these kinds of conversations before, and I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech. It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate and that’s what you saw this evening."
What she was saying was that it was considered a "compromise" and "de-escalation" strategy to allow some private property destruction. That is absurd. Since when is it considered a compromise for the police to allow any amount of arson or mass violence?

Considering it is being reported that she lives in an expensive gated community protected by lots of private security it was no wonder she was content to err on the side of "compromise" and allow the rioters and arsonists some "space" to loot, vandalize, destroy and burn some people's houses/businesses, as long as it wasn't hers it was a great way to "de-escalate."

Here's an idea: arrest anyone trying to burn down any building, period. Since when should we tolerate even a LITTLE bit of arson? Is anyone insane enough to think this woman is fit to be mayor?

To make matters worse there are hundreds of law enforcement officers who are threatening to quit and some even already resigned. They gave interviews saying they were shocked at these orders from her and felt like they were letting the whole city down. So why don't we see what Baltimore is like without any of the evil police. After all, if a few cops are bad it means they are all bad and should all be attacked by a mob, right? So lets see Baltimore get along without any law enforcement. I wonder how long Mayor Rawlings's gated community would last...

[ May 01, 2015, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, what she's saying is that giving the protesters space to do their thing had the unfortunate side effect of allowing vandals to do their thing as well.

Here's how you parse that:

Because: "we try to make sure that [the protesters] were protected"
Therefore: "we also gave those who wished to destroy space".

You keep quoting bits out of context, and even when the full context is there, as in your above quote, you bold part of it and ignore the preceding clause which provides the context and meaning of the part you bolded.

Please tell me you are capable of seeing this.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Please tell me you are capable of seeing that he called both allowing peaceful protests and arson/looting both part of a "balance" they were intentionally going for...

[ May 01, 2015, 04:08 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Since when is it considered a compromise for the police to allow any amount of arson or mass violence?
I'm actually curious: do you think there is no point at which it is more sensible for police to pick their literal battles, even if this allows a small amount of crime, if the net result is de-escalation and lives saved?

I mean, even just as a hypothetical, do you think that is an impossible thing?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Please tell me you are capable of seeing that he called both allowing peaceful protests and arson/looting both part of a "balance" they were intentionally going for...
No, that's not what we see. We see an explanation of a directive (meant to protect protestors and de-escalate)and an acknowledgement of the side effect (providing opportunity for vandalism).
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is absurd that the mayor planned it or even acknowledged that it's part of a "balance." They might as well run a lottery to see whose house gets burnt down!
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Agreed, it is absurd to think that.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you are attempting to balance the need for police protection with the need to de-escalate a situation, what term describes that better than "balance?"
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In one of the fastest decisions to prosecute of all time, the rookie prosecutor with barely a few years of experience and who delivered a lot of charged, partisan and racially-controversial language in her press release, announced that less than 24 hours after getting the evidence she is going for 2nd degree murder along with other charges.

There is no way she read all the evidence in less than a day.

Also, despite department policy not requiring inmates to be belted in, which would be the standard for expecting that lack of belting someone in would result in injury, they are trying to say that the act of not belting the prisoner in was murder.

Maybe murder really occurred here, but why couldn't the prosecutor take a few days to thoroughly look through the evidence instead of rushing this prosecution at light speed in unprecedented fashion? Now it looks political and like mob pandering and race hustling.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or maybe the evidence is clear and there's no need to waste time.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For less than 24 hours she should have at least announced some major new fact that lead to the charges given that there was no grand jury and that murder 2 is on the table.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm actually curious: do you think there is no point at which it is more sensible for police to pick their literal battles, even if this allows a small amount of crime, if the net result is de-escalation and lives saved?
Would you characterize the events in Baltimore as a "small amount of crime"?
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Would you characterize the events in Baltimore as a "small amount of crime"?
Actually, yes. Very little harm has been done.

----

quote:
For less than 24 hours...
You keep saying "less than 24 hours," as if Gray hadn't been in the ground for over a week already and no information was being collected. It's not like she just woke up yesterday and said, "Gee, I guess we'd better start looking into this."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 jasonr:
quote:
But of course, when they don't react in this way, when they try the more reasonable approaches, absolutely nothing happens- it's only when they get so mad that they start doing things that are inexcusable that enough people pay attention to actually maybe make change happen.
I'm interested in your assumption that the riots are a vehicle for making change happen. Because most people, including the most vocal advocates for the cause, seem to think that the riots are setting them back, not forward.
We're talking about it because there were riots. Up till that point we weren't. How much time in the past few decades have you spent thinking about how bad things were going in Baltimore? Would you have ever paid any attention to it if an uprising hadn't suddenly made you unable to just goin on ignoring it and letting it get worse and worse?
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:
Since when is it considered a compromise for the police to allow any amount of arson or mass violence?
When they can't prevent it and when attempting to stop it will cause orders of magnitude more? You're suggesting that the best policy would have been to try to see just how large they could continue to provoke the riot to be once they had already set off a small one?
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 
The prosecutor had the actual files and evidence for less than a day.


Now, if she pulled an Obama and got informed on this case by watching MSNBC for the last week and that's what informed her decision then that is clearly wrong and a violation of her duty.

It looks like she brought these charges just to pander to the mob. Maybe there really was murder here, unfortunately because of her we'll always wonder if she tainted the process and distorted what actually happened.

Imagine if this goes to trial and the officers are cleared because she didn't bother to see the evidence was lacking before she pushed for charges. It will backfire even on the twisted motivation of appeasing the mob. Already the race baiting media is interviewing people on the street asking them what they will do if the officers are acquitted. This whole thing is a nightmare and regardless of whether the officers are guilty this is not going to be a fair trial either for them or against them.

Real justice takes time, diligence and as impartial analysis as possible. None of those things were present here and I doubt this will end well regardless of the eventual verdict.

[ May 02, 2015, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The prosecutor had the actual files and evidence for less than a day.
But, see, that's the thing: it shouldn't take a day to deliberate on whether or not to charge someone once you have the files and evidence collected.

quote:
Maybe there really was murder here, unfortunately because of her we'll always wonder if she tainted the process...
When you say "we," who do you mean? Who precisely will wonder that?

quote:
Real justice takes time, diligence and as impartial analysis as possible.
Remind me again how soon we should bomb Iran? [Wink]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For murder 2 with this much controversy and charged attitudes it should take far longer than a day. And she didn't even take a day.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
For murder 2 with this much controversy and charged attitudes it should take far longer than a day.
How long do you think it usually takes to charge a black man with murder in Baltimore?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 Seneca:
The prosecutor had the actual files and evidence for less than a day.


Now, if she pulled an Obama and got informed on this case by watching MSNBC for the last week and that's what informed her decision then that is clearly wrong and a violation of her duty.

It looks like she brought these charges just to pander to the mob. Maybe there really was murder here, unfortunately because of her we'll always wonder if she tainted the process and distorted what actually happened.

Imagine if this goes to trial and the officers are cleared because she didn't bother to see the evidence was lacking before she pushed for charges. It will backfire even on the twisted motivation of appeasing the mob. Already the race baiting media is interviewing people on the street asking them what they will do if the officers are acquitted. This whole thing is a nightmare and regardless of whether the officers are guilty this is not going to be a fair trial either for them or against them.

Real justice takes time, diligence and as impartial analysis as possible. None of those things were present here and I doubt this will end well regardless of the eventual verdict.

For how long does she need the files and evidence to ascertain that the victim was conscious when put into the van and unconscious when taken out of the van, and that the victim never regained consciousness before their death?

Charging someone doesn't mean that they did it, it means that there is enough evidence pointing to them having done it that we need to hold a trial to give them a chance to defend themselves.

Is there any question in anyone's mind that Freddie Gray could have sustained the injuries that killed him while in police custody? The question is whether or not the police were the ones who inflicted those injuries. So we have a trial. From where I'm sitting this looks like exactly how it is supposed to work.

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  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:
For how long does she need the files and evidence to ascertain that the victim was conscious when put into the van and unconscious when taken out of the van, and that the victim never regained consciousness before their death?
That's the point. There's a bid difference between manslaughter and murder 2. Too often due to ignorance and mobocracy manslaughter has become a back-up catch-all just because they couldn't make murder stick. In reality they are two very different things and one should not simply be a fall-back for the other. They should have taken their time to be sure it was not one or the other, and a situation like this it's difficult to assemble evidence to prove it was intentional vs unintentional.

quote:
Charging someone doesn't mean that they did it, it means that there is enough evidence pointing to them having done it that we need to hold a trial to give them a chance to defend themselves.
The problem comes from hastily putting a higher charge than you can prove on and leading to total exoneration because you reached too far. Murder 2 is very steep.

quote:
Is there any question in anyone's mind that Freddie Gray could have sustained the injuries that killed him while in police custody? The question is whether or not the police were the ones who inflicted those injuries. So we have a trial. From where I'm sitting this looks like exactly how it is supposed to work.p
Less than 24 hours is not enough time to determine murder 2 in a questionable situation like this. There was no video footage, no smoking gun.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They should have taken their time to be sure it was not one or the other
I have to ask: is there anything you won't play armchair quarterback for?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have to ask: is there anything you won't play armchair quarterback for?
What and you don't? Please.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Please what, exactly? Please don't point out that Seneca's talking out his ass, or please don't pretend that I don't? [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
And now it appears there is a witness who says Gray may have been intentionally trying to injure himself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/prisoner-in-van-said-freddie-gray-was-banging-against-the-walls-during-ride/2015/04/29/56d7da10-eec6-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html?tid =sm_tw

Or maybe not: Freddie Gray "did not hurt himself" insists fellow passenger in police van.
quote:
"I know for a fact that he (Gray) did not hurt himself," Donta Allen, who was a fellow prisoner in the van during a portion of the meandering path of the vehicle after Gray was taken into the custody and before medical help was summoned, told CNN's Don Lemon in an interview. Reciting a litany of Gray's injuries, Allen added "you cannot do that (to yourself) in the paddy wagon. You can probably hit your head and have a little headache, but you can't hurt yourself to the point you're going to be dead."

And as for a report in the Washington Post that he told investigators he had heard noises indicating Gray was trying to injure himself, "untrue. Very, very, very untrue," said Allen.

Of course, it is possible that the unnamed passenger was another captive in the van, and not Mr. Allen...
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We're talking about it because there were riots. Up till that point we weren't.
Pyr, you crack me up, you really do. Some of your posts are truly comedic. You're suggesting that the Baltimore protests weren't getting any national attention until they started rioting [Eek!]

As for Baltimore, you're right, I had no idea how bad it was there. I'll be sure to steer clear in the future. I'm sure the riots will do wonders for property values.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
We're talking about it because there were riots. Up till that point we weren't.
Pyr, you crack me up, you really do. Some of your posts are truly comedic. You're suggesting that the Baltimore protests weren't getting any national attention until they started rioting [Eek!]

The funniest part of it is that the implicit premise that the riots can be justified in the long run since they helped get MSM attention is the precise same reasoning the Unabomber used. His beliefs were similar to other anti-techologists, other than the small fact that he thought causing some damage with perhaps a few casualties was worth it to raise attention to his cause. This small detail is the difference between an activist and a terrorist.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beefprime
Member
Member # 3187

 - posted      Profile for beefprime     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by beefprime:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
When the Iranians have a real democracy with respect for women's and minority rights, let me know.

They had one, until the U.S. and U.K. decided to replace it with a dictator, whose oppressive regime sparked off the Iranian revolution which resulted in the current regime.
Actually it would be just the UK's fault since their abuse of America created the US which you claim was responsible for creating the current Iranian situation. See the silly causal games we can play?

[Roll Eyes]

Except that one is recent history and the other isnt. And one directly plays into the Iranian desire to have nuclear weapons because they think it will give them more security against foreign powers like the U.S. which think aggressive regime change is an ok policy.

The point is the U.S. is a direct cause of the current lack of democracy and their nuclear weapon program, and you just want more aggression as a response. At some point you need to realize that things will get better if you just stop throwing gas on the fire and de-escalate.

Posts: 76 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  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:
he funniest part of it is that the implicit premise that the riots can be justified
The statement of a fact about the normal order of events does not imply justification. An action does not become more morally correct or reasonable just because it was the inevitable result of a certain situation. All it does is highlight how unjustifiable the conditions that caused it to happen were.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will say that it is interesting for a prosecutor to bypass a grand jury, though not unheard of.

2nd degree murder in Maryland does require showing they acted with reckless disregard for human life, which seems like it might be difficult to prove. Of course, only one of the officers is charged with this most serious crime. 3 are charged with involuntary manslaughter, while 2 are charged with assault as the highest charge.

It will probably hinge around what we already know - Gray asked for medical attention at the scene of the arrest for asthma and later for injuries sustained in the back of that van making four additional stops on the way to the station while ignoring his clear and undeniable need for the medical help that could have saved his life. He was handcuffed, shackled, and unrestrained face down on the floor. Here's a good listing of the reported facts

I'd say there is probably a basis for her to bring the charge, but time will tell over the next year they prepare for the case. It sure sounds like reckless disregard to me, but I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure it can play out in ways I wouldn't expect.

One article suggests the following defense:

quote:
As for accusations that the officers were negligent in failing to provide medical care to Gray even after he asked for it, Banzhaf said that the defendants would likely bring experts who will testify that prisoners often make false claims about injuries.

“I think the cops will be able to find lots of experts who will say ‘this is pretty well standard,'” Banzhaf said. The officers’ defense experts would likely argue that “lots of people who are arrested start screaming that they are in pain, they can’t breath, they are hurt and so on. They do it to get leniency, or to get cuffs removed, and they also do it so that they set up claims stating that they were mishandled by police.”

So, because there is institutional indifference to prisoner's injuries, due to them often lying, it might not be considered depraved indifference on the part of the individuals?
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
he funniest part of it is that the implicit premise that the riots can be justified
The statement of a fact about the normal order of events does not imply justification. An action does not become more morally correct or reasonable just because it was the inevitable result of a certain situation. All it does is highlight how unjustifiable the conditions that caused it to happen were.
We presume you think mass attention to the riots is itself a good. By indicating that the riots directly led to a good you implicitly affirm a morally positive effect, notwithstanding the fact that the means were immoral. Even the Unabomber admitted freely that murder is wrong, but he saw the positive that could result as outweighing the negative moral act of setting off bombs. This is a difficult logic to dispute if you are looking strictly at results, but impossible to agree with if one is speaking of means. Since you specifically called attention to a positive effect of the riots you chose to focus on the results. Just saying.

[ May 04, 2015, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Was the driver facing the highest charge? How did they assign more blame to one?
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
impossible to agree with if one is speaking of means
I should point out that pretty much every military action becomes unequivocally evil if you believe this is true.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It was the driver who got the highest charge. There's at least one report that he and another officer were discussing the idea of taking Gray to get help when interrupted by a call to transport another prisoner. It may have been either the decision, or the actual driving, that was considered basis for the additional charge.

source

quote:
While discussing the transportation of Mr Gray for medical attention, a request for additional units was made for an arrest at the 1600 West North Avenue. Officer Porter left the [vicinity] of Druid Hill Avenue to assist in the arrest of another prisoner at North Avenue.
Despite M. Gray’s obvious and recognized need for medical assistance, Officer Goodson in a grossly negligent manner chose to respond to the 1600 block of West North Avenue with Mr. Gray still unsecured by a seatbelt in the wagon without rendering to or summoning medical assistance for Mr Gray.

source
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So I've also read conflicting reports on the "belted in" part. Is that or is it not policy? If it is NOT policy, is this so constantly being pointed out because of him claiming the need for medical assistance? In which case that SHOULD trump the policy? Or just that it's an obviously bad policy which practicaly invites abuse in the form of a "rough ride" Seneca mentioned earlier?
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 55 pages: 1  2  3  ...  50  51  52  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