An inconvenient truth

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Photizo, Nov 29, 2014.

  1. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Reed is a professional writer
    who makes money by writing articles which are grossly offensive.
    He is not a good role model for you.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    I see in your previous posts you’ve corralled your own posse of pundits to counter the assertions of Paul Cassell, and ironically in doing so you seem to have come to the same basic conclusion made by Cassell, that the Ferguson grand jury process was fair, only in your estimation too fair. You argue that because this grand jury was not biased towards indictment as grand juries typically are, then it amounts to a travesty of justice because it represents justice denied to the typically accused. That argument should be reserved to make a case against lack of fairness in the typical grand jury process, not against the fairness inherent in this one.

    In the process of plowing through your ensemble of pundits, I came across one that very closely mirrors my own thoughts on the matter.

    Don't Blame the Grand Jury for Not Indicting Darren Wilson. Blame the Law.

    By Yishai Schwartz

    But Casselman's article buried the point. It is true that most grand juries choose to indict, but it also true that most grand juries only ever hear cases when a prosecutor is convinced that there ought to be a trial. That was not the case here. McCulloch was in a bind. As became clear in his remarks last night, he genuinely did not believe that Wilson had committed a crime. And a prosecutor is obligated to only “file charges that he or she believes adequately encompass the accused’s criminal activity” and to “refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.” In ordinary circumstances, McCulloch would have declined to file charges. But in this case, McCulloch could not simply do nothing—this would have annihilated trust in the criminal justice system. So he did the only thing he could do: He took himself out of the equation and presented all available evidence to the grand jury.

    It is true that the prosecutor does not usually present everything to the grand jury, and McCulloch’s decision to do so here has infuriated many. The New Republic's Noam Scheiber insists that the proper forum for “establishing the underlying facts of a case” is an actual trial, and McCulloch should have presented evidence selectively in order to ensure an indictment. In Vox, former federal prosecutor Alex Little accused McCulloch of “abdicating his role in the process as an advocate for justice.” But that's not the role of a prosecutor, who is an advocate for justicenot for conviction. Prosecutors are obligated to “disclose any credible evidence of actual innocence” to the grand jury, and when guiding a grand jury toward an indictment, prosecutors must do so out of conviction that their story is the truth. A trial is not the forum for establishing the underlying facts of everycase; it is the forum for establishing the facts of a case where the prosecutor believes a crime was committed and the defendant will not plead guilty. Most cases never come to trial at all. So what was unusual in St Louis County was that filed charges at all, not that he presented all evidence.

    I agree with the conclusion that McCulloch likely considered the evidence too weak to obtain an indictment, but felt compelled for the sake of judicial consensus to let that sentiment be expressed through a citizen jury.

    I appreciated the inclusion of the links to prosecutorial obligation that seems to be lacking in many of the articles regarding this case. Also lacking in such articles are the obligations and responsibilities of the jurors.

    From the state of Illinois Grand Juror Handbook:


    The grand jury has the duty of inquiring into matters relating to crime or corruption in the area it serves. This information generally comes to its knowledge in the following ways:

    1. Information submitted by the Prosecutor.
    2. Information that may come to its knowledge in the course of its investigation of other matters.
    3. Information called to its attention by the Court.
    4. Information that it has of its own knowledge.
    Most of the cases that you will consider as a grand juror will be brought to your attention and come before you as a result of investigation and preparation by the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor will be either the State’s Attorney, the Attorney General or an assistant to either of them. He or she is the officer charged by law with the prosecution of crime in the county. However, the grand jury possesses broad powers of its own to inquire into crime and corruption in its jurisdiction. It has a right under the law to make its own investigation unaided by the Court and assisted by any prosecuting attorney. On petition signed by the foreperson and 8 other grand jurors, showing good cause for same, the Court may appoint an investigator or investigators to assist the grand jury in its inquiries. Included in this power of investigation is the right of the grand jury to subpoena witnesses and documents.

    While neither the Court nor the Prosecutor may limit the scope of a grand jury investigation, you should remember that these officials are available for advice and counsel in any investigation the grand jury may wish to undertake. Ordinarily, the grand jury will not act independently of the Court and the Prosecutor. However, if these officials may be concerned in any investigation contemplated by the grand jury, the jury has a right to seek the advice of the Attorney General.


    Generally the Prosecutor will arrange to have witnesses available to appear before the grand jury and ordinarily only witnesses for the State will be called to testify. In this way, proceedings before the grand jury differ from a trial of a case. However, the grand jury itself has the right to subpoena and question any person against whom the Prosecutor is seeking a Bill of Indictment, or any other person, and to obtain and examine any documents or transcripts relevant to the matter being presented by the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor will inform the grand jury of these and other rights prior to the commencement of its duties and, again, before the consideration of each matter or charge before it. Witnesses may have legal counsel present in the grand jury room to advise them of their rights but counsel may not participate during the proceedings in any other way. If a witness requires an interpreter, the Court will authorize the presence of one in the grand jury room.

    In atypical approach, grand jury in Ferguson shooting receives full measure of case

    The St. Louis County prosecutor’s office is taking an unusual approach with grand jury members who are weighing evidence against the police officer who shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown last month, experts and county officials said.

    Instead of telling grand jury members what charges they believe police officer Darren Wilson should face, they are leaving it open-ended for now and involving the grand jury as co-investigators.

    “Normally they hear from a detective or a main witness or two. That’s it,” Magee said. “This gives us an opportunity to present all of the evidence to jurors who represent St. Louis County. They will make the decision.”

    Susan W. McGraugh, a criminal-defense lawyer and a professor at the Saint Louis University School of Law, said that the approach is allowed under the law and that prosecutors sometimes use it in high-profile cases.

    “The prosecutor may want cover, which they can get by sharing the responsibility with the grand jury,” McGraugh said. “So when the public reacts to what does or does not happen, they can go back to the fact that the grand jury played a large role in the decision. They can say, ‘We let these jurors, who are your peers, hear what witnesses had to say. This was their decision.’ ”

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    I'm reminded of a situation in Australia recently, in which a teenager shot and killed by police was portrayed in the media as the innocent victim of police aggression.
    Never mind that the police didn't open fire until he'd already knifed two of them. The "reality" portrayed in the media was that of a Muslim kid shot by police who was a "good kid" until... erm... something something. Intolerance of Muslim belief blah blah.
    The aftermath was a thousand or so mourners who had nothing good to say about the police at a funeral, and whom almost started a riot. The overriding belief being, of course, that this kid was an innocent victim of manipulation who'd been unfairly been shot by police. With all the requisite religious overtones and hints at intolerance and repression.

    What should be a concern is the ease with which the common populace decides its ok to defy police. That the police are forced to carry guns at all, or that they are often placed in a position where to shoot first is often a survival mechanism, more than a reaction to what is presented to them.
    What often gets lost in these little "intellectual" discussions, is that the "arms race" in law enforcement wasn't a problem until relatively recently. I should note here I use the term "intellectual" as loosely as it often is, these days.

    It's absolutely fucking disgusting. There isn't even a nod toward fact, or reasonable discussion these days. And I suppose the real comedic moments are provided by those who deem "fact" or "reasonable discussion" as being anything one might get away with, under the confines of the rules under which they can operate. Your argument can be as misinformed, twisted and manipulative as necessary, just don't say "fuck".
    Or, god forbid, insult an idiot.

    The real problem is the lack of respect toward law enforcement which was, up until relatively recently, commonplace. The illusion here is that the police themselves are responsible for the escalation in violence as a result of law enforcement. Because, you know, they'd give up all that authority they once had, if it meant they could carry a pistol.
    It's the kind of illusion Bells and Tiassa, all those like them, would have you buy into.
    Unfortunately, it just isn't even close to reality.
    All the Band-Aids in the world would need to be applied before they'll realise it's their own idealism which allows this kind of thing to begin with. Before they get that the bloated, immobile morass calling itself reality is the result of their own rigidity.
    Did I just use the word "rigidity"? Yes. Yes I did. The thing they presume they're against, they represent. But they do not know.

    Did you notice the use of the word "toy"? I did. This is the kind of tactic we're subjected to on a daily basis, on this forum.
    I wonder what Bells would do, when faced with a gun in her face.
    Perhaps she'd try to reason with said gun owner. Explain to him the unreasonableness of his actions. Perhaps she'd recognise that that implement in a 12-year old's hand is only a replica. Or a BB gun. I owned one of those once, and I can be reasonably certain that if faced with it, it wouldn't have had me immediately thinking it was a fake. I would, in fact, have been rather frightened.
    Of course, at some point or another, Bells would be just another dead cop. And whoever shot her, a "victim of society". A point on which, incidentally, I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

    The real winner, of course, being the bullshit you're being fed here.

    And, of course, the likes of Rodney King... dead of a drug overdose, upon the proceeds of the money y'all granted him as a result of his treatment at the hands of the police he had such a disrespect for.
    Because that's all it is, isn't it. We reward stupidity, and punish those who have the odorous duty of keeping that same stupidity in line... so that you can all sleep at night, and post meaningless excrement on the value of human life.

    I mean, you have to wonder. At which point does "training and education" replace simple human reaction? To the kind of stupidity enforced, backhandedly or otherwise, by the apologist crap we're being fed here?
    Bells and Tiassa won't stop until the police force are replaced with Robocop.
    Unthinking, unfeeling, inhuman, perfect enforcement.

    I am one of those who used to come on here thinking it was fun, watching all of you.
    These days, I'm often more involved with choking back the bile.
    I suppose there is some solace in knowing I'll no doubt be long dead before the world they would wish upon you becomes a reality.

    "An Inconvenient Truth"?
    Just another internet meme, now.
  8. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Even though the number of police killings is shockingly high,
    it should be remembered that 99% of US Officers go through their careers without killing anyone.
    ( A guess. But if you get the statistics, I bet I'm not far off)
    And many of those that do kill, do so to protect life.

    But just as paedophiles will take jobs that give them contact with children,
    there are some people who will join the army or the police because they want to commit unjustifiable violent acts with impunity.
    These kinds of people need to be detected and rooted out.
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    What, that's it? An article that contradicts your prior argument? And no address of any questions? You know, like the really simple one about who else gets this particular process?

    I won't waste my time answering your attitude problem in the future.

    Your disrespect for the U.S. Constitution is why you're wrong.

    Your disrespect for other people is why they shouldn't waste a second on anything you have to say.

    As has been noted repeatedly, the grand jury itself wasn't the problem; the prosecutors presenting it were. You're still just a walking, whining fallacy.
  10. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    A good policeman is the opposite of that.
    A common denominator in many of the cases I'm aware of is impulsive overreaction.
    It must be something wrong with the training.
    Either that, or the wrong type of person has been hired.

    In both cases, while the officer must take responsibility for his actions, the greater fault lies in the organisation.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2014
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Can you link where it was portrayed as that in the media?

    Because when Numan Haider stabbed the two police officers, the reaction from just about everyone was to praise the two officers. The only person who said that he should not have been shot was the hard liner Sheik who is a supporter of ISIS, the very organisation that Haider had been prevented from leaving the country to go and join without his own family knowing.

    And let's be clear here, since you are trying to use this as a comparison. Haider walked up to the two counter terrorism police officers, said hello, shook their hands and then stabbed them.

    Counter-terrorism officers met Haider outside Endeavour Hills police station in Melbourne’s southeast about 7.45pm after the teen told police he felt uneasy about taking in the station’s foyer.

    He greeted the officers with a handshake before stabbing an AFP agent in the neck, abdomen and upper body.

    He then stabbed a Victoria Police officer twice in the arm.

    Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius said the Victorian officer fired a single shot that killed Haider.

    So perhaps you can explain why you are trying to change the narrative of that story? Because not a single news report portrayed Haider as "the victim" and I challenge you to link just one in the Australian media where they did portray him as a victim of police aggression. Quite the contrary. Muslim leaders called for a thorough investigation and also called for systems being put in place to prevent people like Haider from being attracted to hard line extremists. Systems that would stem the feeling of feeling left on the outside of society and being preyed upon by extremists like Haider was.


    Where in the world are you coming up with this?

    Hundreds of people gathered at a mosque in Melbourne's south-east to farewell Numan Haider on Friday.

    The body of the 18-year-old terror suspect, having been taken to the Doveton mosque on Thursday afternoon, lay inside the faded yellow brick building.

    Grieving friends and relatives - men, women and children - started to arrive long before the 1pm prayer and embraced in the asphalt carpark.


    Police had begun patrolling early, partly because of the tension the media presence created. "We probably wouldn't be here if you guys weren't," came a comment.

    An officer in plain clothes, wearing an earpiece, knelt on the ground at one point to check under a car. "Is this your guys?" he asked as he dabbed fingers into liquid under the car, smelling the substance.

    Neighbours stood in their front yards, drawn out of their homes.

    But it was quiet. Men came carrying prayer rugs over their shoulders and unfurled them onto the asphalt as hundreds lined-up for prayer and farewell.

    Women filed into a separate part of the building. Their mourning would be more private.

    The prayers ended and men began filing out. One lifted an index finger to the sky as he walked past the cameras, but most averted their gaze.

    Mr Haider's body, in a coffin and draped in green and yellow cloth, was driven away in a hearse.

    As women filed out one collapsed to the ground crying and was surrounded, shielded by the others.

    Mr Haider's body was taken to a nearby cemetery

    Is there a reason for your decision to blatantly lie and misrepresent fact in such a way?

    Well frankly, after the lies you just tried to pull in this thread, do you really think anyone is going to take you seriously?

    The irony of this is that you have just been caught out lying your arse off to try and support your point.

    Where was your "nod toward fact"? Do you often lie so much in "reasonable discussions"? And considering how you just tried to get away with blatant lies and misrepresentation of facts, did you think the Australians participating in this thread would not know what you are talking about?

    What was your goal when you tried to manipulate the truth to suit your narrative, The Marquis?

    Who said that they should give up their guns?

    What people are saying is that police need to receive better training. Because they need better training. Less people will die if they get better training in how to deal with the public. The police should not be going around in military gear and hardware. I mean perhaps it's just me, but I fail to see or understand why the local police stations need to have grenade launchers and armored anti-mine vehicles for highway patrols. It's bloody stupid. You obviously disagree, so much so that you are making stuff up to support your beliefs. You want to deal with facts, stop lying, then get back to me about facts.

    Which reality is that? The real reality or the one you just tried to make up?

    Again, which reality do you speak of? The one in your head? Or actual reality that you just tried your best to misrepresent and lie about?

    Because it was a toy gun. Had you read the link, you'd have realised that the people who called the police had even advised that the gun the 12 year old was holding was a toy.

    The police drove up onto the grass, right up to where the kid was sitting, opened the door and opened fire. It took about 2 seconds all up. The kid did not even have time to react to the police car that had driven right up to him before he was fatally shot. Why? For looking distressed in a park and playing with a toy gun, so much so that someone called the police about it, told the police the gun was a toy gun, and the police shot the kid.

    How about the one where the police threw a flash bang grenade into a cot, onto a sleeping baby, abused the parents and mocked them for hours before telling them they could go and pick up their child who was actually fighting for his life in the hospital and is now permanently scarred and brain damaged as a result? Nothing? Nada? Of course not. Because you can't bring yourself to spin a lie about that one, can you?
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2014
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Naw, I'd pull a gun out and just shoot. Isn't that how it's meant to be?

    Best tell those police officers who do hostage negotiations that they are doing it wrong. That the correct response in every single instance is to just shoot and ask questions later. I mean shit, why even bother wondering if they have a gun or not. See a black person, just shoot them on sight. Saves time. That sound okay to you The Marquis?

    Because those toy guns are soooooo deadly.


    Considering you just tried to sell an absolute lie, I don't think you are in any position to to be making such statements.

    So it's okay for police officers to beat people up?

    Well, why bother with training at all? Just give them a gun, and a badge and just send them on out the door. I mean fuck training. Just do as Photizo desires be done and just shoot all the negroes down. Even if he's holding a toy or sleeping in a cot. Right? Training? Don't need training for that. That's your utopipa isn't it?
    Or you're here simply making up more lies.

    Do you even know what "truth" means anymore?
  13. Bells Staff Member


    So much this.

    Thank you for understanding what I was saying.

    This is exactly what I was saying earlier in the thread. Even the recruitment videos for the police make it look like in the movies, smashing down doors, SWAT teams, shooting guns. And the training focuses on this aspect. Very little on communication and how to respond to conflict and weighing up options. Now days it's literally just shoot first and ignore all other options. I mean look at the 12 year old with the BB gun sitting in the park. He wasn't pointing it at anyone. He wasn't even given time to put it down, for example. The car drove up, the cop jumped out of the car with his gun already out and opened fire. It literally happened within a couple of seconds. The boy did not even have a chance to react to the police car driving right up to him like that, let alone to the police officer who jumped out with his gun out and opened fire. There was no pause in stopping the car, opening the door as the car was coming to a stop, gun out and shooting him. It as all a fluid motion and impulsive. The result is a 12 year old kid dead. He wasn't pointing the gun at the police. He wasn't pointing it at the officer's face as The Marquis tried to insinuate by asking what I would do if someone pointed a gun at my face.

    The other example was the use of a banned and illegal chokehold procedure by the police force, but an officer used a choke-hold anyway, and kept doing it while the guy was down on the ground, telling them that he could not breath. And kept holding him in that chokehold even as he was dying. That officer wasn't indicted either.

    Remember the story of Amadou Diallo? He was shot 19 times (they fired 41 bullets, but hit him 19 times and the rest of the bullets went astray) and killed for pulling out his wallet which police mistook for a gun.
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    To what degree do people like this think it will never be their turn? And why do they think that way?

    It's a common aspect of the American discourse, at least, that doesn't get discussed. I don't know how that translates in the various nations of Her Majesty's empire, but we might consider the case of Cleveland, Ohio.

    It's not just the killing of Tamir Rice.

    Amid all the noise of this week's protest, yesterday Attorney General Holder arrived in Ohio to formalize the agreement by which the Department of Justice will now have a hand in Cleveland's police department.

    DoJ is getting involved at the request of the mayor of Cleveland.

    This is the second time in this young century DoJ will be doing this in Cleveland. It is something that happens from time to time, and often without the request of city officials. In Seattle, the feds are involved, and the police tried suing on the grounds that they could not properly enforce the law if they were not allowed to use illegal excessive force. And, yes, that one was thrown out. But it is also clear that the problem in Seattle is more than just a few proverbial bad apples.

    So to get one point out of the way: It turns out the police lied to the public in describing the shooting of Tamir Rice.

    You know what speeding while black gets you in Cleveland? One hundred seventy-three bullets fired by thirteen police officers.

    There is a reason the police tried to keep all the information from that incident hidden; everything about it was a violation of department policy.

    And there is a cop going up on a manslaughter charge. That's what happens when you jump up on the hood of a car and unload your weapon through the windshield. The entire scene looked quite a bit like a Hollywood production; department protocol calls for a maximum of two police cars in a chase like that, so naturally they put sixty-one units in pursuit.

    This is just one of the examples of why the mayor is asking for federal help.

    Why does anyone think they would be immune? If that has to do with skin color, well, they would be making a point toward racism in policing.

    We don't know why the driver fled. We don't know whether the dead passenger was contributing to the flight. Sixty-one cars, and don't even bother trying to arrest the driver, just start shooting and kill everyone in the car. And that's how it goes in Cleveland. And in addition to those two lives, the incident cost the city three million in the settlement.

    We might come back to the Tamir Rice slaying because of the absurdity of some of the emerging details.

    The wheelman in that shooting cost the city a hundred thousand dollars in a settlement, and the story is almost impossible to believe:

    On Aug. 7, 2010, Eaton, who was 39 at the time, returned to her home to find a car parked in front of her driveway on Clifton Boulevard. She called Cleveland police and to have a tow-truck sent. Eaton then got ready for bed.

    Unbeknownst to Eaton, Cleveland police had been sent to Eaton's neighborhood to find a suspect in a slaying. Garmback and Guerra found a man and woman walking down the street. The officers quickly arrested the man, despite the woman's loud protests, according to documents Bradley and Marein filed.

    Eaton came out of her home and believed that the officers were responding to her complaint of the car blocking her driveway. The lawsuit said Eaton did not want the person arrested for her complaint.

    The suit said Garmback initially argued with Eaton. It said Garmback then "rushed (Eaton) and placed her in a chokehold, tackled her to the ground, twisted her wrist and began hitting her body. Officer Guerra rushed over and proceeded to punch Tamela Eaton in the face multiple times."


    It's just a bizarre case, but it is also one that reminds the difference between ideas like "protect and serve" and "clear the sector".

    We had an episode in Seattle several years ago in which a teenage intern, the son of a cop killed in the line of duty, decided to take a cruiser out for a joyride. The police received calls about what appeared to be a kid driving around in one of their cars. The resulting scene was something akin to James Cameron's penchant for destroying police cars in his movies. An officer sees a suspect vehicle, chooses to ram it in order to prevent it from getting away. Except, well, it's one of the cruisers participating in the search for this rogue vehicle. The officer driving that car, believing the suspect has just attacked him with a two-ton t-bone, draws his weapon and starts shooting out of his car and into the other. The officer who rammed him, believing himself under attack, returns fire from inside his own car. More police arrive and the neighborhood becomes a Hollywood shootout.

    Meanwhile, the suspect was at that time back at the garage, returning the keys.

    I forget the exact number of officers shooting or rounds fired, but it was a massive shootout between badges. And they managed to hit exactly nobody. Cars and buildings were ventilated, but somehow they managed to discharge over a hundred rounds and not hit any actual people. Were they protecting the community, or clearing the sector?

    At what point, when a police officer thinks he's arresting a homicide suspect and a citizen is complaining that she just wanted the damn car towed from her driveway and didn't see why they were arresting the driver, does it occur to the cops to wonder at the separate issues? "What? What about your car? This is a murder suspect."

    Protect the community? Clear the sector? What? What are they doing?

    And that's just the wheelman.

    The officer who shot Tamir Rice? Apparently someone in the Cleveland Police Department described him at some point as a rookie, which is technically true if we take that to mean he was a rookie to that particular force.

    But Officer Tim Loehmann had previously worked for the police department in the town of Independence, Ohio, population 7,133. And he was dismissed from that force for being incompetent and dangerous; Adam Ferrise↱ of NE Ohio Meida Group explains:

    The Cleveland police officer who shot and killed 12-year-old Tamir Rice had issues with handling guns during his brief tenure with a suburban police department.

    A Nov. 29, 2012 letter contained in Tim Loehmann's personnel file from the Independence Police Department says that during firearms qualification training he was "distracted" and "weepy."

    "He could not follow simple directions, could not communicate clear thoughts nor recollections, and his handgun performance was dismal," according to the letter written by Deputy Chief Jim Polak of the Independence police.

    The letter recommended that the department part ways with Loehmann, who went on to become a police officer with the Cleveland Division of Police.

    "I do not believe time, nor training, will be able to change or correct the deficiencies," Polak said.

    Cleveland police said on Wednesday that they never reviewed the Independence file and changed their policies to include checking publicly available records for potential hires.

    There is a reason the city asked the Department of Justice to get involved in the Cleveland Police Department.

    And yet, because they're cops, there are plenty of people who will fall back, as our neighbor has, to emotionally-driven personal arguments.

    There is a reason why some want to stick with generalizations and emotion; perhaps they like the idea of Hollywood-fantasy cops, but there is always some sort of belief that it can never happen to them.

    What is happening in Cleveland is more than just a race issue; it is a human issue and a policing issue. And that's the thing: Until the cops are killing white people for stupid reasons in equal numbers, it really is going to look like racism when dark skin appears to be a criterion for defining why the officer is afraid. And such cops have no business being in the law enforcement business.


    Caniglia, John. "Cleveland paid out $100,000 to woman involving excessive force lawsuit against officer in Tamir Rice shooting". The Plain Dealer. 4 Decemeber 2014. 5 December 2014.

    Ferrise, Adam. "Cleveland officer who shot Tamir Rice had 'dismal' handgun performance for Independence police". Northeast Ohio Media Group. 3 December 2014. 5 December 2014.
  15. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    You people have a problem. You do not observe things as they are, you 'observe' things through the lens of a cultural marxist narrative (which in this case as in so many others, a situation is being used not as it is, but as it desired to be) that demands a particular universal perspective regardless of the facts. Events, situations, etc. will be twisted and contorted at any cost to 'align' it with that same narrative.

    No one's 'eyesight' is perfect, but there are some who see better than others do. This notion is unacceptable under the narrative you purport to live by, yet--ironically-- deep down you shamelessly embrace observable differences as the episdemological foundation of all you hold, it's just that they are disposable means (I believe the term is useful idiots) to a self centered end (~it's all about feeling 'good' about me and the rewards I deserve in whatever way I can selfishly grab/attain~) . It is why you adhere to the politics of division while hypocritically pontificating on how reality be damned, to you there are to be no distinctions/discriminations based on the natural distinctions OBSERVABLE in everyday life. You go with what you want reality to be rather than what it is and to you this is a virtue!! As such, by definition and by default you are entraped and entwined in self deception. Consequently, all that 'flows' out from that poisoned pit is lies.
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2014
  16. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Yes, you did say that.

    Police recruitment currently encourages the wrong kind of people.

    The problem spreads from the top down.
    If the Government is hell bent on fighting real wars against imaginary foes,
    what surprise is it that this filters down through every part of the system.
  17. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    It isn't me that is quoting a buffoon.
    Repeating the words of a nitwit as gospel.
  18. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Ok..and if I was to quote you I would be a liar like yourself.
    Nutter likes this.
  19. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    At what point did we stop adhering to the truth, and start fabricating absolute bullshit...
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Moment of cultural ignorance: Do other English-speaking nations have the equivalent of American sports radio, where people call in throughout the program to rant and rave in ways that reveal just how stupid they are?

    I learned to loathe sports radio when I was a kid. Every time the Seahawks lost, and on some days when they actually won, a parade of people would call in demanding that the team get rid of its quarterback, Dave Krieg. And that included the season he was the second-best passer in the league, trailing only the legendary Dan Marino. It's true, the team struggled, but you don't dump that good of a quarterback just because his offensive line can't block, or his receivers drop that many passes that hit them in the hands.

    I occasionally recount a tale about one day in the latter half of the nineties, probably '96 or '97, when my brother and I laughed our way downtown listening to people calling in and arguing over NASCAR, because there had been a fistfight in the pits.

    And compared to how other countries race cars, the American version is often just silly. At the local speedway, when I was in high school, we caught an evening of racing, and setting aside anything else we might suggest about stereotypes of racing culture in these United States, I adored the thrashed stock car with a sticker on its ass end, reading, "Go fast, turn left."

    And that was a point of contention on that day. We laughed when we first heard the report about the fistfight, but were astounded after we went through our shopping and returned to the car to find that over an hour later, the subject hadn't changed. The calls were getting louder and more belligerent, but it really didn't seem they could get much more stupid.

    And then this caller righteously proclaimed herself one who was around in the days of MLK and the civil rights marches, and argued that people who disdained the whole "go fast, turn left" aspect of NASCAR were just like the white supremacists in the 1950s.

    You know, because apparently selecting and working toward a career driving custom-built cars in circles is just like being born with dark skin.

    Then again, I don't recall any laws prohibiting a race car driver from marrying a white woman just because he was a race car driver.

    Right. Sports radio. It's an incredible phenomenon in these United States. That is to say it is an intellectual cesspit of unique dimensions.

    And sports radio is the only place I've ever heard a broadcast advertisement recruiting applicants for a police department.

    I would note, but only for comparison, that many people who used to tell me I was radical and extremist for disdaining police brutality back when it was Rodney King or the Drug War seem to have forgotten, abandoned, or, hopefully, reconsidered their principles, as these days none of them are defending police brutality as they did then.

    But even those weren't absolute sycophants to the police would hear about the recruitment advert and simply shrug: "Well, yeah. Who do you think goes into police work?"

    And every once in a while I think back to the twentysomething Oregon police cadet I knew who was having a sexual relationship with my girlfriend's fifteen year-old sister, and the fact that nobody ever seemed to think there was anything amiss about it. And that, unfortunately, includes me.

    But these days when I remember that time and consider the idea of a statutory-raping police cadet, it really is just a shrug and a mutter: Sounds about right.

    The thing is this: We all generally understand the need for law enforcement. We all understand that there are risks involved with performing such work. We all understand that these workers need to be protected from frivolous lawsuits. But for some reason, the idea that the enforcers of the law ought to obey the law is controversial, and our usual response as a society is to write new laws allowing police to do all sorts of things that would, without such statutory cover, be illegal.

    But here's the thing: We coddle and baby the police. The idea that there are risks involved is one thing, but when minimizing that risk means handing them a license to kill for no good reason, we've gone way too far. And, yet, because they are the police, it would seem that expecting them to actually protect society while performing their work protecting society is just too fucking much to ask. That is to say, as society tries to take back some of the abused extraordinary privilege, the police fight tooth and nail to protect the right to treat citizens poorly.

    It is a brutal truth of choosing that sort of job: Sometimes, it's just your turn to take a bullet; and sometimes, it's just your day to die.

    It's no longer a question of just a few bad apples. When the established procedure of being a police officer includes being a willfully provocative shit, there is a reason more and more people start accepting the argument that police are shit.
  21. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Last edited: Dec 5, 2014
  22. tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Indeed. I think the crux of the matter here is that certain colleagues aren't able to distinguish between facts and conjecture. They are also falling into the trap of believing that if you quote the conjecture of someone from a left-wing publication, it suddenly becomes fact. This isn't true. Conjecture remains conjecture, no matter whom is springs from, or what publication it is printed in.

    For example, it has been claimed that Wilson was questioned 'gently'. 'Gently' is a subjective term, and we should be asking ourselves, 'Gentle in comparison to what?' Has there been any study performed to compare the intensity of questioning of the suspect at other grand juries? Do we have video evidence of every grand jury to compare the intensity of the questioning? If the answer is 'No', then even the most stubborn liberal must concede that they are putting forth unsupported opinion, not fact.

    We then have left-wingers complaining that Wilson was questioned for four hours. When I pointed out that his waving of his 5th amendments rights put him at risk of incriminating himself, Bells just stated that this was impossible, since the grand jury was organised so that it wouldn't indict him. In otherwords, we have an example of circular logic: The grand jury process was geared to not indict Wilson (opinion), therefore anything that occurred during the proceedings worked in favour of Wilson. When your premise is supposition, not fact, then your conclusion cannot be anything other than conjecture.

    It's also interesting that Bells then went on to immediately contradict herself, by stating that Wilson contradicted himself on the stand. Not even the most biased of liberals here are questioning the integrity of the grand jurors, so one would think that they would find such contradictions pretty incriminating.

    Indeed, one would think that if one is lying about events, being questioned for *four hours* would put one at great risk of contradicting, and therefore incriminating, oneself. Bells and Tiassa can't even go for 3 posts without contradicting themselves, so what chance would Wilson have had if he was lying?

    I think it's also important to address the underlying bias and hatred of certain participants in this thread. I would like to draw attention to this thread:

    In the above thread, Tiassa stated that it was only because he was a pacifist that he does not endorse the wholescale slaughter of police officers. So it's rather obvious that he wasn't interested in Wilson having a fair and impartial judicial hearing. Tiassa is full of hate, and I suspect that he wanted the guy crucified simply because he wore a badge. It is also interesting to note that his pacifism hasn't led him to condemn attacks on police officers, or the rioting and violence that following the grand jury's failure to indict.

    We must then turn to our esteemed colleague, Bells. When a police officer in the above thread objected to Tiassa's statement, she failed to provide any form of sympathy. Instead, as is typical of her, she made the discussion about *her*. Police officers shouldn't complain about people targeting them for violence, because, well, lawyers are the target of mean jokes! Never mind that no-one had made any nasty or violent remarks about lawyers in that thread, Bells still felt the compulsion to adopt the status of eternal victim so that she could attack others with impunity.

    What we have here is concrete evidence that left-wingers aren't interested in justice mediated through an impartial and fair judicial process. What they really want is a judicial proceeding where the verdict is already set in stone. And that verdict is *their* verdict, which is based not on evidence, but bias, hatred, and supposition. Colour me shocked.
    joepistole likes this.
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Wow dude, you've outdone yourself! Taking some pages out of The Marquis's book, I see?

    I mean I get that you are going back to posts from months before you even came here and you are now actually lying about what I am saying, but really dude, this type of behaviour has to stop. It's not very attractive and I know how keen you were to tell us just how attractive you are. But taking comments and arguments out of context and then lying about it is pretty low, dude.

    Here was Gremmie's comment:

    C'mon Bells... I said many times, law enforcement is flawed... There is corruption. But, to make a blanket statement that ALL LEO,'s are shit, and should be "slaughtered" is beyond fucked up. You and I have had our moments in the past... But, to jump on Tiassas LEO hating wagon, just floors me. Without LEO's you wouldn't even have a job... I was Border Patrol, not a beat cop... Tiassa didn't care, just attacked me because he can. Then you joined in... I just don't get it... We shouldn't have cops? Just street Justice?... That's what I get from Tiassa. As he stated, anyone that wears a badge should be slaughtered...

    Honestly Bells... What if I said all attorneys were scum, and should be slaughtered? You wouldn't take any offense to that? Of course you would...I dedicated my life to my job, and Tiassa calls me a lying piece of shit, that should be killed... Yeah, seems fair.

    Gremmie was accusing me of apparently saying mean things about the police. Things I had never said. So here was my response.

    Firstly, I clearly stated I don't agree with Tiassa's wording or argument.

    Secondly, I do think the whole system itself is the issue, ergo the system itself is bad. And because it is what it is, it does tend to attract personality types who fit into that profile. Those who try to change things and speak out are often punished for doing so. It is too insulated and withdrawn onto itself

    As for his comment about what if people said mean things about lawyers..

    Is that meant to be a joke?

    Have you failed to notice just what is said about lawyers?

    From whole websites dedicated to funnies about killing lawyers, to being one of the most hated and detested professions.. To t-shirts about killing some in my profession

    We get it, you have an axe to grind, so much so that you are willing to troll through months worth of posts from before you ever came here to try to find something to make up about myself and others and misrepresent it so spectacularly.

    My argument then is the same as it is now. The system itself is corrupt and the method in which they recruit, train and police is more often then not, bad. Did you bother to read the rest of the thread where people clearly pointed out why they have an issue with the "blue wall"? You know, before you tried to misrepresent what I had actually said?

Share This Page