General News A plot twist in the Ferguson police case...

This entire country is a tragedy. Everyone convicts everyone else before there is even a trial. We should just go back to mob rule and see how much more happy everyone will be. That seems to be what everyone wants.

 

I will agree that it's a tragedy (no matter which way the pendulum swings). Nothing has been proven yet. Yet you say the officer is a criminal? I think that's unfair and very unamerican to cast judgement before the court rules.

 

Yeah but if the court rules him innocent and I still disagree does it mean I am still unamerican. There is nothing American about the police and the unconstitutional laws they pose on people which I think are wrong.

 

Ruprect, I have not seen a single mainstream media source confirm that Wilson was injured in a serious manner, or at all. I've only seen it from very conservative blogs and groups whose record is not reliable at all.

You are trying to justify the killing on evidence we don't even have released by unreliable sources. Forgive me if I don't take a single thing you base from that seriously.

 

I'm not sure which laws you think are wrong at this point, but I will say that if a criminal attacks a police officer, it is wrong no matter what.

We have courts to sort these matters out. Public opinion based on sensationalist news stories only gets you fired up.

 

And you're not a member of the public with a sensational story behind your thinking who's fired up ideologically?

Or is it only foolish if you support the dead man and question (very regularly-occurring) police brutality?

---------- Post added 22nd Aug 2014 at 10:55 AM ----------

And also; do you see an injury in that video? I can't see one at all, let alone a serious one. He seems undisturbed by this injury given how severe it's supposed to be.

 

Your basically saying the the public is below the police officers. The Police are animals and if you are not harming anyone or their property than the police should leave you alone. This incident is one of millions in this country about abuse of power within the police department and that should be wrong. If you want to spoke pot than you should able to or if you want to have a billions of guns you should be able to without police enforcement. With the president and us politicians being outrange this is more than a public opinion it is a national trajedy and any court decision means nothing to me.

 

I have a couple of issues with this post. First your calling the people that protect you on a daily bases animals. Secondly your saying its the polices faults for enforcing the law (regarding pot). The police don't leave people alone because they are enforcing the laws. If you have a problem with what laws the police enforce than you need to change that with politicians. Not blame the people enforcing them.

Aussie792 refering to your question about the police officer being injured someone posted a couple links to fox, Abc, and cnn. I think on page three or four but not quite sure.

 

I'm a member of the public that is sick and tired of people acting like fools. Whether they are officers or citizens, they make me wonder. Are laws so difficult to obey?

 

Well clearly the police aren't capable of it. Someone has been killed, and you're calling him a fool and at fault for jaywalking.

 

The police officer was threatened. The shooting was not because he was jaywalking it was because he assaulted the police officer then threatened to again. I am confused at how you are missing most of the timeline. No one has claimed that the office went,"hey kid get out of the street' (immediately without further warning he shot). That is what you are claiming. He is not calling him a fool for jaywalking he is calling he a fool for a myriad of different things culminating in an assault on a police officer.

 

There's no proof of an assault. There's only the proof of a shooting. Whether or not the assault happened is yet to be determined, and if it is, its seriousness and the danger it posed is still very much up for questioning.

For people so desperately clinging to the idea of being impartial and factual, you're very fond of taking a side already with remarkably little evidence.

My argument is that a policeman abused his powers. It's extremely rare for police shootings to be justified. I'm not saying that he wasn't in danger (though we don't know if he was or wasn't.) What I'm saying is that the police are acting in an essentially corrupt and obstructive way.

 

Yes i respect the police in general but they can also choose not to enforce certain laws and never will get caught. I am against any drug laws or gun laws and those laws the police can avoid enforcing. But I understand that politicians create some laws but it is because the state and district attorneys bribe politicians to create unconstitutional laws which make them more money to act as a unlawful officer. When the police shot my cousin twenty times in the back when he already was dead it serves them right to be called animals.

 

If it is so extreme rare for police shooting to be justified I would like to ask where is the evidence for that. From the FBI it is sated that there are around 400 justified police shootings a year. So for a justified shooting to be rare that means there has to be around ten times as many un-justified shootings. That would point to roughly 4400 people dieing in police shootings every year... With there being 900000 registered police officers in america serving an average of 20 years that means that a police officer would have an almost one in ten change of fataly shooting someone during their career.

‘A dozen witnesses’ say Ferguson teen attacked cop before shooting | New York Post
http://www.nleomf.org/facts/enforcement/

 

I don't call him a fool for something as simple as jaywalking. I call him a fool for assaulting an officer of the law. I fail to see why you seem to think that's an appropriate activity.

 

I never said that. You know that. I have doubts over whether it happened, but if he did, that doesn't mean I've called it justified.

My problem is that you're jumping to defend the policeman for shooting him six times when we don't know what the threat was.

 

My problem is that your immdietly assuming he is guilty. I have to ask have you ever been in the situation were there was the potential for violence. Especially in a "rough" neighborhood. Also have you ever been around law enforcement or guns or "rough" neighbors hoods. I have and something's the only thing keeping you alive are police officers with guns. Let's just say there are a lot more good cops then there are good 6-5 men jaywalking and assaulting police officers. Also why are people always being up that he shot six times? It may seem like overkill hut that's what they are trained to do.

 

Thence we expound upon whether it happened or not. Puzzle me this. How does an officer end up with. A fractured face whilst doing his normal rounds? The mri shows thr fucked up bones. I don't see any way out of that. It's not something you happen acrossed , then say I'll shoot someone to cover up the fact my face was beat in. The officer was clearly assaulted.

I apologize for my punctuation and such since I'm on a phone.

 

That's entirely the problem. You've completely misunderstood me if you think that I'm opposing this individual case and are fine with police methods.

Why are they trained to do that? They're not defending the public if they're allowed to kill the public, even if they were assaulted. I don't see killing threats to them as their job, nor do I see bringing armoured cars to a protest as a legitimate act of protection. Tell me what they're doing in terms of protection if they're attacking the people they have jurisdiction over.

 

The armored cars were a show of force in hops of them dispersing because they were a danger to ten selfs and everyone around them. They shoot multiple times because most often when they shoot the the target is often shooting back. The seek to end the situation as soon as possible to protect the public. I think your rather confused by saying police attack. Police never attack they only defend. When the police "attack" the people they have jurisdiction over it is because they are a threat to the people around them and the community as a whole. The only time police take the offensive is when a serous crime has already happened or is clearly about to happen so it's protection they are doing. The police don't attack the public the public is a group of innocent people that don't commit major crimes or threaten to. There are a lot of place in America the resemble war zones and this has nothing to do with the police. This has to do with the people in the police jurisdiction fighting.