Ferguson cops, shot, released from hospital
Last night a protest outside the Ferguson police station turned ugly when two police officers were shot. According to Reuters, they’ve both been released from the hospital. By the way, neither were members of the Ferguson Police Department;
A 41-year-old officer from the St. Louis County Police was struck in the shoulder and a 32-year-old officer from the nearby Webster Groves Police Department had a bullet lodged near his ear after it passed through his cheek, Belmar said.
“This is really an ambush, is what it is,” Belmar said. “You can’t see it coming. You don’t understand that it’s going to happen.”
The shots rang out as a rally in front of the city’s police headquarters was dispersing hours after the local police chief resigned. After months of criticism, Police Chief Tom Jackson quit in the wake of a scathing U.S. Justice Department report finding his force was rife with racial bias.
I guess this is what happens when the evidence doesn’t support public opinion’s conclusions in some circles. Of course, the police have even more reason to be cautious in law enforcement situations which will only anger the public even more, in turn.
Category: Police
Disestablish police, municipal government, wall it off, rename the place “Coventry.”
Let them police themselves.
“them”
I applaud your brevity (at long last) but, unfortunately, whatever you wished to convey was lost, at least on me. Would you prefer “they?” How about “dem?”
“Lars”
WORD.
DITTO
++100
Sad it is to be soooo slow.
I read “Lars” as referring to the hillbilly pronunciation of “Liars”.
Oh well kinda fits anyway.
Not a liar.
Almost all of time.
The comment from Lars references the “Us vs. Them” mentality.
Essentially, he’s alluding to the fact that categorizing minorities as “them” serves to justify the majority’s unequal treatment of the minority and attempts to serve the majority groups desire to stay in power.
Except that “they” have yet to explain how to accurately convey the description of those people over there (usually spoken simply as the single word them) as opposed to these people over here. All the people of Ferguson are them to me because they are there, not here. But our learned betters know that, or should.
Those who excuse their own inability to articulate a message by condemning those who can are fools. They seem to have at least temporarily won the argument. Perhaps mostly because the rest of us refused to argue with them.
Vunables
Thanks. I was unaware that anyone here was capable of interpreting Larspeak. Me, I’d have an easier time understanding Khoisan clickspeak so my hat is off to you, Byrdman.
Trying to understand Lars, to me, is like trying to smell the color 9.
Even my granddaughter knows that the number 9 smells like purple.
Exactly, thank you. You summed it up clearly, and succinctly.
I don’t think I would have been able to do that. I would have written paragraphs, with historical narrative, to essentially try to explain the same thing.
So, Lars . . . then tell us: how does someone who doesn’t live in Ferguson refer collectively to the people living in Ferguson?
The OED gives the most common defintion for the word “them” as follows:
What you’re objecting to here seems to be nothing more than correct use of the term in standard English. Seems to me that in turn means you’re (1) jumping to conclusions; (2) trying to manufacture outrage where none is due; or (3) trying to redefine common language from a PC perspective. You have no reason to do the first, and both of the latter are unacceptable.
Except you never actually mentioned anyone.
And whenever the term “they” is used in the context of ‘walling a community off’ it is being used in precisely the way that invoked the criticism.
“Not mentioned”? Geez. First: you’re implying I made the original statement in question (the first comment above) by your choice of words in the comment immediately above. I didn’t make the original statement. Second: your “you never actually mentioned anyone” assertion here is absurd. In my comment above (remember: I didn’t make the original comment in question), I clearly identified the fact that I was referring to the people living in Ferguson. I guess you missed that point – or disregarded it. Third: are you really so “challenged” that you don’t comprehend the intended antecedent of “they” in the original comment? The context – together with the plain content of the statement – makes it completely clear that one possible intended reference was to the city of Ferguson and the residents thereof. The article is about an incident occurring in that city; the comment itself refers to municipal government. IMO someone would have to be pretty thick not to see that possible intended reference. Are you really that thick? Do you truly not understand the phrase “the things or people being spoken about” in the definition? Or are you deliberately obfuscating here? The statement you’re complaining about above is completely race-neutral on its face. It may or may not have unstated racist intent. However, you’d have to know the speaker personally (or have analyzed a large body of his/her written work) in order validly to impute racist intent to that statement. Do you personally know the person who made the comment? Have you analyzed a large (say, 100+ examples) of his/her writen work? I rather doubt it. I’d guess you’re simply assuming based on your own beliefs and biases, then asserting your assumption as proven fact – when it is not yet proven, and you thus have no actual knowledge whether or not it is fact. However, that doesn’t surprise me much. When someone views the world through race-tinted glasses – and you certainly seem to be doing exactly that based on your comments above – they’ll almost always see racist intent. In fact, they’ll see it whether it’s really… Read more »
Lars is equipped with special skills that allow him to detect racism where the common person would not ever see it.
Thus, using the word ‘them’ is racist because, well it JUST IS DAMMIT!
“I don’t think I would have been able to do that. I would have written paragraphs, with historical narrative, to essentially try to explain the same thing.”
No shit.
Cops are NOT pop-up targets, and if people want to be treated decently, then they need to stop acting like thugs.
Racist? Fine. I’ve been called worse.
There is video of the non working thug class committing assaults during this “protest”. Thugs can’t even congregate without committing random violence and it was perfectly displayed yesterday.
There is certainly no doubt you are a damn racist, Fatcircles.
Whenever anybody throws down the race, they do not have anything valid to add thereby negating their participation in the discussion.
Funny I didn’t mention race at all.
I suggest your take a literacy course at your local community college of graduate high school before you start throwing accusations based upon your illiterate delusional.
A racist with zero integrity.
Not surprised.
Everything I stated Is fact recorded on video.
The truth is now racist. Heard it here first.
You know damn well what you meant when you wrote “non working thug class”
If you were talking about legitimate ‘thugs’ as the term is defined your next sentence would be tautological.
The only way his next sentence says anything at all is if you intended “thug” to be a euphemism for a race.
And you know it.
Ok Al Sharpton.
Once again, Lars special skill detect dog whistle racism. A special kind of racism that only he can see and hear but the rest of us should take as fact.
Lars, have you ever articulated an intelligent thought in your life? I get that your mommy (or mommy figure, as the case may be) told you that you’re just the specialest boy in the whole wide world, but that carries all the weight of a unicorn fart in the real world. Fatcircles made no mention of race, he simply pointed out that the “protestors” were proud members of the thug class. The thug class includes black “gangstas,” hispanic “cholos,” and various shades of white shitbags, as well as all the other flavors of lawbreaking turd under the sun.
For the intelligent adult, there is no need to explain this self-evident point. Yet you require explanation. Quad erat demonstrandum…
And then, of course, you seized the opportunity to declare yourself better than somebody else, based on your pedestrian failure to comprehend an obvious point and your assumptions about the person who made it. My 4-year-old niece is smarter and more mature than you. She also offers more enlightening conversation.
Racist? What!
Have you ever met FatCircles?
Do you know what his ethnic orientation is?
Do you know what a conclusion is?
You have no basis at all for what you said, taylor.
You are WAY out of line with that statement, so far in fact that you will never be able to take it back.
You just screwed yourself sideways.
He’s so far up his own ass I’m impressed he can even get internet signal up there.
It was completely uncalled for.
Does this clone of Insipid wish to tangle with Ten Bears?
I think Insipid made more sense.
The person who hollers ‘racist’ at someone else is the biggest offender trying to hide it.
You are completely out of line, taylor. Keep it up. You are digging a huge hole you will never get out of.
The internet is FOREVER!!!! And YOU put YOUR NAME on YOUR POSTS. They will be here forever. Everyone will see them.
Idiot.
I clearly do not condone looting, violence against officers, or anything of that nature.
It is possible to agree that the Brown shooting was a clean shoot while also recognizing that the Ferguson PD is a far less than stellar operation. The two positions are not mutually exclusive in spite of what some would have you believe.
I often wonder had the issues in Ferguson been addressed previously as they occurred if the Brown case would have had as much impact on the local populace or the national scene. There was no excuse for violently protesting the Brown case, but there is always a case for protesting a police force that isn’t responsive to the community it is supposed to serve.
We are getting far more Kelly Cruz cops these days than Andy Griffith cops…and I remain unconvinced that the continued militarization of local police using masks to hide their faces is in the best interest of the public.
“It is possible to agree that the Brown shooting was a clean shoot while also recognizing that the Ferguson PD is a far less than stellar operation. The two positions are not mutually exclusive in spite of what some would have you believe.”
TWEET!
(Referee assumes Rodan’s “Thinker” pose.)
“UNAUTHORIZED USE OF LOGIC, REASON, AND COMMON SENSE IN CONNECTION WITH THE INTERNET SHITSTORM DU JUOR, TEN-YARD PENALTY, STILL FIRST DOWN!”
Thank you lightening the mood and making me laugh out loud at my desk…
Poohbah, Lord High Everything Else…I respect Veritas Omnia Vincit and his writings greatly. Like him though, you made laugh.
There it is!
A few inches is all that separated the two police officers from death. Now, if you are a police officer, do you think that this story will encourage you to be more open to the concerns of the community, even if it causes separation in the this blue line? Hell no. You’ll close ranks tighter and pull that piece quicker than ever. So, nice work there shooter. Oh, and honorable mention goes to Al, Dead Fatty’s stepfather or whatever he was, and, of course, the DOJ.
Wonder how many protesters reside in Ferguson. Probably a fairly low percentage. Probably none of the organizers.
Would anyone be surprised to discover that George Soros paid for most of it? Not that chaos is on his agenda. No, never. (yeah, that was sarcasm)
According to a report on the mid-day news, the two police officers were shot from a bridge.
Someone recorded the flash.
This was not done by protestors. It was someone taking advantage of the opportunity to do harm.
Think I read that bridge was about 120 yards away – while I realize that is not like a mile off, that is far enough that hitting the cops instead of the ground had to have some level of experience to even tag a couple of hits – there’s some holdover needed at that range regardless of caliber.
I read that the police found pistol brass.
All I have is the TV news as a source. I haven’t seen any written stuff, so I myself don’t like speculating. But if anyone can supply something concrete, that would help fill the gaps.
That incident gets more and more sinister.
Shooting innocent cops is wrong. Absolutely. Unequivocally. If anyone tries to spin what I am about to post as supporting shooting innocent cops then they are full of shit. So here goes: It is inaccurate to claim as you did in your post that “this is what happens when the evidence doesn’t support public opinion’s conclusions in some circles.” This is the bottom line up front of the DoJ investigation. Quoted verbatim: “Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs. This emphasis on revenue has compromised the institutional character of Ferguson’s police department, contributing to a pattern of unconstitutional policing, and has also shaped its municipal court, leading to procedures that raise due process concerns and inflict unnecessary harm on members of the Ferguson community. Further, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including racial stereotypes. Ferguson’s own data establish clear racial disparities that adversely impact African Americans. The evidence shows that discriminatory intent is part of the reason for these disparities. Over time, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices have sown deep mistrust between parts of the community and the police department, undermining law enforcement legitimacy among African Americans in particular” http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf The evidence absolutely does support outrage. This community has been preyed on by a racially biased municipal government for decades. A government that has been using traffic enforcement and law enforcement as a pretext for a regime of predatory municipal revenue generation off the black community. If this had been happening to your community, to your neighborhood, to your family by a predatory local government would you consider violence? I think many would. It would be wrong to commit violence against innocents, but the impulse to commit violence against those that represent the predatory practices is a predictable response by a population in a case like this. Our nation was born out of the notion that it is justified to revolt in violence against a predatory rent seeking government that unjustifiably takes from a people without regard for the interests of… Read more »
Nice. Condemn the violence and then justify it. What we really need is cultural reform on a national scale in this country.
I understand why you are interpreting my post to say I am justifying violence.
Committing violence against innocent people is wrong.
However, our national narrative, and part of our national identity is the philosophical notion that committing violence against a predatory government regime is justified.
So when a local government acts as a predatory regime against a population of Americans, who hold the idealized notion that it is just to revolt against a predatory government, then the fact that these Americans might commit violence against the regime or the regime’s representatives is a predictable outcome.
This has happened several times in the our history. Shay’s rebellion being the first major case.
I am not making the argument that any specific act of violence if a just act. Each act would need to be considered individually. Not every act American revolutionaries committed against the British or the Tories was a just act.
Shooting two innocent cops was an unjust act. Without question.
However, I am arguing that violence is a predictable and generally justified outcome when a government preys on Americans. That does not excuse or justify any specific act of violence. I am arguing that notion of violence itself is justifiable.
Your writing is convoluted because your thinking is convoluted. You are mistaking the will of a majority of people, through their duly elected representatives, to war against another nation with, a lone individual (presumably) shooting two police officers without excuse, justification, or provocation. You really need to put away Marx and Engels for some months and try to determine what it is that’s worthwhile doing the rest of your life. Hey, no charge!
Britain was not “another nation.”
We were British.
British? Well, Maybe. Sort of.
Or maybe not.
Remind me again how many Members of Parliament the Colonies elected prior to the American Revolution – I seem to have forgotten.
Yeah, there’s that and the fact that a whole bunch of Dutch, Spanish, and French descendants are gonna be pissed now! Lars needs to brush up on American history, among other things. The Colonials’ being subject to the Crown is not quite the same thing as their being British. In fact, the better argument is that they were Virginians, Marylanders, Georgians…etc. than that they were American or British.
You forget Kenyans.
😀
…and Vermonters.
And Kenyans.
Are you certain that it’s OK to use the word they, AC? There’s probably some hidden bias in there that is visible only to lefties issued special decoder rings.
Point taken. However, at the time of the revolution they were all British colonies under british rule and had been for over 100 years. And I do not have time to verify this right noe but I a pretty sure that originally the majority of the colonies were British colonies established by settlements of overwhelmingly British subjects.
Okay, take all the time you need. One thing though, Lars. You are already backtracking with that”overwhelmingly British subjects” business.
Oh. Read the words in the Declaratory Act–and remember the point was a nation going to war–so don’t confuse those Americans with the original British colonists of 150 years or so earlier.
Didn’t the pResident say they were Muslims?
My German immigrant ancestors would object like a motherfucker to being called British. My Irish Catholic ancestors would have expressed their objection with the edge of a blade.
Reform can’t come by initiating violence against the police.
As I stated above it’s not mutually exclusive to believe the police in Ferguson are problematic in how they’ve approached their jobs and how their public officials have used that force while also believing that the Brown incident was in fact a clean shoot and violence against officers is unacceptable.
Data supports the disparity in the entire state of Missouri which is why the state enacted a law 15 years ago to collect that data, monitor that data, and adjust training and protocols based on the disparity data.
Shooting these officers is wrong on every level and there is no justification for these acts on any level. I understand that some incidents are a catalyst to protests but the violent protests and looting are unacceptable and tend to force the public to tune out and believe the police are not an issue.
Our problem as a nation is our love of incumbents in the face of evidence that our elected officials don’t address the issues we want them to be considering. Ferguson’s voters did nothing to get rid of their mayor or city council for years and years which speaks to the general malaise of the public when it comes to elections.
We the people must take the power of the ballot box back and stop voting party line at the local level and start voting for people who will do the work regardless of their national affiliation with a specific party.
^^^^This^^^
Hear, hear.
“Pants up don’t loot”
Hands down, get a job
Well, Chicago has a predatory revenue generating machine in the form of red light cameras. That is documented. It is also an unbiased method. It hits everyone in all areas where red light cameras are installed. I’m sure that I can find other examples of this.
So I’m not sure that your point is. If you could summarize it, you might be more clear in half the space.
Basically, I’m saying ‘Get to the point, Edna’.
“I left law enforcement because the departments in the area were operating under a predatory revenue generating regime, often violating the constitution in their practices.” Huh? You left law enforcement? Of course that can only mean that you were a sworn law enforcement officer, right? And you left b/c you deemed that other departments in your area were violating the Constitution b/c officers were ticketing drivers of cars bearing out-of-state plates? Do I have that right?
Yes. I was a sworn and certified police officer. And yes several departments in the area were doing it. Including the departments I worked (though one to a significantly greater extent than the other). One of those local departments made national news last year over a particularly appalling constitutional violation. i was neither surprised nor did I think it was an isolated incident. I worked in two communities. Municipal department and a County department. Each had difference in the way in which they promoted revenue generation through law enforcement. So the factors below do not necessarily apply to both departments. It was several factors. It was the constant pressure to write tickets and the implicit and explicit guidance to not ticket the locals (except certain locals) IT was the pressure to focus on crime enforcement that usually generates revenue (like DUI) while not spending time investigating crimes that have a net cost for the government to enforce (like burglary). It was witnessing several constitutional violations by a reasonably high percentage of officers and in the case of the municipality by the chief (the Sheriff never committed a constitutional violation). It was watching the consequences of these actions on families among the groups that were targeted. Here is an example I personally witnessed in a very short time period. Someone gets a ticket, then another, soon the costs are higher than they can afford, they don’t pay or don’t go to court. Court issues more fines. Suspends their license, Eventually issues a warrant. The Person by this time no longer has driving privileges and likely is out of a job. And he has a warrant for his/her arrest. Unemployment was over 10%. There were no real businesses or jobs, people were too poor to move to other communities with more opportunity. Many, people in these communities were living on razor thin month to month margins to meet expenses. One $150 ticket could easily represent 7-15% of their monthly income. Often, knowing they will be fined, and unable to afford it in a given month they avoid the court date, which makes… Read more »
You’re entirely too cerebral to be a cop. You need to go be a psychologist or a social worker. You can’t see that much gray, and be a good cop.
Where’s the cerebral thing, PN? All he’s offered us is a regurgitation of lefty BS.
Doesn’t sound like lefty BS to me. If you look around, it’s not too hard to find numerous examples of police departments who focus more on profitable ticketing than actual law enforcement.
Can we verify his description of (say) profiling drivers according to vehicle make, year and condition? No, but I find it plausible.
Should we view his account with a grain a salt? Yes, but that doesn’t mean it’s fiction. There’s a lot of bad cops, and bad forces out there. Take Chicago for example. Please. {rimshot}
I don’t think Ferguson is full of racists, but from accounts they seem to frequently act more like revenue-raisers than peace officers.
Oh, please, Casey, keep Chicago. Red light traffic cameras are the biggest scam on the planet.
That, and it took him 45 minutes to read a suspect his rights.
I guess I missed your press conference, where you called all these officers, deputies and the chief out. What date did you hold that presser, and am I correct in thinking that you, of course, provided photos and documentation to back up your presentation?
Addressing just one of your red herrings, DUI vs Burglary investigations? If you were an officer, you would know that one is done by street officers and one is done by a detective. One is usually quite observable by watching someone drive a car, stopping them and talking to them, the other is sometimes not observable at all. Many burglars are caught because they are shitty drivers and drive shitty cars, which leads to traffic stops, which leads to evidence.
Not sure what the hell you are talking about concerning the press conference. Ridiculous criticism whatever you meant by it.
Departments do not all do things the same way. These were/are still very small departments. Officers are just officers and they do what needs to be done according to the enforcement priorities and who is on shift at any given time. The only exception is if there was a specific grant for a specific full time officer for a specific function for a specific period of time. In both cases I saw this happen it was for drugs, so there was a K-9 officer funded by grants and a narcotics “detective” funded by grants but the “detective” was assigned to a joint task force and never worked shift and rarely even visited the station.
My point on burglaries stands. Your response changes nothing with respect to my comments. Burglary investigations were explicitly discouraged. As were several other types of investigations that were costly had mxed outcomes, and often went to trial.
Asking again, when did you address this with the public, so that changes could be made? Or did you just fold your tent and leave, twice?
We’re supposed to take your word for it that what you claim happened really happened? I don’t think so. Everything you’ve laid out as “evidence” of whatever you’re going for is anecdotal. No proof, in other words.
Lars, I’ll just leave this here for you
http://theblacksphere.net/2015/03/americas-racist-doj-targets-ferguson/#
Prove that you were LE.
We get some liars around here a couple times a year……
OC
Larsie Rudy-poo claimed to be a ME Vet just a few weeks ago, now he claims to have been a LEO? Yeah, I call BULLSHIT on that as well!
Racist: the label applied to someone presenting facts, logic, and common sense to a moonbat liberal to prove their point.
Actually, Lars . . . if Jonn was referring to the Brown shooting, he is correct. That was quite thoroughly investigated (as in, “using every investigative tool available except for a proctocsope – and maybe even one of those, too”) in a very public fashion, and found to have been justified. In spite of that fact, some have never accepted that reality and are still treating the deceased as some kind of “heroic martyr”.
The fact that the Ferguson PD may have significant issues is different issue entirely, as VOV noted above.
These specific protests were precipitated by the DoJ report.
So, you interviewed every protester and concluded that a majority of them are convinced by a report written by the DoJ to produce the conclusions demanded by the head of the DoJ?
If you are not at least good looking God cheated you.
You’ve got nothing, got it. Thanks for the quick response.
Both your comment, and the implicit expectation communicated, were too ridiculous for a legitimate response.
Go drink some more.
Wow.
So much for Public Good. Again. Was it the gerrymandered districts? Campaign finance?
Actually, Lars – no, they weren’t. (In this context, the antecedent of “they” in the preceding sentence should be quite clear – and obviously non-racist). You were being challenged, very sarcastically, to provide proof for your unsupported assertion above.
Would you care to do that, or would you like to admit you have none?
“Shooting innocent cops is wrong. Absolutely. Unequivocally.”
You should have stopped there.
“The evidence absolutely does support outrage. ”
You then go on to use outrage to justify shooting at police. At people. At the WRONG people. And you use a report prepared by the Holder DOJ as your authority. Are you really sure that you want to do that? Has it occurred to you that a different unbiased party might produce a different report? Well it occurred to me and we still have a working justice system in this country so shooting at cops, aside from being a pretty bad idea practically speaking, is the wrong way to make your point.
I used to think that you were simply a misguided liberal. I now think that you have a problem with your thinking. You seem to think that you have it all right and that other people do not and can not have an opinion that is as valid as yours. You feel compelled to talk because you have so much to say, even when your listeners are ignorant savages whose primary value in your world is to be defeated by your logic, elocution, erudition, and general overall brilliance.
I’m not that smart. Lots of people are smarter than I am. But I have a place in the world, it is a small place but it is mine. And I say my little things that make little difference but I am within my rights and, most of the time, I feel no need to offend. I don’t really expect to persuade anyone and I have gotten over the idea that anyone actually wants to hear what I have to say.
Good luck in your quest to rule the world. For the most part, the world doesn’t like pompous egotistical people. As a slightly reformed pompous egotistical asshole, I predict disappointment.
Shoot the cars, shoot the tires. You want to bleed the Po-po financially, not literally. Make them unable to do their job, but not to the point of creating dead martyrs.
Hear, hear! You go pick a police department and REFORM that muther! Then come back and tell us how that went for you.
*eyeroll*
[It would be nice to hit the right ‘reply’ button when I’m trying to be sarcastic, so my post gets attached to the right comment. Didn’t happen in this case.]
And so it begins.
Being on the inside of a police department needing reform is no way to help to effect change in how the officers conduct business. No, it is much better to quit and then post comments on the internet or go walk in a circle, holding a sign. That’s the stuff!
I went back on active duty and was in Iraq the next year.
I did try to fix the municipality I worked for. But it put me directly against the chief. Which is why I ended in the Sheriff’s office.
The Sheriff was actually much better but the department still functioned as a revenue generating arm for the county. I explained it in a post above put will copy paste the relevant paragraph here.
“I think my Sheriff believed he was doing the right thing. He was providing the local community with law enforcement while avoiding a much cost as possible to the community and in fact generating revenue for the community. To him he truly was serving the community.”
No, Lars. If you aimed to fix the municipality, it’s no wonder you left that job. Your goal was unattainable. The change I was talking about was on the individual level. Most LEOs want to do good, to help people, to protect the young, the weak. These officers have a noble aim and they know that what they do matters. So, if it was change you sought, it had to be you, you by yourself if need be. That’s the way it works: you want locals ticketed as often as out-of-staters? YOU do it. You want not to target someone of a particular race or ethicity? YOU don’t do it. The right way of doing things has a way of winning out ultimately. If I quit every job because of how others doing the same or a similar job did theirs, my resume (add the accents yourself) would look like yours. So, you had a chance to do something and you elected not to do so. Maybe your replacement was another one of the LEOs whose ways you didn’t like. Is that a good outcome? Let me guess: you moved from that area.
You’re missing the point here, AirCav. The point is that Lars got to say that he’s better than somebody else. As you know, nothing else matters!
Precious little snowflakes like Larsie Rudy-poo just HAVE to do what they see fit to feed their self-esteem, that’s the most important thing in this world to them!
If Obama had a son…..
😀
I’m still waiting to hear from Rodin’s model (Thanks Poobah) in answer to my two questions. I’ll repeat the first: “You left law enforcement? Of course that can only mean that you were a sworn law enforcement officer, right?”
On the serious side of things. Did any else notice who the smelly protesters hide behind after the shooting? The police.
I managed to watch the entire broadcast of the original protests last year from Ferguson and from other cities. Thanks to online streaming, I went where the cameras went and there were no commercial interruptions.
Only in Ferguson was there violence and destruction. The protests in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Boston, and wherever else were peaceful marches and nothing else.
There was no reason at all for the destruction that took place in Ferguson, other than its being seen as an opportunity for troublemakers in the form of looters and street criminals to destroy the property of other people. That did not happen any place else. There was NO justification at all in destroying the livelihoods and property of total strangers. NONE.
If violence is the outcome of a protest, then explain why in Madison, Wisconsin, the three days of protests against the shooting death of a biracial man by a police officer have been entirely peaceful.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/12/opposing-protests-hit-madison-streets-after-police-shooting/
This is not the 1960s. There is no Martin Luther King here, no Watts neighborhood – in short, no justification at all for violence and destruction.
There is NO excuse for engaging in the kind of thuggery and destruction that happened in Ferguson last year and continues to happen now, when it did not happen anywhere else and is not happening anywhere else now.
And, lars, if you’re going to chime in here, try to keep it to a few sentences instead of rattling on ad nauseum.
Apparently the police are the only ones that work in that city.
Perfect
Some folks loves statistics. I don’t like them. They are too often and too easily contorted to fit whatever conclusion one seeks. Plus, I suck at math. Did you know that 93% of the arrestees in Ferguson were Black but only 67% of Ferguson’s population is Black. Appalling, isn’t it? At least that’s the suggestion of the DOJ report on Ferguson’s PD. But what about those percentages? Are they comparative? What if we learned that there were twice as many Black residents between, say, ages 14 and 40 (the arrest years) than there are Whites? Would it matter? You bet. And how about that DOJ stat that many more Blacks than Whites were arrested on the basis of a warrant. What would that mean, that Blacks fail to appear for court more often than Whites and that Blacks fail to pay court-ordered fines more often as well? Sure it would. So, what’s the problem? And how about the stat regarding walking in the street? Is this a class of cultures, that nearly all who engage in that potentially dangerous and, for a driver, unnerving act are Black? Are there “White Only” sidewalks in Ferguson? A number of people are now being thrown to the wolves in acts of placating and appeasing some pissed-off residents and their apologists in the DOJ and the state of MO. I don’t believe the protesters want peaceful resolution. Rioting, burning, looting and now the shooting of two police officers say otherwise. The pc crowd is killing people, indirectly. (BTW, I avoided this matter of Ferguson previously, as my lack of comments will attest in the earlier threads. But now, with the DOJ influence, it is no longer merely a state matter—not to mention the shootings of the police officers. Plus, now there’s Lars.)
Mind if I toss a bit of benzene on the barbeque here?
I downloaded the Justice department report on Ferguson, and let me tell you, had I turned in an “intel” report like that, I’d have been written up for being stupid.
Seems to me that is a modified outline of what they intended to do, then, whoops! The verdicts all went the wrong way on Holder, Obama and the other race hustlers.
So, keeping the general talking point theme, they release their outline.
What was disturbing is, most legal, court type, grand jury type reports like that, have foot notes or end notes citing the documentation, recording, interview or other items used in drawing the conclusions in the report.
In short, you can’t just come out and say, “We found person X to be a jabroni and a racist.” Or, “Person Y told racial jokes in the breakroom.” -without backing it up.
This is ALL smoke and mirrors as far as I’m concerned. Holder, Obama and Sharpton lost the legal fight, pushed the propaganda, (vis. “Hands up, Don’t shoot, etc.) and hoped the crowd could do the rest of the job.
-one angry old analyst.
IceStationSitka…My take exactly.
Ditto.
One like, plus these, ↑↑↑↑↑, Ice.
Posted this up higher for Lars, but I think it will be good to place it here too. Shows how the DOJ is only interested in certain forms of racism.
http://theblacksphere.net/2015/03/americas-racist-doj-targets-ferguson/#
In regard to bodaprez and holder, et al., they are now ‘asking’ people to not continue with the violence and destruction in Ferguson.
This is from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/politics/holder-condemns-ferguson-police-shootings/index.html
I don’t know if it constitutes backpedaling or not, but if they did have a plan, as indicated above, it appears to have backfired on them.
IceStationSitka — do you live in Sitka? I spent a lot of time there in the early 80s … if yes, I have a few questions. Please ping Jonn for my email.
What just happened in Ferguson has nothing to do with politics, reform, or anything “noble” regardless of what any of our UC scholars want to call it.
This is strictly thugs and cowards and thieves being what they are and using this latest news cycle as an excuse to do what they do.
Certain people need to quit trying read too much into this while trying to come up with legitimate excuses for this crap.
There are no excuses for it.
It is not prompted by anything other than a need to commit looting and destructive violence.
If this protest is only about the Brown shooting and its investigation and malfeasance by the Ferguson police department, why were two police officers shot by an unknown assailant?
And why is the protest in Madison, WI, which has gone on for 3 days now, not turning violent?
Why is there such violent agitation in Ferguson, MO, which is now against the wishes of Brown’s family, and yet there is none in Madison, WI?
The people who are causing the destruction in Ferguson are the same kind of people who belonged to the Weather Underground and the SDS in the 1960s. Their only goal is anarchy and destruction. If it were anything else, no businesses would have been burned to the ground last year and no cops would have been shot this week.
There is no excuse for the ongoing violence in Ferguson, MO.
Word.
Yeah!
That’s what I meant. Thanks Ex-PH2.
My pleasure. Let’s keep up the pressure on Insipid the 2nd.
Perhaps his handle should be “cpt Google”.
Google knows everything too – just ask it.
I don’t do social media but it shouldn’t be too hard to get ol’ lardass the attention he so desperately wants.
psulie-o the uncoolie-o is at least funny, even if he’s a malignant bag of cactus leaves.
Best available, non-law enforcement intel assessment on Ferguson is; Obama, Holder, Sharpton and Jackson had heavy wordage that also aided and further help those bussed in by Soros funded groups to foment the violence.
These same groups also share a vested interest in dragging the USA down to a fourth world country status IE communism.
I’ve never understood people who make themselves so wealthy they can stink and no one can tell them they can’t, which Soros did, but then take that money and do whatever it takes to destroy the very thing that made them so stinking rich. I don’t get that. Soros (Gyorgy Schwartz) sees his money as a means of destroying peoples’ lives. He has no sense of guilt about it. He isn’t a philanthropist, no matter how it’s colored. He uses money as a weapon. He admitted to collaborating with the Nazis as a teenager in confiscating the property of other Jews. He was convicted of insider trading in France in 2005. He’s done everything he could to drag the US dollar into the dirt, and it must piss him off no end that it’s in a strong position now. Basically, he’s a manipulative piece of shit who wants to destroy the very thing that made him who he is and will use any means, especially and including his wealth, to do just that.
I keep hoping that crapweasel will drop dead in his tracks some day and his estate will be taxed into a black hole. If his self-hatred is as malignant as it appears to be with the way he uses money to wreak havoc, maybe we’ll get lucky. He’s as despicable as they come.
This is a really great overview and analysis of Soros. The greed, the hyper-liberal activism, the working to destroy the moral and cultural fiber of his host nation. He seems to personify all of the worst stereotypes of his “tribe.”
He seems to personify all of the worst stereotypes of his “tribe.”
Personally, I thought that was Noam Chomsky. But I’ll admit Soros is a reasonable second or third choice.
Is the increasingly tiresome and insipid “Lars” a paid troll or a raving windbag? He’s hijacked more than a few threads now and his workers of the world schtick (and now RACIST!)is beyond old. I await, like the good enlisted swine that I am, my dressing down by the brilliant “Lars”.
Carry on, Sergeant Major.
My theory is that after some period of shadow lurking, he developed high hopes of planting a flag here and being the voice of alternative reason (a/k/a “I’ll show them!”.) In that sense, he’s more a mole than a troll, I guess. It isn’t working out too well for him. Will he fade or just flip the switch? Dunno. Care? Show of hands. Seeing none…
Please kind sir, might you spare one or two fucks, for this boy has none left to give.
Sorry – see photo for substitute. (smile)
Warning – link is NSFW.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/580/322/b3a.jpg
Oh, look! The Attention Whore Personified is back! Is he pulling a bernutsless or a psul of the ballsack this time? Shall we take a vote? Remember, quality (or the lack of it) counts in this game. Here are the qualifications:
Fabricates to suit his own needs: Check
Puts labels on others for no reason: Check
Lets all and sundry in the audience (that’s us) know just HOW superior he is to all of us: Check
Really doesn’t have much to show for his life at this point in it: Check
Avoids responsibility for what he says/does by deflection, redirection, and even quitting: Check
Gets into that whole ethnic bias and prejudice thing, one way or another: Check
Makes regular attempts to start flaming, snarling arguments with total strangers: Check
That’s all I have right now. I’m sure there are more quals here. Anyone else (except lardass) can contribute here.
Lardass is in the bullpen for quals, but bernutsless and peckerwood are already on deck.
Can we add lardhead to the Krazy Klowne Krewe as their social moron rep?
I see from lardie’s comments below that the following could be added to the list of qualifying qualities in the qualifications round:
Acts like a petulant, spoiled child if he can’t have his own way all the time: Check
Thinks the world revolves around HIM instead of the sun: Check
Only criminals care when cops are doing their jobs. They want to burn flags and shit in Ferguson, we should just let them burn their own town down. They probably will from setting flags on fire, somehow manage to burn the entire town down, derp derp derp. “They shot an “Innocent” person so lets gun down a bunch of cops doing their jobs, oh yeah, lets loot also because that has so much to do with what we are “Protesting”.” Logic.
Good that the cops were released. Good that they will survive, given the alternatives. Here’s hoping that their prognosis for normal lives is also good.
(Note: the cops being released really was the topic here. Seems like the latest resident toll once again made it all about him/her/itself.)
If you think my posts are about myself rather that trying to discuss broader issues of public interest it is because you are incapable of interpreting issues from a broader perspective than self interest.
You must be a libertarian.
Not necessarily. But she is an adult.
Whose fault is it if the shoe fits, Lars?
I recognize the problem. I came onto this board with the intent of actually having a discussion on these issues.
But looking back at the previous threads over the last year I realized there is almost never actual discussion. Just a cacophony of generally right wing anti-‘others’ comments each reinforced and being reinforced by mutual admiration for how smart and informed everyone is for all regurgitating the same right wing world view.
So, for now on I will cease trying to have a discussion on any of these issues. If I feel like commenting I will say what I feel and then not give fuck-all what people think about it.
I am done responding to overwhelmingly negative and often completely bullshit responses I see. Responses to which my replies inevitably bring accusations that I am ‘hijacking’ the thread.
Predictable.
Let me paraphrase your comment above more succinctly: “You won’t accept my word as Gospel, so it’s obvious you all must be wrong – because I can’t possibly be in error. So I’ll ‘take my ball and go home.’ “
Lars, if you want to have a discussion here, fine. But be prepared to support your arguments with fact – not unsupported assertions you assume will be accepted as fact simply because you’re the one making them. Here, “That dog don’t hunt.”
You also need to have an open mind when commenting here. So far, you’ve shown little but a deeply-held belief in your own infallibility – as shown by your biased comments above, which immediately assume and impute racist intent when other interpretations are both possible and much more likely. News flash, amigo: you are neither omniscient nor omnipresent. No one is. You can be wrong sometimes. We all can. That’s reality.
Leave if you want to; stay if you want. I personally don’t much care either way, and I don’t think most here do.
But if you stay and try to discuss things, attempt do so as an adult. Don’t act smug and superior – and then get offended when no one treats you as God.
You’re not a Deity. You’re a fallible human who’s often wrong and who has much to learn from others – just like the rest of us.
Petulant, spoiled child who leaves, or rational adult willing to discuss issues in an atmosphere of give-and-take. The choice is up to you. But if you stay, don’t expect to be treated as royalty – or for your word to be accepted as Gospel. Neither is going to happen. You take a contrary position, you’ll be challenged, and asked to provide facts to support your POV. And you’ll be called out when you don’t.
If you’re not willing to accept that, perhaps “adios” is best.
Well, Hondo, it was suggested more than once that he start his own blog. Then he can control the entire thing.
The problem with that is several:
– it takes time to build a following
– you need to be a little creative and not keep repeating yourself
– you really do need to have some kind of original ideas to keep people interested
– you can’t just rattle on ad nauseum. TAH is a good example of getting right to the point on a subject, and there are others as well.
– you need stick-to-it-tiveness – stick with it, regardless
I find it seriously doubtful that ol’ larsie-poo can handle those simple tasks, especially sticking to it. There’s no instant gratification in it. He has no staying power.
Sorry, dicksuck, but a person seeking rational conversation doesn’t declare somebody else ignorant because they disagree. That’s what you did. So save your sanctimony and your chickenshit.
There’s plenty of people on this blog who offer contrary opinions on various issues. They argue intelligently and don’t act like you. Rational discussions and civil differences of opinion are had all the time. Flaring tempers are calmed with honest apologies, and life goes on. YOU killed the possibility of rational discussion by being a self-righteous prick. You can go cry in your corner. In the meantime, kindly fuck off.
Well dammit. I reckon it’s back to Google for ALL of the answers…
You’re done?
Oh, don’t toy with us, dorkwad!
Does this mean that you’re going to take your balls (if you can find them) and go home, and hold your breath until both you and your balls turn blue?
It is true that you have hijacked every thread in which you posted comments. You have repeatedly changed the subject to suit your control freak needs. WE have plenty of instances to which we can link to back up this statement, e.g., this comment of yours which has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.
But keep right on with it. You may be a clone of Insipid, but he was the expert a hijacking threads. You aren’t. In fact, I’m beginning to believe, based on your need for approval, that you aren’t an expert at ANYTHING.
Please! If you’re DONE, as you say, stay done! BYE!!!!
Do write when you get off your ego trip.
“F*** THEM 2 COPS..DON’T GOT NO SYMPATHY FOR THEM OR THEY FAMILIES…Aint no FUN when the Rabbit got the GUN.” – Michael Brown’s mother
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/the-vile-thing-michael-browns-mother-said-about-the-cops-shot-in-ferguson
Her son is dead, and she thinks he was innocent.
You are expecting rational reactions from a mother who lost her child?
It makes no difference to her whether the shooting was “clean.” As far as she is concerned he was unarmed and now he is dead, and she blames cops.
She is wrong for her comments but she is not ever going to be able to handle her sons death rationally or objectively.
I do not see the point in using her comments as evidence of anything but that mothers do not handle the loss of children well.
What is the message your post is intended to convey?
Perhaps he was providing you with an example of a statement that could be interpreted two different ways. One way, as a statement explicitly approving of racially-motivated violence; and the second, as a mother speaking emotionally (but racially-neutrally) in the aftermath of losing a child.
You seem to need such examples – call them reminders. You appear to have a difficulty remembering that two different people may perceive the same words differently, interpreting a completely different message than the author/speaker intended.