So you had to go back to 2008 to find something. Yea I guess I get it now.:ohbrother:

 

 

I'm not sure what the point you are trying to make here is.

 

If you want me to play the "how many times a raid has gone wrong in the last two years" game, then I can promise you I'll find more examples of raids gone wrong than you can find officers shot serving misdemeanor warrants.

 

Law school has a way of putting "grandma who was a nun and had ten orphaned puppies in her home killed in raid after no-knock warrant served on her residence when police had mistakenly entered the wrong house" types cases in books when you go over stuff like sovereign immunity, no knock warrants, tort reform, whatever.

 

I'm not saying that police have an easy job, I'm not saying they have a safe job, I'm not saying I feel anything but the utmost sympathy for this man and their family because of their loss and such a senseless act.

 

What I am saying is that if you want to talk numbers of tragic news stories where things go wrong that shouldn't have and someone winds up seriously injured, then I'd be willing to bet I can win the research game going away.

 

To me, it's kind of like the problem of not knowing and/or unknowing what someone already knows. I am a male, so I can't tell you what it's like to be a female. I finished law school, and when I have conversations with people who work other jobs, it's hard to forget or "un-know" things in that area that would enable me to share the same perspective as them.

 

Some people in law enforcement feel they aren't appreciated appropriately and/or that people don't understand the dangers of their job because they haven't lived them. That's fair. It's also fair to say that each time they read a story like the one with the flash bang grenade linked above, it's hard for them to understand exactly what's going on when in the mind of the average person who hasn't served a warrant is comprehending when they read the same article.

 

Not saying anyone is right or wrong, just my take on the disconnect between the police and your average citizen when they read the exact same article but form two separate opinions.

So we let anarchy rule and let anyone and everyone do what they want unchecked. Got it. I know all the store owners interviewed have a different take on it. They have lost their business due to the "peaceful protesters" that looted their stores.

 

I'm so tired or hearing arm chair quarterbacks that have no clue as to police tactics saying they are wrong. If you don't like how it's being done, I suggest you enroll in the academy, take the training and work the streets for a few years. Or, contact your Congressman and Senator and try to have the current laws changed.

 

 

Don't you think that's a bit extreme?

 

 

Under your logic on "arm chair quarterbacks", it would seem as though it would follow that people should never question the decisions that doctors or professors make in their line of work because they don't have that same training.

 

Taking it even further, it'd be like assuming that you were a police officer who disagreed with a Judge's ruling that you saw as being contrary to an officer's best interests and someone telling you, "well, if you don't like it, then go to law school, get elected as a judge, work for a few years, then get back to me. Do that or contact your Congressman or Senator and try to have current laws changed".

 

 

There's a difference between "peaceful protesters" and people who are rioting and looting. People who are looting are criminals and no one is taking up for them. As a matter of fact, people who are peacefully protesting are probably just as, if not more, enraged by that type of behavior drawing attention to their lawfully exercising their right to protest.

 

Like it or not, the right to protest has been around for awhile and is a part of the law that officers are sworn to uphold. Just as citizens can't pick and choose what laws apply to them, officers don't get to pick and chose the reasons they can lawfully arrest someone.

 

Police could go just as far getting people's respect by showing the same respect for others that they ask for themselves. What I mean by this is not having an officer saying that protesters should "be put down like rabid dogs", a team launching a can of tear gas at a member of a free press while they were doing a news report in an otherwise docile area, or videos not surfacing of an officer pointing at an assault rifle at people and saying "I'll [explicative] kill you.... [explicative] off" before another officer has to intervene and deescalate an already tense situation.

 

No one is asking for anarchy, but no one is hopefully asking for '70 Kent State or '64 Selma either.

Don't you think that's a bit extreme?

 

 

Under your logic on "arm chair quarterbacks", it would seem as though it would follow that people should never question the decisions that doctors or professors make in their line of work because they don't have that same training.

 

Taking it even further, it'd be like assuming that you were a police officer who disagreed with a Judge's ruling that you saw as being contrary to an officer's best interests and someone telling you, "well, if you don't like it, then go to law school, get elected as a judge, work for a few years, then get back to me. Do that or contact your Congressman or Senator and try to have current laws changed".

 

 

There's a difference between "peaceful protesters" and people who are rioting and looting. People who are looting are criminals and no one is taking up for them. As a matter of fact, people who are peacefully protesting are probably just as, if not more, enraged by that type of behavior drawing attention to their lawfully exercising their right to protest.

 

Like it or not, the right to protest has been around for awhile and is a part of the law that officers are sworn to uphold. Just as citizens can't pick and choose what laws apply to them, officers don't get to pick and chose the reasons they can lawfully arrest someone.

 

Police could go just as far getting people's respect by showing the same respect for others that they ask for themselves. What I mean by this is not having an officer saying that protesters should "be put down like rabid dogs", a team launching a can of tear gas at a member of a free press while they were doing a news report in an otherwise docile area, or videos not surfacing of an officer pointing at an assault rifle at people and saying "I'll [explicative] kill you.... [explicative] off" before another officer has to intervene and deescalate an already tense situation.

 

No one is asking for anarchy, but no one is hopefully asking for '70 Kent State or '64 Selma either.

 

No, I don't think it is extreme at all. Reasonable questioning of something is one thing, to tell someone that they are doing it wrong over and over again without any knowledge of the training and tactics and laws involved is another. It would be like me telling you how to practice law. I have not gone to law school or practiced as an attorney.

 

The looters and protesters were all mixed together from most of the videos I have seen.

 

Do the people in the street bear any responsibility for respecting the police? I have no problem with protesting. It's protected by the Constitution. They have a responsibility to obey the law and follow police directives. Seems everyone wants to bash the police and give the people in the street a pass. What has happened to personal responsibility in this country?

 

Not one wants the tragedies of Kent St. or Selma. It's ludicrous to think so.

No, I don't think it is extreme at all. Reasonable questioning of something is one thing, to tell someone that they are doing it wrong over and over again without any knowledge of the training and tactics and laws involved is another. It would be like me telling you how to practice law. I have not gone to law school or practiced as an attorney.

 

The looters and protesters were all mixed together from most of the videos I have seen.

 

Do the people in the street bear any responsibility for respecting the police? I have no problem with protesting. It's protected by the Constitution. They have a responsibility to obey the law and follow police directives. Seems everyone wants to bash the police and give the people in the street a pass. What has happened to personal responsibility in this country?

 

Not one wants the tragedies of Kent St. or Selma. It's ludicrous to think so.

 

 

I haven't questioned anything the police have done in Fergueson aside from the three incidents I mentioned. Being there and keeping order is not something I would want to do, I know that.

 

I do think people in the street bear responsibility for respecting the police and order of law. I think there are elements of that in the responses of educated people who are peacefully protesting and who are going to the media with messages of "stop looting, it isn't helping anything...", "this is why we have a bad name", and/or there are radical-type organizations such as the New Black Panthers party and pictures of Bloods and Crips standing together protecting businesses from being looted.

 

People who were looting were most likely out for one person, and one person only-- themselves.

 

How many times are you going to see organizations like the Bloods and Crips working as a unit, much less doing so with the same agenda (stopping looting) as the police?

 

Now, I'm not saying that Bloods and Crips should just be assumed to be good people or peaceful protestors, just that I'd say that there are peaceful protestors who'd probably be more disrespectful towards and call for more action against someone they saw looting than they would be toward a police officer who was treating them with as much respect as they'd given the officer.

 

I see things in 3 categories (peaceful protestors, rioters, and looters). Peaceful protestors are out in daylight, organizing marches, will be voting in elections. Rioters are probably younger, more mob-mentality, and are the people who will yell something obscene at an officer to try and get a reaction that they can put on YouTube. Looters are the people who would probably be committing some type of crime regardless of the situation, the unrest that came with the protests just gave them an opportunity to do it with higher stakes and for higher scores with less of a chance of being caught and in some rough calculus, that's probably exactly how they've assessed the situation.

 

I'm not taking up for looters at all, I'm advocating anyone inciting a riot, but I will take up for people who are peacefully protesting and trying to do it right but get a bad name from those who've taken advantage of the situation. That's the same thing I'd do for an officer who was trying to do things by the book but was getting a bad name for the actions of an officer who went rogue, etc.

Agreed. Should the officer just leave if he knows the subject is in the home?

 

At some point the officer has to leave if it's a misdemeanor. A)his time could be better spent elsewhere and b)again, it's a misdemeanor. It's not Al Capone behind the door.

 

The alternative of either waiting and waiting OR kicking in the door doesn't seem right.

Whenever I read something like this all I can think of is Who Cares?!?!

 

If I'm a cop i could care less what the public thinks of me wearing riot gear or serving a warrant with overkill in equipment as long as it will give me and my fellow co workers a better chance of getting out alive.

Since they work for us they should care. When it's all said and done citizens vote control the purse.

Sure it does.

 

When the police are risking their lives everyday for the general public then their safety sure in the heck does trump Joe citizen who broke the law and is being served a warrant for his arrest.

 

Do you have any idea how many cops have died just in the time since the Ferguson incident? There have been close to 10 officers killed in the line of duty since the Ferguson incident. I'm sorry, but their safety sure in the heck should come first. I could care less what the public perception is if it bothers someone if they see a group of officers wearing flack jackets etc. when they go into a house to serve an arrest warrant on someone they think may give them trouble.

 

I disagree 1000% that police saftey is more important than citizens. We aren't just talking violent offenders. We are talking non violent offenders , innocent citizens caught in cross fire , law abiding citizens. The fact you think their saftey is more important than your own is shocking.

 

Why would a sniper rifle have a laser?

 

That is a very good question. Kind of defeats the point doesn't it?

So you had to go back to 2008 to find something. Yea I guess I get it now.:ohbrother:

 

Are you being serious ? This has been an on going discussion on this site and example upon example has been given. If you are late to the game we aren't forced to repost. This article is important because the courts have now gone on record and said what many of us have been saying . Using excessive force for non violent crimes violates constitutional rights.

So we let anarchy rule and let anyone and everyone do what they want unchecked. Got it. I know all the store owners interviewed have a different take on it. They have lost their business due to the "peaceful protesters" that looted their stores.

 

I'm so tired or hearing arm chair quarterbacks that have no clue as to police tactics saying they are wrong. If you don't like how it's being done, I suggest you enroll in the academy, take the training and work the streets for a few years. Or, contact your Congressman and Senator and try to have the current laws changed.

 

 

Then please educate me on the value to the police of gassing and shooting at the Al Jazeera news crew. I'd also like to know where in their training that it calls to tell protesters that they will bleeping kill them. That's gotta be a great tactic, right? How about focusing the laser sights on the protesters who, at that point, had not been told to disburse and were lawfully assembled? I'm sure that is a valuable strategy that isn't meant to inflame the situation at all. Please enlighten me as to the purpose of those tactics.

 

 

And as did contacting my lawmakers? Already been done. More than once. It's working too. New legislation had been introduced this month to curtail or cancel the 1033 program and others like it. Add in the Court of Appeals ruling and change is coming.

Then please educate me on the value to the police of gassing and shooting at the Al Jazeera news crew. I'd also like to know where in their training that it calls to tell protesters that they will bleeping kill them. That's gotta be a great tactic, right? How about focusing the laser sights on the protesters who, at that point, had not been told to disburse and were lawfully assembled? I'm sure that is a valuable strategy that isn't meant to inflame the situation at all. Please enlighten me as to the purpose of those tactics.

 

 

And as did contacting my lawmakers? Already been done. More than once. It's working too. New legislation had been introduced this month to curtail or cancel the 1033 program and others like it. Add in the Court of Appeals ruling and change is coming.

 

It's easy to cherry pick 3 incidents that the police appear to be wrong. It was total CHAOS in Ferguson!

 

Serious question...do you think you could have handled the riots better?

 

Also how many people were injured by police?

I'm not sure what the point you are trying to make here is.

 

If you want me to play the "how many times a raid has gone wrong in the last two years" game, then I can promise you I'll find more examples of raids gone wrong than you can find officers shot serving misdemeanor warrants.

 

Law school has a way of putting "grandma who was a nun and had ten orphaned puppies in her home killed in raid after no-knock warrant served on her residence when police had mistakenly entered the wrong house" types cases in books when you go over stuff like sovereign immunity, no knock warrants, tort reform, whatever.

 

I'm not saying that police have an easy job, I'm not saying they have a safe job, I'm not saying I feel anything but the utmost sympathy for this man and their family because of their loss and such a senseless act.

 

What I am saying is that if you want to talk numbers of tragic news stories where things go wrong that shouldn't have and someone winds up seriously injured, then I'd be willing to bet I can win the research game going away.

 

To me, it's kind of like the problem of not knowing and/or unknowing what someone already knows. I am a male, so I can't tell you what it's like to be a female. I finished law school, and when I have conversations with people who work other jobs, it's hard to forget or "un-know" things in that area that would enable me to share the same perspective as them.

 

Some people in law enforcement feel they aren't appreciated appropriately and/or that people don't understand the dangers of their job because they haven't lived them. That's fair. It's also fair to say that each time they read a story like the one with the flash bang grenade linked above, it's hard for them to understand exactly what's going on when in the mind of the average person who hasn't served a warrant is comprehending when they read the same article.

 

Not saying anyone is right or wrong, just my take on the disconnect between the police and your average citizen when they read the exact same article but form two separate opinions.

 

Then go for it.

Since they work for us they should care. When it's all said and done citizens vote control the purse.

 

Not so fast my friend. That was one of the very first outcries from Ferguson. Apparently the people were not represented properly in the community, which is how a lot of this took fire the way it did. Something like a 70-30% African American to white but no African Americans on the ELECTED council. But we all no elections aren't fair right.

Are you being serious ? This has been an on going discussion on this site and example upon example has been given. If you are late to the game we aren't forced to repost. This article is important because the courts have now gone on record and said what many of us have been saying . Using excessive force for non violent crimes violates constitutional rights.

 

Then it must not be that big of an issue to you.

Are you being serious ? This has been an on going discussion on this site and example upon example has been given. If you are late to the game we aren't forced to repost. This article is important because the courts have now gone on record and said what many of us have been saying . Using excessive force for non violent crimes violates constitutional rights.

 

Who in the hell has said excessive force doesn't violate people's rights or isn't wrong. I will hold my breath while I wait for your response.