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.

 

 

You've said enough. I'd heard before you can't be reasoned with and you continue to prove people right.

A police officer lost his cool and said, "I'll bleeping kill you" and he was correctly removed from the scene. Not justifying him saying that in anyway, but I wonder how many times his life or those around him lives were verbally threatened by the "Peaceful" protesters?

 

The police asked for protesters to disband, and the protesters closed in on the police. The police responded with Sound Wave technology to drive them back...not batons and water cannons.

 

The police and a police helicopter came under gunfire, they responded with rubber bullets.

 

The police came under attack of thrown rock and brick as well as gasoline filled fire bombs (molotov cocktails), they responded with tear gas.

 

Police used shields and armored vehicles to protect themselves, so they wouldn't have to escalate the situation, not because they wanted to.

 

 

All and All it would seem as if the police showed great restraint in Ferguson.

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.

 

You are absurd. Guess what, if you are in a riot zone, then you have put yourself in that situation. Save me all the "innocent protesters" rhetoric also. When looters and rioters are mixed in with the protesters, how are the police supposed to tell the difference?

 

The police were pelted with rocks and Molotov cocktails. How did they respond? Tear gas. Seems reasonable to me. How about the people in the streets not attack the police as a way not to inflame the situation? I guess you give them a free pass from ANY personal responsibility.

 

You seem to be one of those people that complain about the police until you need them, then you complain they didn't get there fast enough.

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.

 

Excessive force in what we are debating is using swat teams on non violent warrants. Which was the case in this court ruling it also just happened the man they were after didn't even live in that house.

I'd heard before you can't be reasoned with and you continue to prove people right.

 

:lol2: From who? The people that disagree with him? Solid insight.

You are absurd. Guess what, if you are in a riot zone, then you have put yourself in that situation. Save me all the "innocent protesters" rhetoric also. When looters and rioters are mixed in with the protesters, how are the police supposed to tell the difference?

 

The police were pelted with rocks and Molotov cocktails. How did they respond? Tear gas. Seems reasonable to me. How about the people in the streets not attack the police as a way not to inflame the situation? I guess you give them a free pass from ANY personal responsibility.

 

You seem to be one of those people that complain about the police until you need them, then you complain they didn't get there fast enough.

 

 

I guess I missed the part where the news crew was pelting the cops with rocks and molotov cocktails. The painting of the protesters with the laser sights also happened at beginning before everything turned violent. Perhaps actions such as that helped inflame the situation...

When looters and rioters are mixed in with the protesters, how are the police supposed to tell the difference?

 

Hmm... Maybe they could tell a difference between the people running in and out of stores and people standing there with cameras shooting the footage. Unless those two types of people are looked at the same.

I guess I missed the part where the news crew was pelting the cops with rocks and molotov cocktails. The painting of the protesters with the laser sights also happened at beginning before everything turned violent. Perhaps actions such as that helped inflame the situation...

 

I can see that nothing the police do is OK in your eyes.

 

Define in the beginning before everything turned violent. There was looting the first night.

I guess I missed the part where the news crew was pelting the cops with rocks and molotov cocktails. The painting of the protesters with the laser sights also happened at beginning before everything turned violent. Perhaps actions such as that helped inflame the situation...

 

Wasn't it violent from the start? Seems I remember stories of looting and people shooting at helicopters from the start.

Hmm... Maybe they could tell a difference between the people running in and out of stores and people standing there with cameras shooting the footage. Unless those two types of people are looked at the same.

 

That really didn't address what I stated in the quote you posted.

I can see that nothing the police do is OK in your eyes.

 

Define in the beginning before everything turned violent. There was looting the first night.

 

So you're saying gassing and shooting rubber bullets at a news crew is okay? I guess you think everything the police do is okay and should never be questioned.

Wasn't it violent from the start? Seems I remember stories of looting and people shooting at helicopters from the start.

 

I'm talking about before the protesters were ever told to disburse. They were painting protesters with laser sights while they had their hands raised and were chanting. What purpose does that serve other to come across at threatening? I've yet to have anyone address why that was necessary.

 

I guess I missed the part where the news crew was pelting the cops with rocks and molotov cocktails. The painting of the protesters with the laser sights also happened at beginning before everything turned violent. Perhaps actions such as that helped inflame the situation...

 

I'm pretty sure you are wrong about when it turned violent. There was violence and looting very early on.

 

Hmm... Maybe they could tell a difference between the people running in and out of stores and people standing there with cameras shooting the footage. Unless those two types of people are looked at the same.

 

There were journalists that were actually there who said media got mixed in with protesters and wouldn't disperse when told to by police.

 

So you're saying gassing and shooting rubber bullets at a news crew is okay? I guess you think everything the police do is okay and should never be questioned.

 

I'd say he just doesn't judge police in general based on the actions of a few.