That is my ENTIRE point. The agenda should be innocent people dying is not a good thing no matter circumstance, skin color, occupation. In no way is my point to say that the police officer being murdered is more important or worthy of outrage than Freddie Gray or Walter Scott being murdered.

 

And the underlined isn't to "prove" anything. The underlined is to say that the media and people with an agenda would have you think that cops injuring or killing innocent people is a daily occurrence when it's not. Far more cops are injured on the job than innocent people injured or killed. Even one occurrence of EITHER situation is one too many. But if we are so concerned with innocent lives, I'd expect as much attention give to those situations as what is given to the Baltimore, SC, Ferguson situations.

 

I also don't think anyone is arguing here. And, in fact, an officer was killed, yes. That is not a hypothetical. There is no point to be made or argument to be had here.

 

I just said that because I hadn't read the article.

 

When it's a citizen accused, people on the pro-civilian side are generally saying, let's let the facts come out the loudest. When it's an officer accused, people on the pro-police side are generally saying, let's let the facts come out loudest. Same principle kind of applies here.

 

I haven't read the article and would rather reserve comment for once I've had some time to digest it (which I don't have now). Trust me, if things are as you say, and I have absolutely no reason to believe that they aren't and completely believe you as is, then I'll be on your side.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that more innocent people are killed by officers. Being an officer means that you are there in lots of dangerous situations and I think it's well understood that an occupational hazard is that there are bad people out there who won't think twice about killing you. I'm not in any way justifying those actions, or saying that police should sign up knowing they can get killed and that it's somehow their fault when they do, just reiterating what's probably common knowledge to all of us.

^My point was, you have no idea whether anyone on here "begrudgingly" changed their stance.

Not sure what your not comprehending?

1. I said there were some that begrudgingly changed their stance after the facts didn't support their earlier position.

2. You said Hogwash, which would seem to imply that you think ZERO people on BGP felt that way.

3. I asked "Do you know the mind of every poster?"

4. Instead of answering for your outlandish claim of Hogwash...You asked if I know the mind of every poster?

 

I never said I knew the mind of every poster, just stated that some felt that way.

 

In other words formed an opinion on the information available, which I agree with.

Because in these instances when people acted on opinion rather then facts riots occurred.

 

There's nothing wrong with protesting when you feel an injustice has been committed. There's nothing wrong with protesting period.

 

The rioters and looters would have done so regardless of what the facts were. Those cowards just take advantage of tragic situations to cause havoc.

No one waits on the facts before forming an opinion. No one. Everyone forms their opinion based on what's known at the time, and then as the facts change, opinions are changed accordingly. There's nothing wrong that. Not sure why people try to make it out to be a bad thing.

 

Yes. This is very true. Even the most intelligent and rationale people cannot protect themselves from forming a judgment before knowing ALL pertinent facts. I agree.

[/b]

 

I just said that because I hadn't read the article.

 

When it's a citizen accused, people on the pro-civilian side are generally saying, let's let the facts come out the loudest. When it's an officer accused, people on the pro-police side are generally saying, let's let the facts come out loudest. Same principle kind of applies here.

 

I haven't read the article and would rather reserve comment for once I've had some time to digest it (which I don't have now). Trust me, if things are as you say, and I have absolutely no reason to believe that they aren't and completely believe you as is, then I'll be on your side.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that more innocent people are killed by officers. Being an officer means that you are there in lots of dangerous situations and I think it's well understood that an occupational hazard is that there are bad people out there who won't think twice about killing you. I'm not in any way justifying those actions, or saying that police should sign up knowing they can get killed and that it's somehow their fault when they do, just reiterating what's probably common knowledge to all of us.

 

I'm in agreement with you. I think, at the end of the day, we probably view this the same way. Neither scenario is more or less important or horrific.

Yes. This is very true. Even the most intelligent and rationale people cannot protect themselves from forming a judgment before knowing ALL pertinent facts. I agree.

 

Exactly.

 

Even those who claim to wait until they see the facts are forming an opinion.

 

If a news story comes out that an unarmed KY man was shot by cops, and no other information comes out, you'll have some that immediately think the cop murdered the guy, and you'll have others that think there's gotta be more to this, the officer wouldn't just randomly shoot a guy. Both are forming opinions without any facts.

Exactly.

 

Even those who claim to wait until they see the facts are forming an opinion.

 

If a news story comes out that an unarmed KY man was shot by cops, and no other information comes out, you'll have some that immediately think the cop murdered the guy, and you'll have others that think there's gotta be more to this, the officer wouldn't just randomly shoot a guy. Both are forming opinions without any facts.

 

Yep. Anyone that claims they NEVER form ANY opinion until ALL facts are presented is lying.

No one waits on the facts before forming an opinion. No one. Everyone forms their opinion based on what's known at the time, and then as the facts change, opinions are changed accordingly. There's nothing wrong that. Not sure why people try to make it out to be a bad thing.

 

Because that is what caused a lot of turmoil with riots and looting. Some still think Michael Brown was a saint instead of a crimimal.

Because that is what caused a lot of turmoil with riots and looting. Some still think Michael Brown was a saint instead of a crimimal.

 

And the people that think that are going to do so no matter what.

 

It's my belief that most of the rioters and looters probably didn't even know what people were protesting about.

Why is there not as much outrage? Because police officers take an oath to PROTECT and Serve. There's nothing protective about killing unarmed citizens...

 

This is a tragedy, as is EVERY instance when an officer loses his or her life. Every time an officer loses his or her life, it SHOULD be a big deal. Heck, it doesn't even have to be a loss of life to be a tragedy that an officer is injured. They are laying their life on the line to keep the peace for us, and them having to fear for their lives is a shame.

 

The difference between the two is we are supposed to look at police as a service to protect us from all the bad in the world. They are NOT supposed to BE the bad in the world, and in the instances we've discussed here over the past few months that's exactly what's happened.

 

Overwhelming amounts of police are good. Very few people are killed by police unjustly each year. Doesn't mean it's not bad when it happens, but it's not as common as some want you to believe.

 

As long as police are humans, you will always have ones that are bad, and ones that make mistakes. Again, it's still bad when it happens...but it will never be perfect.

I'm in agreement with you. I think, at the end of the day, we probably view this the same way. Neither scenario is more or less important or horrific.

 

Agreed.

Overwhelming amounts of police are good. Very few people are killed by police unjustly each year. Doesn't mean it's not bad when it happens, but it's not as common as some want you to believe.

 

As long as police are humans, you will always have ones that are bad, and ones that make mistakes. Again, it's still bad when it happens...but it will never be perfect.

 

I'm not sure that I've ever disagreed with anything in this post... You are correct on all of it.

 

I don't think anybody is asking police to be perfect. Anybody that expects them to be perfect isn't being realistic.

 

I'm not sure that I've ever disagreed with anything in this post... You are correct on all of it.

 

I don't think anybody is asking police to be perfect. Anybody that expects them to be perfect isn't being realistic.

 

I think there are some people here that try to make things seem worse than they are re: police misconduct.

 

When it happens it's bad. It just doesn't happen a lot in the grand scheme of things.

 

The problem is the internet allows every story to reach everyone immediately. They judge it immediately, and if the police are exonerated...Most have already made their minds anyways. And when there aren't any new stories to report, old ones get recycled.

Edited May 5, 201511 yr by halfback20

So you know the mind of EVERY poster on BGP?

 

I know for a fact there are some that post with quite a bit of joy anytime there are negative police stories.

 

Just like we know for a fact that everytime a story involving the police comes out there will be people who take up for the police and never change their mind. Begrudgingly or not.