ferguson

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

They cannot and will not. It is a matter of civil liability ($$$) and will totally screw up future settlements.

So long as the officer acted -- even loosely -- within his training at the moment of use of deadly force? Then liability for death is a spurious legal thing with every moment of looting merely supporting a vision of potential harm being at hand.

Every day there's systemic violence and looting in the city, it merely paints a social picture. That picture is the sort of thing where it would be difficult to sell to anyone that "minding your own business" is the public urban norm and validates that an officer could be afraid for his life.

To wit? If you cannot release an officer's name due to a threat of violence against him? That immediately tells everyone what we're dealing with, here. Most folks would rationally perceive that as "not good" related to the area and its lack of impulse control.

People are taking to the streets when all the kid had to do was stay out of one.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

You're missing the points I was trying to make. Don't know how to make them better. I apologize for my inadequacy.

Oh give me a break Don. You're not that complex. How many times, in how many threads am I gonna be lectured by you about how I'm too dense to get your points? I understand completely the points you were trying to make. Maybe I should apologize for being bored to fucking tears over 10 pages of "what-if's", over and over again...to the point where the actual history is ideologically spit back out under the weight of zealous speculation.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Who gives a shit where Zeke stands on law enforcement? I'm talking about the legitimacy of debate. Zeke produced simple information from available reporting.

It's simple all right.

I can condense nearly every one of Zekes posts on this issue down to eight words.

"You do this to me, you get shot".

Originally Posted by Zeke

"Belmar said one of the men pushed the officer back into his squad car and the struggle began (emphasis added). Belmar said at least one shot was fired inside the police car."

Leaving out any racial or age-related undertones, if you do this to me?

You get shot.

Until you are no longer a threat.

If this winds up back out in the street because I am winning? That's on you. There is absolutely no justification -- even if I am harassing or threatening you -- for following me into a car where I can no longer do either. We can kick this around all week but there is no escaping that the kid assaulted law enforcement, who either retreated or was made to retreat, who then used deadly force to secure his own safety.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Zeke

People are taking to the streets when all the kid had to do was stay out of one.

Geeze!

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Geeze!

You don't find it ironic?

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

"You do this to me, you get shot".

Great, the superficial eight word answer.

Now, give me the next eight words, like what the "this" is...

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Zeke

So long as the officer acted -- even loosely -- within his training at the moment of use of deadly force? Then liability for death is a spurious legal thing with every moment of looting merely supporting a vision of potential harm being at hand.

Every day there's systemic violence and looting in the city, it merely paints a social picture. That picture is the sort of thing where it would be difficult to sell to anyone that "minding your own business" is the public urban norm and validates that an officer could be afraid for his life.

To wit? If you cannot release an officer's name due to a threat of violence against him? That immediately tells everyone what we're dealing with, here. Most folks would rationally perceive that as "not good" related to the area and its lack of impulse control.

People are taking to the streets when all the kid had to do was stay out of one.

The officer must be publicly prosecuted, or exonerated, in a transparent and perceived-to-be-impartial process. Releasing his name would be a first step in this process. It's not like no one knows who he is, after all. He'll need protection, but I think more anger, and thus more danger, are created by the defensive stonewalling.

If the community is treated AS IF their grievances deserve respect, it would help move them to what you would recognize as a more respectable state.

[Wasillaguy]

I wonder why they're not rioting in LA.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ford/13985607/

[Dondilion]

[QUOTE=Zeke;236431]You don't find it ironic?[/QUOT]

No.

I just hope that there are few law officers with your attitude in the streets.

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

The officer must be publicly prosecuted, or exonerated, in a transparent and perceived-to-be-impartial process. Releasing his name would be a first step in this process. It's not like no one knows who he is, after all. He'll need protection, but I think more anger, and thus more danger, are created by the defensive stonewalling.

If the community is treated AS IF their grievances deserve respect, it would help move them to what you would recognize as a more respectable state.

Two way street. I think the community needs to show it's responsible enough and patient enough to wait for the justice process. Even the day time protestors are going with "no justice, no peace". Basically saying violence will continue until we get what we want. The wheels of justice turn slowly, and a civilized society will wait for the system to work, rather than instigate chaos and vigilante retribution.