Re: Cops picked their fight with Garner, too: Why is that not tyranny?
Cannoli Send a noteboard - 18/07/2015 01:59:41 PM
Trayvon Martin was stalked and attacked
Michael Brown was unarmed, distant and fleeing, so I must disagree with the Ferguson and DoJ conclusions the cops claim to feel threatened cannot be disproven. If Brown reached into his car and grabbed his gun, sure, he was threatened then: But not when Brown FLED. Sorry, when someone exits their vehicle and PURSUES another, they cannot plausible claim to feel "threatened."
Murdering someones sleeping child is bad enough, but LITERALLY rubbing their face in their childs corpse and ARRESTING them adds grave insult to grave injury. I mean, gee, officer, since you arrested ME because YOU killed my daughter, will you at least bond me out long enough to bury her? If cops wanted to "calm" a situation their murder made confrontational, that was a poor means, and quite relevant because it is further evidence of their disregard and even contempt for the lives of the innocent public they are required and paid to "serve and protect."
By the nature of the job, a cop can't back off in such a case, anymore than a bullet can crawl back into the gun barrel.
For what it is worth, I share Kasichs (official) view of unions: "Unions that make things" are great, but public employees do not need a union for collective bargaining nor to hold their employer acountable: They already HAVE a ballot box to do those things; if that is not working, the solution is to make it work, not add a SECOND nonfunctional ballot box. Further, police union reactions to police shootings have been rather uniformly and awfully biased: Victims are presumed guilty until proven innocent, even though corpses can make no arguments.
All that said, police unions at least prevent local governments scapegoating individual officers for following official POLICY; "indicting a bunch of idiot stormtroopers for following orders."
There is that. On the other hand, they'd find ways to not kick down doors, if they knew it was a no win situation.
The stormtroopers are still responsible for ALL their own acts, ordered or otherwise, but those who gave the orders are no less so. In that respect, the judge who issued first warrant was only responsible (and only partially) for cops actions at the place for which that warrant was ISSUED—until s/he turned that warrant into a blank check by retroactively adding ANOTHER place to cover the cops murder. Had they robbed a donut shop on the way back to the station, would the judge add THAT to the warrant also?
Why would they rob a donut shop? Those places fawn on and cater to cops. I know cops who refuse to go into Dunkin' Donuts in uniform because they can't get them to take money. I also know cops who have refused to pay for coffee when asked by the clerk at a local convenience store.
Not that towns ACTUAL cops are any better; one woman I knew there (who, ironically, lived in the OTHER cops' jurisdiction) used to complain about one of the local cops stalking her, hanging out sipping copy all night at the store where she worked, then tailgating her in his squad car all the way to her driveway. That would be creepy and threatening even if he did NOT have a badge and gun, but since he did....
Returning from overly-personal tangent (no offense meant,
) there is an easy way to maintain law enforcement with niether cops NOR (other) citizens killed en masse: Lethal force is ONLY legal to resist lethal force. Simple easy rule; it works remarkably well for EVERYONE ELSE, so why should cops use a different standard?
I keep coming back to the line in Terry Pratchett's "Jingo" where Sam Vimes, the police chief, in a conference about a sudden military issue that has arisen, in response to condescending remark about "civilians" says something like "A police officer IS a civilian, that's the point." Why do cops need more powers than mall cops? I agree with letting cops carry guns, but only because I agree with anyone carrying guns. Including some retarded people and felons (which, come to think of it, is not all that different from many cops I know). But last week, I was down the shore and noticed all the Class I & II special officers who were doing the bulk of the patrolling on the boardwalk at Seaside. In NJ a Class I can't even carry a gun, and a Class II is very limited in his jurisdiction, not being allowed to do much more than issue citations under title 39 (which is the motor vehicle code - so basically, he can write tickets). If such officers suffice to safeguard the facility which is pretty much the sine qua non of the local economy, and the most crowded and busy place on the Barnegat Peninsula, with the lowest class element of humanity, why do the rest of us need tactical operatives, who are armed like soldiers, without the discipline, training or command structure of soldiers?

It is not irresponsibilty, but selfish indifference to others,
The literal definition of irresponsibility and that is literally in humanitys DNA, so even God will not remove it without removing that DNA. Conviction, confession, repentance, atonement, grace and salvation; great: Your flesh is still dying, as it should and must. The only TEMPORAL means of mitigating that is collective enlightened self-interest; each person insisting no other person abuses power over another, lest they tomorrow become its victim THEMSELVES. That is why warrants exist, and why the Fourth Amendment exists, and there is no problem with that: Even warrants do not empower anyone to shoot first and ask questions later.
You would think.
Cannoli
"Sometimes unhinged, sometimes unfair, always entertaining"
- The Crownless
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Deus Vult!
"Sometimes unhinged, sometimes unfair, always entertaining"
- The Crownless
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Deus Vult!
So Eric Garner's family is getting $5.9 million dollars. How awesome is that?
16/07/2015 03:10:14 PM
- 894 Views
we need to stop giving away millions tax dollars and calling it justice
17/07/2015 01:14:39 AM
- 446 Views
Right: Enough with the free lottery giveaways already!
17/07/2015 11:17:00 AM
- 566 Views

If you want to make people millionaire because family memeber died fighting the cops
17/07/2015 05:34:06 PM
- 562 Views
Kill someone who is not threatening you and you are liable; it is pretty straightforward
18/07/2015 03:44:26 AM
- 533 Views
saying stupid things with conviction does not make them less stupid
18/07/2015 01:23:36 PM
- 441 Views
Even so
09/08/2015 04:16:32 AM
- 554 Views
so because you didn't see the video of him selling loose cigarettes you assume the police lied? *NM*
09/08/2015 03:18:00 PM
- 228 Views
Selling loose cigarettes is no crime, but unproven=/=dishonest: Proven=/=justifiable homicide either
10/08/2015 08:53:07 AM
- 638 Views
IDK, I got the impression hustle was a good thing
17/07/2015 12:42:07 PM
- 624 Views
I bitched about going Off-Topic the last time I posted on this board...
17/07/2015 05:22:29 PM
- 603 Views
Are you being ironic?
18/07/2015 01:14:07 PM
- 615 Views
No, I am being 100% serious.
19/07/2015 04:43:13 PM
- 616 Views
A murderer is not going to be murdering anyone else. THAT is the point, not punishment.
22/07/2015 11:23:05 AM
- 470 Views
Re: A murderer is not going to be murdering anyone else. THAT is the point, not punishment.
23/07/2015 04:44:52 AM
- 541 Views
This is why the Catholic Church opposes capital punishment AND abortion equally
10/08/2015 09:30:47 AM
- 548 Views
So what do you think he would have doing for money without the tax?
17/07/2015 05:39:33 PM
- 527 Views
why only some child molesters?
17/07/2015 05:40:21 PM
- 591 Views
All actual child molesters, not all who are convicted of such offenses.
18/07/2015 01:26:25 PM
- 581 Views
That is a problem with most sexual assualt not to mention doemstic abuse cases *NM*
18/07/2015 01:40:43 PM
- 293 Views
That is two jobs, not one; also, the government does not lobby itself.
17/07/2015 03:09:15 AM
- 512 Views
the silly "unarmed" argument
17/07/2015 04:57:32 AM
- 584 Views
All I heard was "no one 'needs' guns."
17/07/2015 10:59:40 AM
- 682 Views
See, these are tyranny, because the cops picked the fights.
17/07/2015 02:09:21 PM
- 561 Views
Cops picked their fight with Garner, too: Why is that not tyranny?
18/07/2015 03:33:52 AM
- 566 Views
Re: Cops picked their fight with Garner, too: Why is that not tyranny?
18/07/2015 01:59:41 PM
- 596 Views
OK Not an respond to what I said?
17/07/2015 05:29:55 PM
- 592 Views
Sure it was: Since the unarmed and armed have equally lethal force, guns are needless
18/07/2015 03:40:10 AM
- 532 Views
sorry I didn't realize you are using the some cops did bad things so all cops do bad things argument
18/07/2015 01:56:31 PM
- 544 Views
No one said that, but arguing "most cops do nothing wrong so no cops do anything wrong" is false too
09/08/2015 04:46:49 AM
- 676 Views
You need to be 'in name' before you can be 'in name only'
17/07/2015 12:57:55 PM
- 612 Views
There is that, but few LINOs acknowledge the name is only that
18/07/2015 03:33:40 AM
- 528 Views
My point about the cops was addressing the thing that's a problem for the rest of us.
18/07/2015 02:04:52 PM
- 557 Views
BOTH are problems for everyone; one is just more serious because systemic and promoting the other
09/08/2015 04:25:00 AM
- 562 Views