2 nyc cops executed...

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:
Quincy once again where have I said "thats all 911 was" ? You seem to want to make up what people say.
 
How do you get someone to fly a plane into a building killing themselves and thousands of others including women and children without brain washing them with "rhetoric" quincy? Please explain that.


That may indeed not be the sole "causation" but there is a definate "correlation".

Seems like "conservatives" wanted nothing to do with these people. Can you show where a conservative "reverand" was standing in front of national TV cameras calling for actions against cops in Nevada.
 
Wait a minute, I thought you claimed being a cop was safe.

If that isn't all what 9/11 was, then your attempt at conflating it is entirely off base. The men who took down the towers won't strictly relying on rhetoric to do their deed. There were far more factors.

How do you get someone to do that? Tell them to.

Which one of these protestors told this asshole to shoot cops? It's insulting that you are trying to compare the rhetoric of protestors to the actions of a terrorist group.

Crackshot.'s picture
Crackshot.
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/09

 

Quincy05 Said:

Davy Crockett Said:
 

Quincy,  Some food for thought .   Do you think was Paul Harvey a jerk too ?

Where's that facepalm smiley...
Hey Davy, do you think Timothy Loehmann was a stand up officer as well?

 I'm not responding, All I wanted to do was throw you a bone for thought.  Bye

 

 

 

Life is good
 

 

 

 

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:

Seems like "conservatives" wanted nothing to do with these people. Can you show where a conservative "reverand" was standing in front of national TV cameras calling for actions against cops in Nevada.
 
Wait a minute, I thought you claimed being a cop was safe.

AND WHICH PROTESTORS WANTED TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS GUY WHEN HE WAS SPOUTING OFF HIS KILL A COP CRAP???????????

What specific reverand was calling for cops to be killed? Name specifically who it was. I will forward that name to the FBI.

Cops are safer now than they ever have been. Just because some have been killed, doesn't mean their profession isn't safe.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Davy Crockett Said:
 
 I'm not responding, All I wanted to do was throw you a bone for thought.  Bye

No, you were trying to inflame. Why would I think he was a jerk for making a video like the one you posted? Let alone be in addition to the bad cops I think are jerks. Was he a bad cop?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Quincy05 Said:

gst Said:
And Hitler had no moral impact on millions of Jews being gassed either.

I indeed hold the person that actually committed the act responsible. But you have no more way of knowing inflamatory rhetoric did NOT play a role in his actions than I do of knowing for certain it did.

But what can be understood is the likelyhood of protests turning violent increases when someone is inciting actions in the manner the good reverand does.

Do you really think millions of Jews would have been sent to the gas chamber or baked alive if it had not been for the "rhetoric" of one man?

Do you think the Tea Party and conservatives should be held morally responsible for the cops killed in Las Vegas? For Loughner? For the OKC bombing?

Where is the line drawn in rhetoric to moral blame? Does there need to be set time after rhetoric to insure that said rhetoric is the cause for the action and not just a coincidence? Does the line always fall on one side of the political spectrum? Do you think cops should be held morally responsible because of the actions of the bad cops? Do you think the rhetoric of the police union will have any effect on actions of the NYPD?

Nope your right quincy, no one is responsible for anything they say anymore.

If you really can not tell the difference between a Sara Palin and an Al Sharpton ...............................don;t try to pull the wool over peoples eyes about your own "hyper partisan" ideologies.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

labhunter66 Said:
 What gives you the right to question the grand juries?  Were you there?  Did you here the evidence?  Did you get to judge the truthfulness of peoples statements for yourself and not rely on media accounts of what happened?  Did you get to examine autopsy results in detail before coming to your corrupt conclusions?  The Constitution is written to give the benefit of the doubt to people accused of a crime - all people including cops.  These grand juries found that not only was there not going to be enough evidence to convict them, there wasn't even enough to charge them.  I can't think of a job where there would be more opportunity to be falsely accused of wrongdoing. None of these criminals want to take responsibility for their own actions and none of these protesters are willing to hold them accountable for their actions.  It's always someone else's fault.  Are all cops perfect?  Of course not, in fact none of them are but I will give them the benefit of the doubt until they are proven guilty beyond that reasonable doubt.

Please look into how grand juries operate. Usually there is only one side of the story told. That of the prosecution. The defense doesn't have a chance to rebute. The common saying is that prosecutors could get charges brought against a ham sandwhich if they wanted to.

If prosecutors don't get charges brought against cops, why do you think that is? Because evidence, or because they didn't want to?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Quincy05 Said:

gst Said:
Quincy once again where have I said "thats all 911 was" ? You seem to want to make up what people say.
 
How do you get someone to fly a plane into a building killing themselves and thousands of others including women and children without brain washing them with "rhetoric" quincy? Please explain that.


That may indeed not be the sole "causation" but there is a definate "correlation".

Seems like "conservatives" wanted nothing to do with these people. Can you show where a conservative "reverand" was standing in front of national TV cameras calling for actions against cops in Nevada.
 
Wait a minute, I thought you claimed being a cop was safe.

If that isn't all what 9/11 was, then your attempt at conflating it is entirely off base. The men who took down the towers won't strictly relying on rhetoric to do their deed. There were far more factors.

How do you get someone to do that? Tell them to.

Which one of these protestors told this asshole to shoot cops? It's insulting that you are trying to compare the rhetoric of protestors to the actions of a terrorist group.

So you just "tell" someone get on plane hijack it and kill thousands of innocent people and they do it?

And yet you are trying to deny the impact of people chanting for dead cops on someone elses actions???

Stop and actually think about what you just typed quincy.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:
Nope your right quincy, no one is responsible for anything they say anymore.

If you really can not tell the difference between a Sara Palin and an Al Sharpton ...............................don;t try to pull the wool over peoples eyes about your own "hyper partisan" ideologies.

People are responsible for what they say, to a point, as it has always been. Using something someone says in an outlandish way to try and lay blame on an entire group is weak and not the responsible thing to do. Because note, your words now could subsequently be used by someone as an excuse to cause violence. That is what happens when you perpetuate the blame game. Eventually your "moral responsiblity" will come up due to something you said. Are you then going to accept your posts on Fishing Buddy were morally responsible for some harm caused? Or are you rightfully going to call bullshit?

What exactly are my "hyper partisan" ideologies? Give me specifics.

Perhaps you can tell me specifically how Palin and Sharpton are different using the specific words they said. Where did Sharpton call for violence? Where did Palin?

If you can not tell the similarities between the cases of Sharpton being blamed and Palin being blamed, perhaps you should take a look at your own ideologies.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:

So you just "tell" someone get on plane hijack it and kill thousands of innocent people and they do it?

And yet you are trying to deny the impact of people chanting for dead cops on someone elses actions???

Wait, I thought Sharpton was to blame for what he said? Now it's protestors? You've already said you have ZERO evidence the shooter heard of those chants or heard of any others specific words from a specifc person. Quit speculating.

Al Queda and the protestors are not equivalent by any metric of the matter. To equate those that took down the tower to the shooter is dishonest.

So unless you think that it was strictly rhetoric that made those 9 men do their actions (which you've already said is not the case), just stop while you are behind. Or step up to the plate and find evidence of someone explicitly telling the shooter to kill cops.

Stop and actually think about what you just typed quincy.

HAHAHAHA, the irony of it all....

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Quincy05 Said:

gst Said:
And Hitler had no moral impact on millions of Jews being gassed either.

No, he just had a DRASTICALLY LARGE implicit impact when he ordered the Jews to be gassed.

Come on, be better than this. Surely your argument has more merit than comparing protestors and Obama to Hitler.

Quincy, once again comprehension is a big part of a logical discussion.

No where is Hitler being compared to protestors.

Rhetoric's impact on consequences is.

BIG difference.

Without years of Hitlers rhetoric there would not have been a scenario where he had the power to order that.

There in lies the issue with not holding people accountable for inciting inflamatory rhetoric.

Try to understand a little better before spouting off.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:
Quincy, once again comprehension is a big part of a logical discussion.

No where is Hitler being compared to protestors.

THEN WHY THE HELL DID YOU BRING HIM UP????? He is so far off from a simple analogy of ANYTHING that it's effing ridiculous to try and use him as one. Good lord. Do you really not see the inherent differences of the people you are trying to claim are equivalent to the protestors?

You are using large, organized, terrorist groups to allude that it was simply rhetoric that made their members commit atroscities.

If you aren't trying to make the claim the protestors are equivalent, then the basis for your analogies is completely flawed and make absolutely no sense.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Quincy05 Said:

gst Said:

Seems like "conservatives" wanted nothing to do with these people. Can you show where a conservative "reverand" was standing in front of national TV cameras calling for actions against cops in Nevada.
 
Wait a minute, I thought you claimed being a cop was safe.

AND WHICH PROTESTORS WANTED TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS GUY WHEN HE WAS SPOUTING OFF HIS KILL A COP CRAP???????????

What specific reverand was calling for cops to be killed? Name specifically who it was. I will forward that name to the FBI.

Cops are safer now than they ever have been. Just because some have been killed, doesn't mean their profession isn't safe.

easy there big fella, no need to internet yell.

I would imagine not one of those protestors calling for dead cops would have the spine to accept responsibility when someone else actually did it.

Kinda like spouting off from behind a computer.

Once again you try to infer something was being said that simply wasnot. Please show where anyone has said sharpton was calling for people to kill cops.

You do not seem to be able to follow a simple step by step trail.

Had the likes of Sharpton and Jackson not been fanning the flames in the manner they had attracting national TV would there have been protests were people WERE calling for dead cops?

It appears you have no understanding of causation or correlation.

Been interesting, got ot go feed cows and head back to the big city.

Take a step back quincy and actually read and think for a bit.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:
Without years of Hitlers rhetoric there would not have been a scenario where he had the power to order that.

There in lies the issue with not holding people accountable for inciting inflamatory rhetoric.

Try to understand a little better before spouting off.

HAHAHA, so now it's years of rhetoric. Nice to see that months of police protests are equivalent to rhetoric of "kill all jews".

And again, you advocate of holding people responsible in relation to Hitler. So if people say something you don't like, we have to stop them so they don't kill Jews?

How about this: Hitler used his anti-criminal rhetoric to obtain the police following. Police used tactics above and beyond what is normal to demolish the rights of the German people. Those that didn't follow in line, or goose step, with them, were treated the same as criminals. Ergo, the police rhetoric being used against those they abuse
is inflamatory and will be used by those that seek power and wish to destroy the rights of the people...

Therein lies the issue of trying to use Hitler to further your point.

I'm trying to understand, but you are getting further and further into the deep end.

Johnny 7's picture
Johnny 7
Offline
WEEKEND WARRIOR
Joined: 2/11/02

If you quit acknowledging him and don't answer anything he asks he won't have anything to say.  If he still has something to write let it go and don't respond.  
Pretty simple!
Merry Christmas everyone and please have a safe Holiday.

God, Family, Green Bay Packers!

Johnny 7

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:
I would imagine not one of those protestors calling for dead cops would have the spine to accept responsibility when someone else actually did it.

Kinda like spouting off from behind a computer.

Once again you try to infer something was being said that simply wasnot. Please show where anyone has said sharpton was calling for people to kill cops.

You do not seem to be able to follow a simple step by step trail.

Had the likes of Sharpton and Jackson not been fanning the flames in the manner they had attracting national TV would there have been protests were people WERE calling for dead cops?

It appears you have no understanding of causation or correlation.

Been interesting, got ot go feed cows and head back to the big city.

Take a step back quincy and actually read and think for a bit.

That's too convienent though. I blame the protestors without any evidence but they are too cowardly to admit they were wrong. Without evidence their actions are to cause, why would they have to admit to being at fault? This is similar to the attitude the protesters have by saying that all cops are racist.
 
I'm inferring things being said because your allusion to those things is so thick I'm getting stuck in it.

Had the police not insisted that everyone listen to their illegal orders, black folks like Garner would not resist when accosted. Ergo, the rhetoric of police has caused the deaths of police....

If only the police wouldn't use such inflamatory words, none of this would have happened.

I have a complete understanding of correlation and causation. I think you should study it a bit more.

Hope you cows are doing good. Drive safe if you have to travel, kind of a shitty day out this morning. Take care of yourself!!!

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

BrokenBackJack Said:
If you quit acknowledging him and don't answer anything he asks he won't have anything to say.  If he still has something to write let it go and don't respond.  
Pretty simple!

Sometimes the simplest routes are not the correct routes ;)

Merry Christmas everyone and please have a safe Holiday.

This. Take care everyone, drive safe if you're traveling tomorrow!!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Quincy05 Said:

gst Said:

So you just "tell" someone get on plane hijack it and kill thousands of innocent people and they do it?

And yet you are trying to deny the impact of people chanting for dead cops on someone elses actions???

Wait, I thought Sharpton was to blame for what he said? Now it's protestors? You've already said you have ZERO evidence the shooter heard of those chants or heard of any others specific words from a specifc person. Quit speculating.

Al Queda and the protestors are not equivalent by any metric of the matter. To equate those that took down the tower to the shooter is dishonest.

So unless you think that it was strictly rhetoric that made those 9 men do their actions (which you've already said is not the case), just stop while you are behind. Or step up to the plate and find evidence of someone explicitly telling the shooter to kill cops.

Stop and actually think about what you just typed quincy.

HAHAHAHA, the irony of it all....

Are you not "specualting" the shooter did not see repeated coverage of protestors fanned by the flames of sharptons rhetoric calling for dead cops and as a result decide to go out and "give some pigs wings"?

Really quincy take a step back and think before you type.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BrokenBackJack Said:
If you quit acknowledging him and don't answer anything he asks he won't have anything to say.  If he still has something to write let it go and don't respond.  
Pretty simple!
Merry Christmas everyone and please have a safe Holiday.

Sometimes you just have to poke the bear.

Merry Christmas indeed.

labhunter66's picture
labhunter66
Offline
Joined: 3/7/07

 

Quincy05 Said:

labhunter66 Said:
 Do you know why that is Quincy?  Because unlike dip shits like you, most people on the grand juries understand what cops go through, they take the time to examine the evidence, and they come back with a decision that is fair based on the evidence.  Has it ever occurred to you the reason the charge rate is so low is that it is a rare event when a cop actually commits a criminal act in the performance of their duty or do cops not get the same prosumption of innocence as regular citizens?  If I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to someone it will be to the men and women that put on a badge everyday and go to work to protect others.  It will not be to the person that already has 30+ arrests on their record and decides to resist arrest.  It will not be to a thug that robs a convenience store and assaults a clerk for no reason whatsoever.  They made their own beds. 

What you said was completely contradictory and you are too blind to realize it. On one hand grand juries know police have it tough so they don't bring charges, but on the other police are always charged when they do something bad.

Do you even know why grand juries fail to charge when it comes to cops? Hint: it's not simply about feelings for cops. Hint 2: Who shows the evidence to the juries while simultaneously works closely with those being charged? It's not the cops.

What are you reading?  I didn't say they don't bring charges.  I said they take the time to actually examine evidence and see if charges are warranted and I do think charges should be brought against cops that break the law and that's shown beyond a reasonable doubt.  I don't think it happens as much as some want to make believe and that's why grand juries fail to charge cops and if you think cops and prosecutors always see eye to eye you simply don't know enough about the entire legal system to be commenting - but I think most involved in this post have already realized that.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:

Are you not "specualting" the shooter did not see repeated coverage of protestors fanned by the flames of sharptons rhetoric calling for dead cops and as a result decide to go out and "give some pigs wings"?

Really quincy take a step back and think before you type.

No, because there is no evidence in favor of it. There is no need to speculate. If I say the world is flat because I can't physically see the curve from my house, you aren't speculating when you disagree.

And again with blaming Sharpton. Where did he specifically say that cops should die? Please stop the misinformation. The only thing I've heard of cries to kill cops were from a small group at a protest in NY. The shooter wasn't from New York.

KurtR's picture
KurtR
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/16/07

he dead 

Quincy05 Said:

KurtR Said:
should garner have resisted? 

Yes.

 Adn

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

KurtR Said:
he dead 

Quincy05 Said:

KurtR Said:
should garner have resisted? 

Yes.

Yep, guilty until innocent....

KurtR's picture
KurtR
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/16/07

or dumb and not smart 

Quincy05 Said:

KurtR Said:
he dead 

Quincy05 Said:

KurtR Said:
should garner have resisted? 

Yes.

Yep, guilty until innocent....

 Adn

labhunter66's picture
labhunter66
Offline
Joined: 3/7/07

 

Quincy05 Said:

labhunter66 Said:
 What gives you the right to question the grand juries?  Were you there?  Did you here the evidence?  Did you get to judge the truthfulness of peoples statements for yourself and not rely on media accounts of what happened?  Did you get to examine autopsy results in detail before coming to your corrupt conclusions?  The Constitution is written to give the benefit of the doubt to people accused of a crime - all people including cops.  These grand juries found that not only was there not going to be enough evidence to convict them, there wasn't even enough to charge them.  I can't think of a job where there would be more opportunity to be falsely accused of wrongdoing. None of these criminals want to take responsibility for their own actions and none of these protesters are willing to hold them accountable for their actions.  It's always someone else's fault.  Are all cops perfect?  Of course not, in fact none of them are but I will give them the benefit of the doubt until they are proven guilty beyond that reasonable doubt.

Please look into how grand juries operate. Usually there is only one side of the story told. That of the prosecution. The defense doesn't have a chance to rebute. The common saying is that prosecutors could get charges brought against a ham sandwhich if they wanted to.

If prosecutors don't get charges brought against cops, why do you think that is? Because evidence, or because they didn't want to?

You should probably look at how a grand jury operates.  In most cases the defense does have an opportunity to testify but it's not required by law.  Most people that are subject of grand jury investigations and know they are guilty will choose not testify in front of the grand jury.  Why would they?  They are under no obligation to incriminate themselves and when they know they're guilty why would you give any additional information to the prosecution.  It says something that Wilson and Pantaleo were both willing to stand before the grand juries and answer questions.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

The cold-blooded murder of two New York City policemen as they sat in their car is not only an outrage but also a wake-up call. It shows, in the most painful way, the high cost of having demagogues, politicians, mobs and the media constantly taking cheap shots at the police.

Those cheap shots are in fact very expensive shots, not only to the police themselves but to the whole society. Someone once said that civilization is a thin crust over a volcano. The police are part of that thin crust. We have seen before our own eyes, first in Ferguson, Missouri and then in other communities, what happens when there is just a small crack in that crust, and barbarism and arson burst out.

That can happen anywhere. So can what happened in New York. "Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."
 

It is a painful irony that, on the eve of the murders of these two police officers in New York, some of the city's police were already saying that, in the event of their deaths, they did not want Mayor Bill de Blasio to attend their funerals.

We can only hope that Mayor de Blasio has some residual decency, so that he will not defile these two officers' memorial services with his presence. No politician in the country has done more to play the race card against the police and spread the notion that cops are the big problem in minority communities.

It so happens that the police officers killed were both members of minority groups -- Officer Rafael Ramos, Hispanic, and Officer Wenjian Liu, Asian. It so happens that a substantial part of the New York City police force are members of minority groups.

But you might never know that from the story told by demagogues who depict the black community as a "colonial" society being "occupied" by white policemen who target young blacks. Mayor de Blasio joined the chorus of those saying that they have to warn their black sons how to cope with this situation.
 

"What can we say to our sons?" some demagogues ask. They can say, "Don't go around punching strangers, because it is only a matter of time before you punch the wrong stranger."

Mayor de Blasio has made anti-police comments with Al Sharpton seated at his side. This is the same Al Sharpton with a trail of slime going back more than a quarter of a century, during which he has whipped up mobs and fomented race hatred from the days of the Tawana Brawley "rape" hoax of 1987 to the Duke University "rape" hoax of 2006 and the Ferguson riots of 2014.

Make no mistake about it. There is political mileage to be made siding with demagogues like Al Sharpton who, as demagogue-in-chief, has been invited to the White House dozens of times by its commander-in-chief.

Many in the media and among the intelligentsia cherish the romantic tale of an "us" against "them" struggle of beleaguered ghetto blacks defending themselves against the aggression of white policemen. The gullible include both whites who don't know what they are talking about and blacks who don't know what they are talking about either, because they never grew up in a ghetto. Among the latter are the President of the United States and his Attorney General.
 

Such people readily buy the story that ghetto social problems today -- from children being raised without a father to runaway rates of murder -- are "a legacy of slavery," even though such social problems were nowhere near as severe in the first half of the 20th century as they became in the second half.

You would be hard pressed to name just five examples from the first half of the 20th century of the kinds of ghetto riots that have raged in more than a hundred cities during the second half. Such riots are a legacy of the social degeneracy of our times.

Calling this social degeneracy "a legacy of slavery" is not just an excuse for those who engage in it, it is an excuse for the ideology of the intelligentsia behind the social policies that promoted this degeneracy.

Let those who have laid a guilt trip on people in our times, for evils done by other people in past centuries, at least face their own responsibility for the evil consequences of their own notions and policies. If they won't do it, then the rest of us need to stop listening gullibly to what they are saying.

The race card is nothing to play with. It can ruin us all.

 

 

 

 

Colt45's picture
Colt45
Offline
Joined: 8/24/12

Quincy05 Said:

Colt45 Said:
Liang had a gun when confronted by the cops, not smart, maybe thats why he got shot?

Officials said Liang was holding a flashlight in his right hand and a Glock 9-mm. in the other when he opened the door to the eighth-floor landing.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, try reading the article a little closer. Protip: Gurley was shot (unarmed) Liang was the Officer.

This completely illustrates the problem of immediately assuming the ones that died are at fault for some crime they commited.

Upon further review, you are correct quin, I got it mixed up. To be fair, I had never heard of this case and quickly read through a NY Times article. I didnt assume any crime was committed, the way I read it was that the cops shot an armed man, which apparently wasnt the case. Either way, the dude is dead, killed by a cop, and now the question is if the cop is guilty of homocide or manslaughter, or some crime.

I guess I was trying to understand your position better and why you keep pounding "cops are bad" up everyones arse. In this case, there is a grand jury looking into it and the cop may very well be prosecuted and sentenced, if he committed a crime.  I guess you have already found the cop guilty, so be it. Its just your opinion.
Cops are human, make mistakes just like everyone else. Do you think we are better off without cops?

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

labhunter66 Said:
 What are you reading?  I didn't say they don't bring charges.  I said they take the time to actually examine evidence and see if charges are warranted and I do think charges should be brought against cops that break the law and that's shown beyond a reasonable doubt.  I don't think it happens as much as some want to make believe and that's why grand juries fail to charge cops and if you think cops and prosecutors always see eye to eye you simply don't know enough about the entire legal system to be commenting - but I think most involved in this post have already realized that.

Look at statistics for grand juries and cops; rarely are cops indicted. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

If you think cops and prosecutors seeing eye to eye has anything to do with the close relationship they have, I don't think it's my issues with the legal system we should be discussing.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Colt45 Said:
Upon further review, you are correct quin, I got it mixed up. To be fair, I had never heard of this case and quickly read through a NY Times article. I didnt assume any crime was committed, the way I read it was that the cops shot an armed man, which apparently wasnt the case. Either way, the dude is dead, killed by a cop, and now the question is if the cop is guilty of homocide or manslaughter, or some crime.

I guess I was trying to understand your position better and why you keep pounding "cops are bad" up everyones arse. In this case, there is a grand jury looking into it and the cop may very well be prosecuted and sentenced, if he committed a crime.  I guess you have already found the cop guilty, so be it. Its just your opinion.
Cops are human, make mistakes just like everyone else. Do you think we are better off without cops?

No I don't think that, I never have. I think we're better off without BAD cops. The keep pounding the issue because everyone seems to think that anti-bad cop means anti-cop. That's completely incorrect. In order for beneficial reform to happen, that fallacy needs to gone and the fallacy of the infalliable cop needs to be gone.

There are so many here that excuse the actions of bad cops based on some narrative that the person "deserved" it because they were resisting arrest, were talking bad, etc. No one deserves to die based on the actions of a cop. Blaming the victim takes away from the actions of the officers that also lead to deaths. Is excessive force needed whenever someone resists? Are all laws major enough that the penalty of death is always there? I would suggest no, but far too many still think in the affirmative.

The more bad cops that are removed from the force, the better it is for everyone. More trust equates to better interactions and, in turn, fewer instances of force against civilians and cops. Isn't that what the end goal should be?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Quincy05 Said:

gst Said:

Are you not "specualting" the shooter did not see repeated coverage of protestors fanned by the flames of sharptons rhetoric calling for dead cops and as a result decide to go out and "give some pigs wings"?

Really quincy take a step back and think before you type.

No, because there is no evidence in favor of it. There is no need to speculate. If I say the world is flat because I can't physically see the curve from my house, you aren't speculating when you disagree.

And again with blaming Sharpton. Where did he specifically say that cops should die? Please stop the misinformation. The only thing I've heard of cries to kill cops were from a small group at a protest in NY. The shooter wasn't from New York.

Quincy I am from the little town of Antler ND and I repeatedly saw reports of protestors calling for dead cops when do we want them right now.

Do you really beleive it is not "speculation" to think this shooter did not see it as well?

Once again please show were I have ever said sharpton called for the killing of cops. You seem to want to continue to infer things that have never been said have been said.

Your inability to connect simple dots shows your lack of understanding of correlation or causation.

Hate to burst your bubble quincy, but if it is choosing between your thoughts  or those of Thomas Sowell on this issue..............................................................................

labhunter66's picture
labhunter66
Offline
Joined: 3/7/07

 

Quincy05 Said:

labhunter66 Said:
 What are you reading?  I didn't say they don't bring charges.  I said they take the time to actually examine evidence and see if charges are warranted and I do think charges should be brought against cops that break the law and that's shown beyond a reasonable doubt.  I don't think it happens as much as some want to make believe and that's why grand juries fail to charge cops and if you think cops and prosecutors always see eye to eye you simply don't know enough about the entire legal system to be commenting - but I think most involved in this post have already realized that.

Look at statistics for grand juries and cops; rarely are cops indicted. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

If you think cops and prosecutors seeing eye to eye has anything to do with the close relationship they have, I don't think it's my issues with the legal system we should be discussing.

Did you even read that article?  It basically confirms the reasons I told you.  Grand juries have a tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to the officers and many times the evidence is very weak but the prosecutor doesn't want to appear biased and just not charge so they bring the case the the grand jury and they confirm the evidence isn't sufficient to charge.  

Pages