(04-12-2015, 09:50 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: I'm tired of bleeding hearts feeling sorry that thugs might take some punches while they're being taken into custody.

You're not a very bright person if you believe those who oppose police brutality are defending thugs.

Its a bad time to be a cop. All someone has to say is they used racial slurs and Al Sharpton becomes their lawyer.

(04-13-2015, 06:00 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(04-12-2015, 09:50 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: I'm tired of bleeding hearts feeling sorry that thugs might take some punches while they're being taken into custody.

You're not a very bright person if you believe those who oppose police brutality are defending thugs.

I think for MS (and probably many other like-minded individuals), a thug isn't defined by his/her actions, but instead by how MS feels about the person being assaulted vs. the person doing the assaulting. He doesn't appear to be objective or able to think critically when it comes to people wearing shiny badges.

For example, a gosh-darned trouble-makin' criminally-minded horse thief being repeatedly kicked in the head and groin, punched 37 times, and wailed on with police batons by up to ten badge-wearers (after the suspect had already surrendered and been rendered incapacitated) = "a thug taking a few punches while he's being taken into custody" in MS's mind.

According to people like MS, it's so damned liberal for some members of society to expect law enforcement officers to actually respect the laws they're paid to enforce and adhere to their own police policies. I mean, why the hell should cops refrain from kicking the living shit out of unarmed incapacitated citizens if those citizen caused the cops to have a hard day on the job? Pfft. Only cop-haters and thug-sympathizers have such unrealistic bleeding-hearted expectations, according to MS.

I respect that MS calls it like he sees it, even though I disagree with his view. It's my opinion that cops who believe they're above the law -- cops who assault community members (good community members or otherwise) as a result of their own anger management issues, frustration, or power-trippin' -- are thugs themselves and need to find a new line of work.

Police officers can use a great deal of force, legally, in order to subdue a suspect. Once the suspect is subdued, use of force/violence is excessive (and thuggish, IMO). Officers who engage in such thuggery reflect poorly and cause public-relations problems for decent cops. When abusive cops are caught, their bad acts inflict damage upon their own family members, the reputation of the police force, and the perceived credibility of decent police officers everywhere... It's those decent, hard-working, law-abiding shiny badge-wearers who have my full respect and support.

HotD, I believe in discipline. I was raised that way (probably a bit too much on the extreme end), but I believe it set me on a good course.

In today's world, kids get time outs, not spankings. I think that, generally speaking, it's a good thing, but some kids NEED a good spanking.

I equate that to law enforcement. A guy receiving a speeding ticket, parking ticket, etc, should be handled respectfully and sent on their way.

A career criminal, leading cops on a 3 hour tour, placing innocent lives and cops' lives in danger, probably needs a little extra-curricular in order to get the message. He needs more than a time-out.

Earlier I said I was in the minority in my thinking, and you disagreed.

You really believe the majority of US citizens feel the way I do about this?

Anyway I sense that you really dislike my viewpoint on this, however, I understand the way you feel from your standpoint. We just look at it differently.

Haven't heard of any protests or anything really about the guy on the horse since the day it happened. Maybe I just missed it? Or maybe he's not the right demographic? Hmmmm...

I was trying to find pictures of the Berkley riots with the over 400 students brawling but came up with nothing. Maybe it was "white washed"

(04-13-2015, 10:43 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: A career criminal, leading cops on a 3 hour tour, placing innocent lives and cops' lives in danger, probably needs a little extra-curricular in order to get the message. He needs more than a time-out.

Police officers are not parents and adult strangers -- well-behaved or ill-behaved -- are not their children. That's an over-simplistic and ineffective analogy, IMO.

Police officers are paid and trained to enforce laws. They are not paid, trained or permitted to decide the guilt or innocence of suspects, nor to decide and administer discipline/punishment/sentencing.

Despite all of its flaws, the American criminal justice system has separate branches for good and deliberate reasons. You don't seem to understand or respect that. Your view suggests that America might as well just scrap the prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and juries and leave it all up to the police officers. I think that's a dangerous prospect.

Your view is simple-minded and skewed, IMO.

(04-13-2015, 10:43 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Earlier I said I was in the minority in my thinking, and you disagreed.

You really believe the majority of US citizens feel the way I do about this?

Your view contained several points. I believe that most Americans feel the same way about most of those points.
-Like you, I believe that the majority of Americans generally support police over criminals.
-Like you, I believe the majority of Americans are not in situations or environments where they face routine harassment or brutality by police.
-Like you, I believe the majority of Americans do not sympathize naturally with all criminals.

But, like you, are most Americans apathetic or tolerant about cops breaking the law or taking the law into their own hands when dealing with criminals? Unfortunately, I do think that the majority of Americans still view it like you do, but I think that viewpoint will (rightfully) be the minority one in the short-term future.

News and videos are accessible everywhere, all the time now. Thus, more Americans are able to see first-hand police brutality in action. I think the increased insight and awareness regarding police brutality has more Americans looking objectively and critically at policing in this country and coming to the conclusion that police brutality is a serious problem which may be more systematic than exceptional. I think that the growing protest of police brutality is a good thing for society and a good thing for law enforcement.

(04-13-2015, 10:43 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Anyway I sense that you really dislike my viewpoint on this, however, I understand the way you feel from your standpoint. We just look at it differently.

Yeah, I think your personal reasons for holding a fairly common viewpoint stem from contempt for others, an unjustified sense of superiority in regards to yourself, and overall ignorance. Still, I don't wanna tase you, pin you down, and invite a bunch of friends over to beat you to a bloody pulp or anything.

(04-13-2015, 10:58 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Haven't heard of any protests or anything really about the guy on the horse since the day it happened. Maybe I just missed it? Or maybe he's not the right demographic? Hmmmm...

True 'dat.

(04-13-2015, 10:58 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Haven't heard of any protests or anything really about the guy on the horse since the day it happened. Maybe I just missed it? Or maybe he's not the right demographic? Hmmmm...

I agree that that demographics likely play a part in the degree and types of protesting that are underway.

It may well be that had the horse thief been black and living in a predominately black community, we'd be seeing more public assembly protests.

I also think if Pusok had died and/or if Pusok lived in an urban area, there would be more people gathering in-person, in addition to all of the people currently protesting on social media and by phone. SBPD claims that the latter types of protesting and threats are keeping them from releasing the names of the officers involved.

Pusok is supposed to appear in court today. I'm kinda anxious to see if the hearing will be open to the public and, if so, what kind of shape he's in.

Doesn't look like there will be any activity at the court house today after all.



Francis Pusok was released from jail shortly before 7 p.m. Sunday after posting bail, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department inmate records showed.

On Friday, officials said he was scheduled to be arraigned via video in Victorville Superior Court early Monday afternoon, according to the county District Attorney’s Office.

But inmate records showed no scheduled appearances as of Sunday night.

http://ktla.com/2015/04/12/man-seen-bein...osts-bail/

(04-13-2015, 12:46 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(04-13-2015, 10:58 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Haven't heard of any protests or anything really about the guy on the horse since the day it happened. Maybe I just missed it? Or maybe he's not the right demographic? Hmmmm...

I agree that that demographics likely play a part in the degree and types of protesting that are underway.

It may well be that had the horse thief been black and living in a predominately black community, we'd be seeing more public assembly protests.

I also think if Pusok had died and/or if Pusok lived in an urban area, there would be more people gathering in-person, in addition to all of the people currently protesting on social media and by phone. SBPD claims that the latter types of protesting and threats are keeping them from releasing the names of the officers involved.

Pusok is supposed to appear in court today. I'm kinda anxious to see if the hearing will be open to the public and, if so, what kind of shape he's in.

Regardless of how liberal and accepting of other races and religions in our nation we think we are, actions like this from the media promote the racial divide. This is why I have an issue with the media only covering stories of blacks vs. white cops and those being the only protests "worthy" of protesting. Take the color out of it and deal with the real issue at hand. Black people arent the only victims of police brutality and white cops aren't the only villians in all of this. You just don't hear about it unless it's a white cop vs. a black person. As narrow minded as you accuse me of being HoTD, you have to admit that what I'm saying is making more and more sense as time goes by. Blanket statistics don't tell the whole story. In predominantly hispanic communities I'm sure you will find that hispanics are victimized by the cops more than the black or Asian folks and the same for predominantly Asian communities and so on. Stratify the data. Report what the real issue is. We have cops on the street who shouldn't be carring a badge and a gun. As Duchess pointed out with the cover of Time, White vs. Black sells right now (and has for 100's of years). Personally, I won't be picking up an issue.

(04-13-2015, 12:46 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: SBPD claims that the latter types of protesting and threats are keeping them from releasing the names of the officers involved.

Ain't that rich.

Release their fuckin' names so the whole world will know who they are. They can hide behind MS and everyone else that thinks it's okay to do what they did.

I don't think what you are saying is making more and more sense as time goes by, Gunnar. I've always understood your complaints. I just don't share your viewpoint and that has been a source of frustration for you throughout this thread.

I don't object to anybody exercising their Constitutional rights to protest against what they view as a violation of their civil or legal rights, regardless of race or media coverage. And, I do object to unwarranted police brutality.

I'd just as easily understand people protesting the fact that Caucasians, Hispanics, Asians...don't protest more often as I do people protesting that black people protest too much, whether I agree with either point of criticism or not.

Anyway, I don't have a problem reading and listening to what you think makes sense, nor with comprehending it. That hasn't changed. And, it's not news to me that white on black crime gets a lot of media coverage. Where we differ is that I just don't have a problem with protests by anybody of any color, nor with people asking questions, sharing different opinions, and engaging in speculation when it's labeled as such -- inside or outside of an internet forum discussion thread. I think it's healthy and interesting.

(04-13-2015, 01:38 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(04-13-2015, 12:46 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: SBPD claims that the latter types of protesting and threats are keeping them from releasing the names of the officers involved.

Ain't that rich.

Release their fuckin' names so the whole world will know who they are. They can hide behind MS and everyone else that thinks it's okay to do what they did.

Pretty sure nobody cares.

Has Obama weighed in on this yet? Sharpton? NAACP? BLM?

nope.

(04-13-2015, 01:46 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I don't think what you are saying is making more and more sense as time goes by, Gunnar. I've always understood your complaints. I just don't share your viewpoint and that has been a source of frustration for you throughout this thread.

I don't object to anybody exercising their Constitutional rights to protest against what they view as a violation of their civil or legal rights, regardless of race or media coverage. I do have a problem with unwarranted police brutality.

I'd just as easily understand people protesting the fact that Caucasians, Hispanics, Asians...don't protest more often as I do people protesting that black people protest too much, whether I agree with either point of criticism or not.

Anyway, I don't have a problem reading and listening to what you think makes sense, nor with comprehending it. That hasn't changed. And, it's not news to me that white on black crime gets a lot of media coverage. Where we differ is that I just don't have a problem with protests, asking questions, and speculation labeled as such -- inside or outside of an internet forum discussion & debate thread. I think it's healthy and interesting.

The only thing that I propose isn't healty is condoning the black vs. white angle that the media is spinning by asking questions in the manner you asked. Take the color out of it and get down to preventing police brutality.

(04-13-2015, 01:51 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Has Obama weighed in on this yet? Sharpton? NAACP? BLM?

We don't want those people weighing in. Why would you even suggest that they do?

(04-13-2015, 01:56 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(04-13-2015, 01:51 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Has Obama weighed in on this yet? Sharpton? NAACP? BLM?

We don't want those people weighing in. Why would you even suggest that they do?

Who is 'we'?

And why shouldn't they weigh in?

Holy fuck. Are you serious?

Every time they weigh in on something it's a fricken mess. We've talked about it in here and for the most part people just want them to STFU. Look around Mock and you'll find evidence of that. I'm not looking for you but I know it's here and that's just a tiny part of the whole.

(04-13-2015, 01:55 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: The only thing that I propose isn't healty is condoning the black vs. white angle that the media is spinning by asking questions in the manner you asked. Take the color out of it and get down to preventing police brutality.

This is where I find you limited in perspective.

You're insisting that your view is the only one worth considering, again.

You don't know if color was a motivator or factor in the killing of Walter Scott yet, none of us do. But, you keep insisting, to no avail, that I shouldn't even have posed a question related to color and that I should instead conform to your comfort level and viewpoint. That's childish, arrogant, and narrow-minded. It's also funny, to me.

Your contention that I'm acquiescing to "spinning" because I posed a question in response to the original thread title is wrong and presumptuous. I've probably posted less about color than anything else, and still YOU keep focusing on what you contend is my undue focus on color. Do you really not see the irony?

Since I don't believe you've managed to make the connection yet, I'll go ahead and explain it to you. Six titled this thread, "Cop Charged with Murder for Killing a Black Man". I made it clear in my first post that I think the cop was charged with murder because he killed an unarmed man by shooting him in the back and then lied and claimed it was self defense, not because of Scott's (or Slager's) race. It's all there on page 1 of this thread.

I acknowledged what Six wrote without getting all worked up about it by sharing my view that the arrest was unrelated to color, and also acknowledged that although I don't believe Scott's color and gender had anything to do with Slager's arrest, they might have been factors in his murder. That possibility, along with several others, should (and will) be questioned during the investigation, whether you like it or not. Your disapproval and attempt to chastise me for the "manner" in which I posed the question is an asinine display of ego-trippin'. But, again, it's amusing, so there's that.

Anyway, you're free to keep insisting that you know my thoughts and intentions and continue being wrong about that -- my own words in this thread contradict your claims. Or, you can re-read what's been posted with a clearer mind and see it for what it is. I'm here either way and will continue to post in the manner I see fit.

(04-13-2015, 02:58 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(04-13-2015, 01:55 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: The only thing that I propose isn't healty is condoning the black vs. white angle that the media is spinning by asking questions in the manner you asked. Take the color out of it and get down to preventing police brutality.

This where I find you limited in perspective.

You're insisting that your view is the only one worth considering, again.

You don't know if color was a motivator or factor in the killing of Walter Scott yet, none of us do. But, you keep insisting, to no avail, that I shouldn't even have posed a question related to color and that I should instead conform to your comfort level and viewpoint. That's childish, arrogant, and narrow-minded. It's also funny, to me.

Your contention that I'm "spinning" because I posed a question in response to the original thread title is wrong and presumptuous. I've probably posted less about color than anything else, and still YOU keep focusing on what you contend is my undue focus on color. Do you really not see the irony?

Since I don't believe you've managed to make the connection yet, I'll go ahead and explain it to you. Six titled this thread, "Cop Charged with Murder for Killing a Black Man". I made it clear in my first post that I think the cop was charged with murder because he killed an unarmed man by shooting him in the back and then lied and claimed it was self defense, not because of Scott's (or Slager's) race. It's all there on page 1 of this thread.

But, unlike you, I acknowledged what Six wrote without getting all worked up about it, shared my view, and acknowledged that although I don't believe Scott's color and gender had anything to do with Slager's arrest, they might have been factors in his murder. That possibility, along with several others, should (and will) be questioned during the investigation, whether you like it or not.

Anyway, you're free to keep insisting that you know what I'm thinking and doing and being wrong about it -- my own words in this thread contradict your claims. Or, you can re-read what's been posted with a clearer mind and see it for what it is. I'm here either way.

You are the one that posed the question regarding color playing a role in this. That is why you got the "FFS! reaction" out of me. If you want to deny that now or play it down I don't blame you, but you typed it and clicked "post reply."