• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Brown shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
RandFan said:
So, you agree that there is a problem but you seem to imply that people shouldn't talk about it out of fear the police won't do their jobs.

Help me out. I don't understand what you want of the people of Ferguson who have put up with an amazing amount of crap from the authorities.
Click to expand...
You mean, some of the people of Furgeson, right?
Have you considered that a majority of the people of Ferguson might prefer aggressive policing to rampant criminality?
 
The Don said:
Sounds like a bit of a false dichotomy to me.
Click to expand...
Perhaps.
All that can be said for certain is that the level of police aggression has resulted in the level of criminality that has occurred thus far.
Has it been demonstrated that less aggressive policing does not result in more crime?
Baltimore has certainly seen a recent backing off of law enforcement since the rioting. How is that working out for them?
 
Distracted1 said:
You mean, some of the people of Furgeson, right?
Have you considered that a majority of the people of Ferguson might prefer aggressive policing to rampant criminality?
Click to expand...
Human rights are not a subject for popularity. The fact that many people liked slavery doesn't mean that slavery was a good thing. The fact that many slaves didn't think themselves slaves did not solve the problem of slavery.
 
Distracted1 said:
Perhaps.
All that can be said for certain is that the level of police aggression has resulted in the level of criminality that has occurred thus far.
Has it been demonstrated that less aggressive policing does not result in more crime?
Baltimore has certainly seen a recent backing off of law enforcement since the rioting. How is that working out for them?
Click to expand...

I think the idea of "aggressive" is a bit of an equivocation and straw man (though not necessarily on your part).

  1. If "aggressive" police work means violating fundamental rights or departmental policies then the question is moot.
  2. If you are going to defend aggression then shouldn't it be your burden to provide evidence of the success of aggression?
  3. How is this not an invalid argument from consequences (sure torture is bad but if we stop torturing people [insert bad consequence].
  4. How is this argument not an appeal to fear (cops won't protect you if you don't let them treat you in a way that you don't want to be treated)?
 
RandFan said:
I think the idea of "aggressive" is a bit of an equivocation and straw man (though not necessarily on your part).

  1. If "aggressive" police work means violating fundamental rights or departmental policies then the question is moot.
  2. If you are going to defend aggression then shouldn't it be your burden to provide evidence of the success of aggression?
  3. How is this not an invalid argument from consequences (sure torture is bad but if we stop torturing people [insert bad consequence].
  4. How is this argument not an appeal to fear (cops won't protect you if you don't let them treat you in a way that you don't want to be treated)?
Click to expand...
As to 1, your point is unclear from the link.
2,3,and 4 all seem fundamentally similar- you wish me to demonstrate that diminished aggressiveness on the part of LEOs will result in a poorer quality of life for a plurality of residents. You have that backwards, you are ( I think ) suggesting that the police change the way they are policing- the burden ( if you would have me submit to a change without fighting it ) is therefore on you to show that the change will not result in increased crime and a diminished quality of life for me.

Or, you can, ( as many have- most often from a very safe distance ) diminish the ability of the police to provide the level of protection that they are able to at the expense of ( or at least - giving no consideration to ) those who will bear the direct consequence of increased crime if the changes that would make you sleep better at night don't quite pan out.

You live on a hill, and wish to blow the dam. It is ludicrous to accuse the man living in the valley who suggests leaving the dam alone of " arguing from fear "
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
As to 1, your point is unclear from the link.
2,3,and 4 all seem fundamentally similar- you wish me to demonstrate that diminished aggressiveness on the part of LEOs will result in a poorer quality of life for a plurality of residents. You have that backwards, you are ( I think ) suggesting that the police change the way they are policing- the burden ( if you would have me submit to a change without fighting it ) is therefore on you to show that the change will not result in increased crime and a diminished quality of life for me.

Or, you can, ( as many have- most often from a very safe distance ) diminish the ability of the police to provide the level of protection that they are able to at the expense of ( or at least - giving no consideration to ) the consequences upon those who will bear the direct consequence of increased crime if the changes that would make you sleep better at night don't quite pan out.

You live on a hill, and wish to blow the dam. It is ludicrous to accuse the man living in the valley who suggests leaving the dam alone of " arguing from fear "
Click to expand...

I have an idea, perhaps Ferguson Police could concede the complaints in the DOJ report. Otherwise, that report IS my evidence.

You?
 
Distracted1 said:
Oh!, you are asking me, sorry I thought you had posted in the wrong thread- or was just throwing that out for reasons of your own.

I'll bite though.
I don't recall the specifics, but my hazy memory is bringing up something about GW being in Florida and not taking much executive action until after the storm - even then doing little more than a " fly by " initially. He certainly didn't do anything to stop the storm from hitting, though- possibly too busy trying to figure out a way to link it to Sadaam Husein.

Relavence?
Click to expand...
:D :D :D :o :(

There is no relevance. I'm still on the wagon so I can't blame alcohol. Dude, I've no idea. Perhaps I should go to bed.

Please accept my apologies and perhaps I can figure it out in the morning.
 
Distracted1 said:
You mean, some of the people of Furgeson, right?
Have you considered that a majority of the people of Ferguson might prefer aggressive policing to rampant criminality?
Click to expand...

The Don said:
Sounds like a bit of a false dichotomy to me.
Click to expand...

Distracted1 said:
Perhaps.
All that can be said for certain is that the level of police aggression has resulted in the level of criminality that has occurred thus far.
Has it been demonstrated that less aggressive policing does not result in more crime?
Baltimore has certainly seen a recent backing off of law enforcement since the rioting. How is that working out for them?
Click to expand...

Having the police not breaking the law results n less criminality by the police.

If you look at the DoJ report int Ferguson, you can see that they were charging people without lawful reason* - the police were not being tough on criminals, they were criminally tough on the innocent. Given the number of citations (90,000 in four years) and the population (21,000) , and the way that the court ratcheted up fines, it is fair to say that the FPD were preying on some of the people in Ferguson - demographics isn't enough to explain why 90% of citations, and 93% of arrests were of blacks, despite them making up only 67% of the population.

None of this would help deal with crime, but would encourage distrust and thus virtually ensure that a sizeable proportion of the population would be disinclined to help the police. It would promote lawlessness.


*For example arresting someone solely for "resisting arrest" or for being "one of those guys who watches CNBC too much about his rights."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom