Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:All they ask is that you act outraged until the mob mentality takes over and the looting begins.  When you see these people trashing small businesses and stealing all their merchandise, the looks on their faces is like that of a child on Christmas day as they're running down the street with their stolen cases of beer, televisions, or whatever they can lug on the run. 

 

You'd think people would see these cases as the prefect example of why the 2nd amendment is so important. You've got an ENTIRE police department in military gear clamping down martial law style and 4 days in they're still looting. The guy with his employee's standing guard in front of the Gun Store left alone, Government can't and won't protect you people, arm yourselves.

Quote:You'd think people would see these cases as the prefect example of why the 2nd amendment is so important. You've got an ENTIRE police department in military gear clamping down martial law style and 4 days in they're still looting. The guy with his employee's standing guard in front of the Gun Store left alone, Government can't and won't protect you people, arm yourselves.

 

Yup.  The businesses where citizens took it upon themselves to defend their property by standing guard armed to the teeth certainly proved to be a deterrent.  Interesting how the looters steered clear, isn't it?

 

On a side note, I was happy to see the 0bamas partying it up and having a good time while Ferguson burned.  They tweeted something out Tuesday night that backfired on them as the tweet declaring that a good time was being had by all on Martha's Vineyard.  So now, our dear ruler plans to make a statement really showing how concerned he is about all of this stuff while not offering to do a single thing to fix anything. 

Quote:Yup.  The businesses where citizens took it upon themselves to defend their property by standing guard armed to the teeth certainly proved to be a deterrent.  Interesting how the looters steered clear, isn't it?

 

On a side note, I was happy to see the 0bamas partying it up and having a good time while Ferguson burned.  They tweeted something out Tuesday night that backfired on them as the tweet declaring that a good time was being had by all on Martha's Vineyard.  So now, our dear ruler plans to make a statement really showing how concerned he is about all of this stuff while not offering to do a single thing to fix anything. 

 

I as wondering how long it would be before you tried to hang something on Obama. Wanted to get in before TMD?

 

So you want Obama to say something - so you can then chastise him for getting involved?

 

You want the President to cut short his vacation and ... do what? But of course you don't want The Government involved.

 

Must be nice to have it covered from every angle.

 

And I like the way so many have really gone out on that limb to say rioting is bad. Next, someone will really get risky and say child abuse is bad.

 

Off course none of us have been in any situation remotely like the blacks in Ferguson, Mi., but that doesn't mean we can't get all self-righteous. 

 

This thread has become the Middle-aged White Man Hour.

Quote:I as wondering how long it would be before you tried to hang something on Obama. Wanted to get in before TMD?

 

So you want Obama to say something - so you can then chastise him for getting involved?

 

You want the President to cut short his vacation and ... do what? But of course you don't want The Government involved.

 

Must be nice to have it covered from every angle.

 

And I like the way so many have really gone out on that limb to say rioting is bad. Next, someone will really get risky and say child abuse is bad.

 

Off course none of us have been in any situation remotely like the blacks in Ferguson, Mi., but that doesn't mean we can't get all self-righteous. 

 

This thread has become the Middle-aged White Man Hour.

 

I actually DIDN'T want 0bama to say a word.  It's a local issue, and his input into the situation serves no purpose other than to pay more lip service. 

 

I'm curious.  What exactly have the blacks in Ferguson, MO been through that makes their situation unique in any way that justifies rioting and looting?  For that matter, what exactly have the blacks in St. Louis and other areas NOT in Ferguson who are looting in solidarity in their communities been through to justify it?

 

Middle-aged white man hour? Bigot much?

Quote:I actually DIDN'T want 0bama to say a word.  It's a local issue, and his input into the situation serves no purpose other than to pay more lip service. 

 

I'm curious.  What exactly have the blacks in Ferguson, MO been through that makes their situation unique in any way that justifies rioting and looting?  For that matter, what exactly have the blacks in St. Louis and other areas NOT in Ferguson who are looting in solidarity in their communities been through to justify it?

 

Middle-aged white man hour? Bigot much?

Not that it justifies violence or looting but it is quite clear that all over the nation blacks and other minorities are disproportionately profiled, targeted for arrest, and given harsher prison sentences then whites. I think it's easy to see how there could be widespread frustration over such a hopeless situation. Armed with feeling like that it's easy to see how a few people in a group could get a mob driven into a fervor, in my opinion. 

Quote:Not that it justifies violence or looting but it is quite clear that all over the nation blacks and other minorities are disproportionately profiled, targeted for arrest, and given harsher prison sentences then whites. I think it's easy to see how there could be widespread frustration over such a hopeless situation. Armed with feeling like that it's easy to see how a few people in a group could get a mob driven into a fervor, in my opinion. 

 

This is off topic but when I read that statement, I wonder why when so many people already know that government abuses, targets, and profiles a group of people, I get so much blow back for wanting to minimize government.

 

You'd think Blacks of all people would be with me on this? Government has done MORE to hurt the black community than it ever has done to help it, but it's often either the "liberal champions" of the black community or blacks themselves that overwhelmingly chastise me as a back wood redneck hick for the idea of eliminating all but the essential factions of government.

Quote:This is off topic but when I read that statement, I wonder why when so many people already know that government abuses, targets, and profiles a group of people, I get so much blow back for wanting to minimize government.

 

You'd think Blacks of all people would be with me on this? Government has done MORE to hurt the black community than it ever has done to help it, but it's often either the "liberal champions" of the black community or blacks themselves that overwhelmingly chastise me as a back wood redneck hick for the idea of eliminating all but the essential factions of government.

You want the states to have the power wouldn't they still have police? I think even if the states would be in control this type of abuse of power would still be around. 

Quote:You want the states to have the power wouldn't they still have police? I think even if the states would be in control this type of abuse of power would still be around. 

 

That's just one option, I'm up for reducing government in general. Granted I talk a lot about State control here because it's the most likely way to reduce big government but the problem IS government.

 

edit: you wouldn't have militarized police forces without federal funding and grants either, cops would be more responsible and accountable to their communities especially if their funding was directly tied to those communities.

Quote:That's just one option, I'm up for reducing government in general. Granted I talk a lot about State control here because it's the most likely way to reduce big government but the problem IS government.

 

edit: you wouldn't have militarized police forces without federal funding and grants either, cops would be more responsible and accountable to their communities especially if their funding was directly tied to those communities.

Agreed, they definitely would not have tanks nor swat gear for every cop, that's for sure. You are very idealistic, that much is obvious. I just think people act their best when in power regardless of who is "buttering their bread"

Quote:I actually DIDN'T want 0bama to say a word.  It's a local issue, and his input into the situation serves no purpose other than to pay more lip service. 

 

I'm curious.  What exactly have the blacks in Ferguson, MO been through that makes their situation unique in any way that justifies rioting and looting?  For that matter, what exactly have the blacks in St. Louis and other areas NOT in Ferguson who are looting in solidarity in their communities been through to justify it?

 

Middle-aged white man hour? Bigot much?

I'd rather BO have not said anything as well. It causes discord and raises questions. For example, there are so many murders in Chicago, his home base, including children. Where's the comments there?

The new slogan for shop owners...You Loot. We Shoot.

Quote:Works like a charm, and we're back to square one. Instead of disgussing the gross abuse the officer displayed we're back to the Black/White America thing.

 

Even in this remote Message board about a football team on the other side of the country, we're back to the Black America/White America subject. Instead of finding out what's causing the aggression in the police force, why is there MORE aggression towards the public in general today regarding the police force?

 

Why does a community riot their own neighborhood when one of their own is killed?

 

Who benefits from these riots?

 

Nope it's Whites don't understand Blacks, Black don't understand Whites and the beat goes on. They've already won.............sad............

 

That's what this thread is all about. 

Welp. It now looks like the caring, recent graduate, future college bound young man was caught on tape performing a strong armed robbery just before being shot.

Yeah yeah yeah... He didn't deserve to be shot. But if he did go for the cops gun, then BLAM!

This poor misunderstood young man, seen walking out of a store with some unpaid for cigars ( allegedly) then when owner tries to stop him, gets jacked up.

Yes Paul Harvey....there's always the " rest of the story".

Quote:Welp. It now looks like the caring, recent graduate, future college bound young man was caught on tape performing a strong armed robbery just before being shot.

Yeah yeah yeah... He didn't deserve to be shot. But if he did go for the cops gun, then BLAM!

This poor misunderstood young man, seen walking out of a store with some unpaid for cigars ( allegedly) then when owner tries to stop him, gets jacked up.

Yes Paul Harvey....there's always the " rest of the story".

 

looks like the officer didn't know the kid has just robbed a store but stopped him for walking down the middle of the road. My question is this, don't all police cruisers have dash cams, just release the dash cam footage and we will know what happened.

Very curious as to why my post regarding the Seattle man arrested was deleted?


I see some people truly dont have a voice.

Quote:Welp. It now looks like the caring, recent graduate, future college bound young man was caught on tape performing a strong armed robbery just before being shot.

Yeah yeah yeah... He didn't deserve to be shot. But if he did go for the cops gun, then BLAM!

This poor misunderstood young man, seen walking out of a store with some unpaid for cigars ( allegedly) then when owner tries to stop him, gets jacked up.

Yes Paul Harvey....there's always the " rest of the story".

 

I've thought from the beginning that there must be more to the story.  Something just doesn't add up.

 

The FACTS as we know them are that a police officer shot and killed an unarmed 6'4 292 pound "child".

 

I have yet to see a police report that details the events that led up to the shooting.  Supposedly there is a "witness" that says that the "child" had his hands up when the officer shot him.  I wonder if this "witness", being the model citizen that he is actually came forward and gave his sworn testimony to officers investigating the incident.

 

Other evidence seems to indicate that this "child" committed a strong armed robbery prior to the altercation with police.  Surely this "child" wasn't robbing a local business of cigars for himself.

 

Reports indicate that initial contact with police were the result of this "child" and his companion walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic.  Hmm... a recent graduate that is college bound would certainly know that it is not right to walk down the middle of a street blocking traffic.  Surely he knew that the proper place to walk is on the side of the street/sidewalk.

 

Finally, from my first hand experience with law enforcement, in most cases an officer won't draw his weapon let alone discharge it without very good reason.  Factors involved to simply draw the weapon would be physical size/appearance of a subject, the subject's demeanor and/or whether or not the subject is being cooperative.  An officer will never draw his weapon and fire for no good reason.

Quote:I've thought from the beginning that there must be more to the story.  Something just doesn't add up.

 

The FACTS as we know them are that a police officer shot and killed an unarmed 6'4 292 pound "child".

 

I have yet to see a police report that details the events that led up to the shooting.  Supposedly there is a "witness" that says that the "child" had his hands up when the officer shot him.  I wonder if this "witness", being the model citizen that he is actually came forward and gave his sworn testimony to officers investigating the incident.

 

Other evidence seems to indicate that this "child" committed a strong armed robbery prior to the altercation with police.  Surely this "child" wasn't robbing a local business of cigars for himself.

 

Reports indicate that initial contact with police were the result of this "child" and his companion walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic.  Hmm... a recent graduate that is college bound would certainly know that it is not right to walk down the middle of a street blocking traffic.  Surely he knew that the proper place to walk is on the side of the street/sidewalk.

 

Finally, from my first hand experience with law enforcement, in most cases an officer won't draw his weapon let alone discharge it without very good reason.  Factors involved to simply draw the weapon would be physical size/appearance of a subject, the subject's demeanor and/or whether or not the subject is being cooperative.  An officer will never draw his weapon and fire for no good reason.

And in the end this officer shot a person in the back that was moving away from them. An unarmed person. You can spin that however you like but that is still wrong. 

 

The bolded part is why people are enraged over events like this.

Quote:I've thought from the beginning that there must be more to the story.  Something just doesn't add up.

 

The FACTS as we know them are that a police officer shot and killed an unarmed 6'4 292 pound "child".

 

I have yet to see a police report that details the events that led up to the shooting.  Supposedly there is a "witness" that says that the "child" had his hands up when the officer shot him.  I wonder if this "witness", being the model citizen that he is actually came forward and gave his sworn testimony to officers investigating the incident.

 

Other evidence seems to indicate that this "child" committed a strong armed robbery prior to the altercation with police.  Surely this "child" wasn't robbing a local business of cigars for himself.

 

Reports indicate that initial contact with police were the result of this "child" and his companion walking down the middle of the street blocking traffic.  Hmm... a recent graduate that is college bound would certainly know that it is not right to walk down the middle of a street blocking traffic.  Surely he knew that the proper place to walk is on the side of the street/sidewalk.

 

Finally, from my first hand experience with law enforcement, in most cases an officer won't draw his weapon let alone discharge it without very good reason.  Factors involved to simply draw the weapon would be physical size/appearance of a subject, the subject's demeanor and/or whether or not the subject is being cooperative.  An officer will never draw his weapon and fire for no good reason.

 

 

Quote:And in the end this officer shot a person in the back that was moving away from them. An unarmed person. You can spin that however you like but that is still wrong. 

 

The bolded part is why people are enraged over events like this.

 

The suspect was shot multiple times.  Was the first hit in the back?  We don't know that.  I can guarantee that an officer is not going to shoot a suspect running away from them with their hands up.

 

As a side note, an officer does have the right to shoot a fleeing felon in the back.  I'm not saying that this is what happened, but if a fleeing suspect is a danger to society, then the officer can stop the suspect by whatever means necessary up to and including deadly force.

 

If people are so enraged about the protocol that police have, then they need to spend a day in the life of a police officer.  I'm 5'7 and weigh about 140 if I'm soaking wet.  If I am a police officer and encounter a "model citizen" who is 6'4 and around 292 that happens to be "just walking down the street blocking traffic" I'm going to take precautions when approaching this person.  Nothing has been revealed as to how the initial exchange took place.

 

My theory is that the suspect became aggressive initially, and when confronted with deadly force, decided to run away.

 

Like it or not, police DO in fact profile people and make decisions based on that.  Profiling is not really based on race, it's based on "perceived danger".  Race can come into play based on location and circumstances.

 

Contrary to what is being said and implied, police don't just go out shooting people for no reason.

Quote:Very curious as to why my post regarding the Seattle man arrested was deleted?

I see some people truly dont have a voice.

Was that the one with all the "bad words removed" being thrown around in it? You can't link profanity to the board....

Quote:The suspect was shot multiple times.  Was the first hit in the back?  We don't know that.  I can guarantee that an officer is not going to shoot a suspect running away from them with their hands up.

 

As a side note, an officer does have the right to shoot a fleeing felon in the back.  I'm not saying that this is what happened, but if a fleeing suspect is a danger to society, then the officer can stop the suspect by whatever means necessary up to and including deadly force.

 

If people are so enraged about the protocol that police have, then they need to spend a day in the life of a police officer.  I'm 5'7 and weigh about 140 if I'm soaking wet.  If I am a police officer and encounter a "model citizen" who is 6'4 and around 292 that happens to be "just walking down the street blocking traffic" I'm going to take precautions when approaching this person.  Nothing has been revealed as to how the initial exchange took place.

 

My theory is that the suspect became aggressive initially, and when confronted with deadly force, decided to run away.

 

Like it or not, police DO in fact profile people and make decisions based on that.  Profiling is not really based on race, it's based on "perceived danger".  Race can come into play based on location and circumstances.

 

Contrary to what is being said and implied, police don't just go out shooting people for no reason.

So shooting someone in the back is not wrong?