Why do so many people support the Ferguson Police?

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Why do so many people support the Ferguson Police?

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:03 pm

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:I do know of the laws. I don't drop anything "randomly" like you claim. You just like to lie. These laws are idiotic and tyrannical.


excellent. If you're knowledgeable of said laws I look forward to reference to said laws and some reasoning to support. Instead of, say, 'he's guilty! Obviously'. You know, actual legal reasons.

Also I'm glad your havent broke your streak of one attack minimum per post.

WeiWenDi wrote:I will say this: the grand jury's job in this case was not to ascertain whether Eric Garner broke any laws, and still less to ascertain whether or not he had a history of breaking the law. Even a 'career criminal', as SunXia put it, is and ought to be entitled to justice under our system.

The grand jury was supposed to determine if Daniel Pantaleo broke NYPD department policy and city law by using a chokehold on him. That was its job. Given the evidence from the autopsy and the video recording, it does seem highly suspicious that they would not choose to indict Pantaleo, and I can certainly understand why there are protests over the issue.


To be even more clear, they don't even decide whether the officer broke Ny laws. They decide if there is enough evidence to justify bringing the officer to actual trial. It's an extremely limited job.

Personally I don't find it suspicious, but I do find it perplexing. Without knowing the charges one is unable to discern or speculate why they did what they did. But I understand the protests.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4315
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Why do so many people support the Ferguson Police?

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sat Dec 13, 2014 3:03 pm

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:No, I mean all the Grand Jury stuff has been kept secret, not just the jury itself. They're hiding still. Secret trials and juries are not right, period.


Again, cultural issue but we know next to nothing about any jury over here and I don't see the problem though it seems there is more out there then you think. We would expect details from the judge though.

In addition, whether Eric Garner actually did anything means everything in this case.


In terms of how much resisted arrest, perhaps. In times of whether he did anything before then, not really. Whether he was innocent or guilty doesn't affect whether the cop should be prosecuted or not

I'm not debating legality with you; I despise the American legal system because it sucks, period. No debate there.When you can get a longer sentence in prison for marijuana than beating your spouse, and blacks get hit harder than whites, there is no reason whatsoever to have any faith in the system.
.

I agree there are problems, deep ones with the American justice system. It needs a work but even I think your being too harsh in it.

It's broken, and the only thing we can do to change it is protest and riot. Voting does nothing in case you missed that the majority in America went DEE DEE DEE and gave the Republicans a clean sweep in the elections.


It's a democracy, instead of complaining, try to learn why people voted the way they did. Without going "nah, too hard, I'll just assume they are evil racist morons who kill kittens"

Voting can and does change things. Protests, go for it. Rioting? No. Rioting makes things worse, hurts the cause your arguing for and makes innocents lives hell

You want to debate facts? Don't bring the law into it. Law isn't fact, law is a system of policing people that is supposed to protect people.


How can one debate facts and reality involving the legal system and not bring said legal system into it? :?

No sane person could possibly claim that what happened wasn't excessive police brutality.


I really dislike the way your using mental health as a stick. Mental health is a major issue and is fighting stigma across the world, using it as a "anyone who disagrees with me=insane" is just belittling the issue.

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:I do know of the laws. I don't drop anything "randomly" like you claim. You just like to lie. These laws are idiotic and tyrannical.


When someone puts such effort in a post, taking on and making full rebuttals and arguments, taking on the heart of the issue and your arguments... responding with two lines doesn't look good.

From the outside of America, having read the debates you are in, you don't seem to know the laws anywhere near as much as you think. You did drop things, I think Shi has been honest

Shozuhn wrote:Also, I've heard that the deceased had a rather extensive and repetitive criminal record. In my opinion, he probably shouldn't have been a free man to begin with. .


Why? Was there something in particular where you think he should have been jailed a lot longer? If the man had served his time for his crimes, he has much right to walk the streets as any of us. Of course, the cops also have a right to arrest anyone of us if we come under suspicion of a crime but till then, as I say, he had the same right as us to walk the streets.

WeiWenDi wrote:Given the evidence from the autopsy and the video recording, it does seem highly suspicious that they would not choose to indict Pantaleo, and I can certainly understand why there are protests over the issue.


I would say less suspicious, more worrying on three possible counts: statue requirement is too high, prosecutor can't eve get it to trial then what hopes in trial, jury messed up.
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15677
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Why do so many people support the Ferguson Police?

Unread postby Shozuhn » Sat Dec 13, 2014 4:50 pm

Dong Zhou wrote:Why? Was there something in particular where you think he should have been jailed a lot longer? If the man had served his time for his crimes, he has much right to walk the streets as any of us. Of course, the cops also have a right to arrest anyone of us if we come under suspicion of a crime but till then, as I say, he had the same right as us to walk the streets.


There comes a point where someone has been floating in and out of prison so much that it becomes obvious that they can not behave in society. I believe our government is far too lenient on repeat crime. I swear, I get soooooo mad every time I see a story about someone getting arrested for their 7th DUI... like seriously... it's obvious that they're not gonna stop doing it; so please stop putting them back on our streets where they are in position to kill me or someone I love on their 8th DUI.
That said, I've not heard the nature of the deceased's past arrests, so I can't necessarily say for sure that he was such trash. But whenever I hear that someone is a repeat criminal, I usually just go ahead and assume this is someone who probably shouldn't be free to start with.
User avatar
Shozuhn
Initiate
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Why do so many people support the Ferguson Police?

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sat Dec 13, 2014 5:17 pm

Shozuhn wrote:That said, I've not heard the nature of the deceased's past arrests, so I can't necessarily say for sure that he was such trash. But whenever I hear that someone is a repeat criminal, I usually just go ahead and assume this is someone who probably shouldn't be free to start with.


Sorry but how is that right? "I know next to nothing about you, the circumstances or what you actually did but I condemn you based on one tiny piece of info."

Now on the basic principle of what to do with multiple offenders, I have a question then a statement of my beliefs. What number would you put the "and now your jail for the rest of your life with no possibility of parole" strike?

I would argue from the opposite point. There are, sadly, those who will never stay out of crime no matter what society does but I believe those numbers to be small. If a country has a lot of multi-time offenders, there is something wrong with the justice/rehabilitation system and, likely, the society as a whole.
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15677
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Why do so many people support the Ferguson Police?

Unread postby Shozuhn » Sat Dec 13, 2014 5:53 pm

Dong Zhou wrote:Now on the basic principle of what to do with multiple offenders, I have a question then a statement of my beliefs. What number would you put the "and now your jail for the rest of your life with no possibility of parole" strike?

I would argue from the opposite point. There are, sadly, those who will never stay out of crime no matter what society does but I believe those numbers to be small. If a country has a lot of multi-time offenders, there is something wrong with the justice/rehabilitation system and, likely, the society as a whole.


It's a difficult question to answer directly. The idea of "strikes" seems to imply that all crimes are 'worth' one strike. So I couldn't agree with such a set up to begin with. I suppose it just has to be taken on a case by case basis.
And I totally agree with your assessment that repeat crime implies some failure in society as a whole. This is the type of topic where I could probably easily offend other people on his forum (talking about things such as how our society has a complete indifference to things like single parent house holds, even seems to encourage them); so as it's not my goal to offend anyone here, probably best that I don't bother getting into such a conversation.
User avatar
Shozuhn
Initiate
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: Why do so many people support the Ferguson Police?

Unread postby DreamGoddessLindsey » Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:48 pm

I would only make three strikes for violent crimes. Only violent crimes, nothing else.

Sorry if my section on law and fact was confusing. Lemme try again.

The problem is that Shik debates laws as if laws were factually correct, and they're not. He debates only legality without debating the underlying morality. If laws hurt people, the laws are immoral, period. That is the basis. Hurting innocent people (and Eric Garner was never proven guilty on this, and is therefore innocent by default) is always wrong, especially when you do it intentionally. He may not have tried to kill him, but he did it anyway, and he used a hold that has been banned for two decades. He is clearly guilty. Shik has lied because he claims I drop laws when I don't and that I haven't said what he's guilty of which I have.

He used a two decades banned move on a suspect who was peacefully protesting his impending arrest, an arrest that they had no probable cause for to begin with. Now since the law names are different in every state, I can't give specific names, just the general names as I know them. What he did was basically reckless manslaughter because he used a move that was banned on a non-dangerous suspect and ended up killing him by accident. The standards cops are held to should be much higher, not lower as the case is.

My argument is that these laws are wrong. Shik thinks logic and emotion can't co-exist, but that is also wrong, and I can prove it.

Logic, you see, is deep. You need to complete the thought, which is what most people don't do. Logic without emotion is empty and heartless and not a good thing. You need to combine the two for good results. In this case, logic says this: "If we can't trust cops not to even accidentally kill us, then how can good faith exist?" In other words, the string of police incidents of killing non-dangerous unarmed blacks has gotten out of control (plus the idiotic Trayvon Martin thing that Zimmerman got away with clean) has made the world a more dangerous place, and therefore it is only logical to come down hard on the police to restore public trust.

That is logic.

If it seems I'm lazy sometimes, it's because I'm sometimes lazy, like every person on the planet. It's also sometimes that I can't stand Shik and want to just ignore him most of the time because I don't have any respect for the way he debates, his devil's advocate ways, and his "Lawful Neutral" stance toward everything. His way ignores right and wrong and morality and puts ultimate faith in the system. He even acknowledges that the system needs changing, but supports the system anyway! It's ludicrous. That is my explanation for that. If I could hide all of his posts, I would. I much enjoy debating with the rest of you.
DreamGoddessLindsey
Banned
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:50 pm

Re: Why do so many people support the Ferguson Police?

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sat Dec 13, 2014 10:12 pm

DGL, I'm tired so I'll leave response till tomorrow.

Shozuhn wrote:
It's a difficult question to answer directly. The idea of "strikes" seems to imply that all crimes are 'worth' one strike. So I couldn't agree with such a set up to begin with. I suppose it just has to be taken on a case by case basis.


I believe judges are supposed to take past crimes into account with their sentencing but I'm not sure how many would enforce a "so many strikes and your jailed forever law" unless they had to

And I totally agree with your assessment that repeat crime implies some failure in society as a whole. This is the type of topic where I could probably easily offend other people on his forum (talking about things such as how our society has a complete indifference to things like single parent house holds, even seems to encourage them); so as it's not my goal to offend anyone here, probably best that I don't bother getting into such a conversation.


I was more thinking failure to employ ex-convicts,, illiteracy and so on but that is one that is unhardly unheard

Current Affairs section can be aggressive, more so then we would allow in other sections of the forum, but most won't be easily offended by discussion of ideas. Not unless you either 1) pick a bad day/touch a raw nerve or 2) are really tactless in the way you do it

Probably best to use a separate thread if you decide you wish to discuss society's rule in re-offending more
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 15677
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Why do so many people support the Ferguson Police?

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:51 am

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:
The problem is that Shik debates laws as if laws were factually correct, and they're not.


This sentence is non-sensical. Laws are no more than laws. The fact they exist is not up for debate. Their wisdom, constitutionality, and usefulness may be up for debate but not they 'are factually correct'. Whatever that even means.

He debates only legality without debating the underlying morality.


Because this is a legal issue. More to the point, if you've been actually willing to read, you'd easily be able to discern to what I think should or shouldn't have happened.

If laws hurt people, the laws are immoral, period. That is the basis.


Basis of...? And who decides who they hurt vs. who they protect? This is pure hyperbole with no substance.

Hurting innocent people (and Eric Garner was never proven guilty on this, and is therefore innocent by default) is always wrong, especially when you do it intentionally.


Wow. That takes alot of intellectual dishonesty to say that with a straight face. Guilty on what? Guilty on resisting arrest? No, that is fairly established. By default, as you say, he is guilty of that. Were he, theoretically, unlawfully arrested the could later sue the respective department to contest said charge. But it doesn't rewrite or arrest how he handled his lawful arrest. You seem to keep to wanting to try rewrite that, good luck.

He may not have tried to kill him, but he did it anyway, and he used a hold that has been banned for two decades. He is clearly guilty.


Guilty of? And why? More speculation unsupported by reason.

Shik has lied because he claims I drop laws when I don't and that I haven't said what he's guilty of which I have.


No, you've dropped random legal terms. You've referenced zero actual crimes not substantiated any of the legal elements necessary to support a conviction.

He used a two decades banned move on a suspect who was peacefully protesting his impending arrest, an arrest that they had no probable cause for to begin with.


Peacefully protesting? That is wishy washy talk for resisting arrest. No probable cause? Source please. Otherwise you're fabricating the narrative.

Now since the law names are different in every state, I can't give specific names, just the general names as I know them.


The law(s) of New York are available online for anyone to view. If you don't know them, don't say you know them.

What he did was basically reckless manslaughter because he used a move that was banned on a non-dangerous suspect and ended up killing him by accident. The standards cops are held to should be much higher, not lower as the case is.


Here's a fun notion. Earlier you say he likely didn't intend to kill Mr. Garner, whereas in most states the mens rea required for manslaughter is 'intention to kill'. Furthermore, manslaughter usually requires that the killing be unjustifiable or inexcusable. As we've discussed, Mr. Garner's death occurred as the officer was executing his lawful duty. This isn't a black and white issue, but to act like this isn't quite dubious as to the legality shows a distinct lack of understanding of the issues.

My argument is that these laws are wrong.


Here's a fun notion. The fact you think wrong are laws isn't an argument. It's an opinion. It doesn't make him guilty or innocent of the crimes committed.

Shik thinks logic and emotion can't co-exist, but that is also wrong, and I can prove it.


I've never said that, but the two certainly aren't interlinked. James explained this quite well. But lets watch you flail.

Logic, you see, is deep. You need to complete the thought, which is what most people don't do.


Far out, sister.

Logic without emotion is empty and heartless and not a good thing.


Logic isn't concerned with emotion or the 'heart'. Nor is logic concerned with being a 'good thing'.

You need to combine the two for good results.


Oh ok gotcha. We need to form a logical thought, then make sure our emotions are clouding the judgment. Got it.

In this case, logic says this: "If we can't trust cops not to even accidentally kill us, then how can good faith exist?"


Wow, Professor Lindsey. I'm not even sure what to say to this. I think it was an attack on a 'good faith' exception?


That is logic.


Gotcha. What you think is logic is 'logic'. Despite you seeming to display litter understanding of what 'logic' it is. Fair, as long as it fits your current rant of the day I guess we're good.

If it seems I'm lazy sometimes, it's because I'm sometimes lazy, like every person on the planet.


:| Uh ok. No has called you lazy. Some people have said your arguments display intellectually laziness. If you're going to own that, fine. But if so, don't bring them to a forum where (i like to think) we have a some semblance of standards. Reserve them for your facebook and twitter rants.

It's also sometimes that I can't stand Shik and want to just ignore him most of the time because I don't have any respect for the way he debates, his devil's advocate ways, and his "Lawful Neutral" stance toward everything.


DGL, let me let you in on a little secret of huge importance. You don't have to like me. Seriously, its ok. Much like DZ said less than a page ago, its neither here nor there. The fact that you detest me, however, is of little significance to the ideas I present or the quality (or lack thereof) of the ideas you present. You spend more time waxing on about how you detest me then actually posting substantive ideas or replies. Again, save it for PMs or facebook. Focus on the ideas.


His way ignores right and wrong and morality and puts ultimate faith in the system. He even acknowledges that the system needs changing, but supports the system anyway! It's ludicrous.


I rarely ignore what is 'right or wrong', but that is rarely at issue. Many of the issues you rail against involve legality. Those two are distinct issues, though often interlinked. More to the point, I do not put ultimate faith in the system at all. What I do is take an objective and realistic look at the issue, and I do appreciate (flawed as it is) our system and its benefits. It is far from ludicrous, especially coming from someone who encourages looting and vigilante murder.

That is my explanation for that. If I could hide all of his posts, I would. I much enjoy debating with the rest of you.


Explanation for what? For not responding to your deconstructed posts, but instead ranting with four or five sentences while attacking me? That isn't an explanation, its a cop out and excuse. More to the point, I've rarely seen you debate with James/DZ/SunXia/WWD, both of which call your posts into question repetitively. But, its cool, I'll be your boogie man. I think we should start a forum pool on how quickly my death will be called for.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4315
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Why do so many people support the Ferguson Police?

Unread postby DreamGoddessLindsey » Sun Dec 14, 2014 2:38 am

Wow, you think manslaughter requires intent to kill? You clearly do not know even the basics of the legal system. I said I know the laws but now the specific names of the laws in various states because many are outright named differently if you go across the country.

However, in this you are wrong. Murder usually requires intent. Manslaughter has two distinct categories, voluntary and involuntary. Most of the time, the prefix tells you about it. Manslaughter is considered "less serious" and less culpable. That is why it belongs here. Now Involuntary manslaughter could fit, but it happened because of negligence, and that (in every state I've lived in) usually has its own category.

The rest of what you said is just your typical picking out specific sentences to answer without answering any of the context. Don't call me out for something and then do the same thing, heh.
DreamGoddessLindsey
Banned
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:50 pm

Re: Why do so many people support the Ferguson Police?

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Sun Dec 14, 2014 3:19 am

DreamGoddessLindsey wrote:Wow, you think manslaughter requires intent to kill? You clearly do not know even the basics of the legal system. I said I know the laws but now the specific names of the laws in various states because many are outright named differently if you go across the country.


Manslaughter is a distinct crime, and the varying degrees among the various statues require different degrees of mens rea. And affirmative defenses apply. Lets stop wasting our time. If you've got something worthy of note, please note. You didn't actually advance any legal theories or defenses. You just tried to pick at a definition. If not, you're just throwing around insults for no reason.


The rest of what you said is just your typical picking out specific sentences to answer without answering any of the context. Don't call me out for something and then do the same thing, heh.


:roll: Keep on. I deconstruct the inaccuracies and fallacies of your either a) five sentence rambling answers or b) walls of rambling texts. The quote feature is quite useful. It allows you to actually take note of what someone said, piece by piece instead of just ignoring pages of posts and rehashing the same argument (and i use that word loosely).
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4315
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved